Who is an “enemy combatant”? Maybe you are

2005.11.26 — Government | Law | Terrorism | by BB Rodriguez

Jose Padilla ([Jóşé Pädillä], rhymes with "guerrilla") has finally been charged with a crime. After three years in federal custody, shamefully detained without due process, right to counsel, or even a casual introduction to his accuser, Padilla has begun the long journey toward justice. Padilla is a former gang member, a radical Muslim convert, and a probable terrorist, but one of the things he isn't is an "enemy combatant."

The federal government has claimed that Padilla is an enemy combatant as a means of holding him forever without charging him. You can be sure they intended to hold him forever because it's only the Supreme Court's clear move toward hearing his case that forced their move to indict. He was thrown back once for technical reasons... and to give the feds some time to read numbers 5 and 6 of the Bill of Rights; next time they wouldn't be so lucky.

The feds' basic argument is that Padilla is just like any enemy soldier captured on the battlefield, and therefore they don't need any trial or tribunal or proof of anything of any kind. Just capturing him in the act of... you know... being an enemy is enough. That's where the argument breaks down. Padilla wasn't captured in a foreign country, or on a battlefield, or in an enemy uniform, or in the act of fighting US troops, or in the act of committing a crime, or anything. He was arrested by US cops in a US airport getting off a plane in regular clothes, legally returning to the land of his birth as a US citizen.

Nothing at all in the actual arrest suggested that this guy was in any way an enemy of the United States or even a criminal. Nothing. That's why he can't be held as an "enemy combatant": he's not clearly an enemy and he's not clearly a combatant.

But anyone who is acting against the interest of the United States is an "enemy," right? And to make Padilla a "combatant," the government wants to redefined "battlefield" to mean anywhere at all, since the "war" on terror can take place anywhere. But that's what is commonly known as "bullshit." Besides, we have precedents for this kind of thing.

Nazi Saboteurs: 1942

During World War 2, eight German agents sneaked ashore in New York and Florida to commit acts of sabotage and terrorism. The Nazis were arrested but they weren't held for years as "enemy combatants" even tho they clearly were in the country illegally and were clearly enemies of the United States. They were wearing German army uniforms, so they would be treated as enemy combatants and imprisoned rather than as spies and executed. That was back in the day when we actually declared war against our enemies, which made it easier to identify them.

They were tried in a military tribunal, rather than a court of law, because Roosevelt wanted to be sure they'd be sentenced to death. Padilla didn't even get that weak nod to due process. In the end, Roosevelt got his way even tho the Germans weren't spies and hadn't actually committed sabotage: two were given life and six were given the electric chair.

So, in the middle of a declared war, a bitter worldwide struggle where thousands died every day, eight German agents who were clearly enemy combatants were given the minimum kind of treatment that our Constitution demands: due process, access to lawyers, a half-way fair trial, and the chance to face their accusers and present a defense. So what is the Bush administration afraid of?

Evidence against Padilla: ???

Well, probably the fact that they have crap for evidence.

Padilla's indictment doesn't even include sensational charges the government made claims about when they arrested him: that he was planning to create and set off a radioactive bomb. The Bush administration claims that they couldn't include those charges because the evidence came from the interrogation of top al-Qaeda officials and they didn't want such riffraff testifying in court. It would reveal national security secrets about how we obtain information, you know. ...Like the fact that they were tortured into making up crap stories about Jose Padilla.

Come on, you have to know these guys were tortured. They're part of the very few real al-Qaeda honchos we've captured. And no one has seen them since. They're lucky if they still have fingers, toes, and testicles.

So, torturing people produces evidence we're too afraid to use in court, even if it's true, which it's probably not. Great. Thanks for nothing.

The funny thing is, the Clinton administration seemed to be able to uncover, arrest, and convict terrorists—and more than once—without resorting unconstitutional tactics... and that was back before the expanded powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act.

Today, anyone the government suspects of being an Enemy of the State can be labeled an "enemy combatant" and thrown in a military brig without a lawyer until the Supreme Court gets around to questioning it, even if that person is a citizen of the United States, traveling in the country legally, committing no crime, not wearing a military uniform, and not captured by US troops on a field of battle. Great that lets out... pretty much no one.

Yes, make the feds suspicious, and you too could find yourself in solitary confinement for three years and facing trumped up charges that are likely to cost you your freedom forever. Are you now or have you ever been a member of a group accused of "providing - and conspiring to provide - material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas"?

If you've criticized the motive for or conduct of the Iraq War, Dick Cheney and George W Bush say you are.

f e e d b a c k

Respond to this page by your e-mail client. Please be sure to mention the title of the article.

s i d e b a r