2007, August. José Padilla is declared guilty on terror- charges.
Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:42:13 PM
...and the US, first through Congress, and then through the US justice system, acknowledges the view of the Bush- administration (and their supporters), that the law is a political prop. Where real people may be sentenced to prison, death, torture, or otherwise simply be vanished beyond the justice system, in order to sustain the political "reality" one imagines must be real.
The implications for american citizens are very present, though. This proves that even if you are an american citizen, as Padilla is, you may still be removed from the ordinary justice system, tortured for years, and then sentenced on the flimsiest evidence - that you are not allowed to see - in a secret court with literally token legal representation. It also proves that such a case brought before a judge in a court, will not - as has been thought - provoke a lengthy and difficult legal appeal that will eventually end up in a SC case that might challenge the very basis for the charge and the treatment in the first place. But will instead simply be passed on and tested on the individual legal merits, of the laws that have now been passed by Congress. And that was also not tested in a court, until now.
Glenn Greenwald has an appropriate comment here.
Just let me add that I am now proven right - it is simply not the case that no one could see this coming. It is the case that those in position to do something when it actually mattered, chose to believe in their own little stories about how "things would work out". While, at every point, arguing that the actual practical impact - people being tortured, people's lives being ruined, millions dead - was probably necessary. After all - once cannot do something that monumental, unless it is gravely important to do it. Of course.
Well - so what was it this time? Was it gravely necessary to treat Padilla in the way he has been treated for the last couple of years? Was there an enormously grave threat behind the "dirty bomber"'s nefarious plots, so that when he is now declared guilty of "conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism overseas", he certainly had to have been doing something wrong? Because of the gravity of the charge?
On second thought - why do I even have to ask..







Unregistered user # Monday, August 20, 2007 1:05:26 AM
fleinn # Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:39:31 AM