BCT Editorial – 4/11/06

This page was last updated on April 12, 2006.

Are you next?; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 11, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Supreme Court’s Padilla ruling is bad news for constitutional rights

“Be very afraid, America. Be very, very afraid. Congress and the Supreme Court will not protect your basic rights as Americans.”

[RWC] Times editorials constantly accuse others of fear mongering, yet the tactic appears to be a staple of Times editorials. Though on a different subject, a previous editorial told us, “Be scared, America, be very, very scared.” I guess it’s only fear mongering when the other guy does it.

Here’s the summary of this editorial. Today alleged terrorists, tomorrow your grandma.

“The U.S. Supreme Court last week declined to hear an appeal filed by Jose Padilla, an American citizen the Bush administration claims is a terrorist. That’s bad news for all Americans.

“Padilla was arrested in May 2002 and declared an ‘enemy combatant’ by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. The administration claimed Padilla planned to explode a so-called dirty bomb - a conventional bomb contaminated with radioactive material - somewhere in the United States.

“As a result of his status as an enemy combatant, Padilla was stripped of his rights as an American citizen. He was kept in a military prison, never had any charges filed against him and was denied the right to an attorney for almost two years.

“The rule of law, the foundation of our nation’s very being, was tossed aside solely on the say-so of President Bush, Ashcroft, et al. Their dictates trumped the rule of law, and the constitutional guardians our nation’s founders put in place - Congress and the Supreme Court - shirked their duties.”

[RWC] As you read, you will find “shirked their duties” means “didn’t agree with the Times.”

“After years of fighting, Padilla’s lawyers finally got to have their day in court, only to see the Bush administration change tactics, file criminal charges and put Padilla into civilian custody.”

[RWC] Not exactly true. Mr. Padilla already had at least one “day in court.” On September 9, 2005, the 4^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the government.

“His lawyers kept up their appeals, trying to get the court to address the Bush administration’s constitutional transgressions.”

[RWC] The editorial conflates “court” with the Supreme Court. In other words, because the Supreme Court refused to her a case that no longer existed, the editorial wants us to believe federal courts never heard the case and never ruled.

“Constitutional transgressions?” The editorial authors ignore the fact that the second highest level of federal courts had ruled the Bush administration acted completely within the Constitution.

“The court ducked that task, deciding 6-3 last week that since his case is now being handled by civilian courts, what has happened to Padilla doesn’t merit its attention at the moment.”

[RWC] “Ducked that task?” I know the editorial author may not know it, but the case the Times wanted the Supreme Court to hear no longer existed once Mr. Padilla was moved into the civilian system.

“Why should this matter to you? Because what the Bush administration did to Padilla it can do to you, and so can future presidents and attorney generals.

“St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Eric Mink put the court’s decision into perspective:”

[RWC] Remember, a “columnist” is an opinion writer. He is not a news reporter, though today I’m not sure there’s a lot of difference.

“‘The president of the United States can have you, an American citizen, snatched off the street. He can declare you to be an enemy combatant and have you thrown into a military prison. He can publicly denounce you as a criminal but not charge you with any crime. He can deny you access to a lawyer and keep you locked up without ever presenting evidence against you to a judge or jury. And he can keep you imprisoned for as long as he wants - unless and until a legal appeal manages to wend its way through the multiple layers of the judicial system to the doorstep of the Supreme Court.’”

[RWC] Perhaps Mr. Mink and the editorial author need a history refresher. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. I think it’s fair to conclude the gloom and doom predicted didn’t occur. I’m not ruling on the legality of that action, only on the hysteria demonstrated by the editorial.

“The Republican-controlled Congress long ago abrogated its constitutional oversight duties regarding the Bush White House, and now the Supreme Court has stepped aside as well.”

[RWC] Here’s what the Times means by oversight. It is oversight when Congress and the Supreme Court oppose or rule against President Bush. When they don’t, they “abrogated … constitutional oversight duties.” I suspect what the Times considers oversight for President Bush it would consider obstructionism for a liberal president.

“Padilla’s standing as an accused terrorist is not at stake; his rights as an American citizen are.

“And that matters to you because the next knock on the door in the middle of the night could be for you, and no one will be there to speak for you.”

[RWC] No, this isn’t fear mongering, is it?