The Padilla Case


The presumption of innocence is foundational to any democratic form of government. Without that presumption, the state is free to exert whatever control it arbitrarily chooses in the incarceration or punishment of its citizens. This effectively destroys the firewall that safeguards the individual from the vagaries of government power and intrusiveness. It is absurd to talk about democracy if the most fundamental of protections for its citizens are not provided. When the presumption of innocence is denied, justice is denied, and democracy withers.

For the first time in American history this principle is being challenged outright in the government’s case against Jose Padilla. The Bush Administration is claiming that the president has the authority to strip a citizen of his constitutional rights in the name of national security. If they are successful in their efforts, the “inalienable” rights of man will cease to be. Citizens will no longer be protected by clearly articulated due process rights interpreted by an independent judiciary, but quickly dispatched by executive fiat. Justice will be dispensed at the discretion of the president.

These are the stakes in the Jose Padilla case, and we can say without any fear of exaggeration that it may be the most important case in the history of the American judicial system. Nothing else even comes close. However the case is decided will determine whether or not democracy will continue to function in the United States. It’s just that simple.

Padilla was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport 18 months ago and immediately taken into Federal custody. Although he was never formerly charged, he has been detained in a secure military facility in Charleston, North Carolina. He has been denied access to an attorney, and branded as an “enemy combatant”. His alleged crime, for which the government has never produced a of shred evidence, is that he was conspiring to detonate a radiological device or “dirty bomb” somewhere in the US. Mr. Padilla had no nuclear material with him or on his premises, nor did he have any other illicit material or weapons that might implicate him in the alleged conspiracy. In other words, there is no tangible proof of a crime or the intention to commit a crime. The one small bit of evidence the government has is the unpublished testimony of alleged terror Kingpin Abu Zubayda, who was captured in Pakistan a year and a half ago. Zubayda supposedly gave information during interrogation (torture?) that Padilla and he discussed detonating a “dirty bomb” somewhere in the US. Beyond this fragmentary and dubious testimony, no case against Padilla exists.

In response to these developments, President Bush designated Padilla an “enemy combatant”, a label that has no legal precedent and, therefore, no clear meaning. The implications of the label, however, have had a devastating affect. Padilla has been summarily stripped of all his constitutionally guaranteed rights and whisked off to a Navy brig under the President’s authority. President Bush’s rationale for this draconian action was summarized in his pronouncement concerning Padilla, “He’s a bad guy”.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided last week in a 2 to 1 decision that Mr. Bush’s “bad guy” theory was not an acceptable benchmark for denying citizens their due process rights and has ruled that Padilla must be released within 30 days. The government has requested a stay in the case.

The Padilla case presents myriad legal and moral problems the most obvious of which is, “what if the government has the wrong guy?” Without any process in place to challenge the reasons for his detention, Padilla will simply stay in prison forever without any legal recourse. This result is clearly inconsistent with our assumption that men are innocent until proven guilty and, therefore, entitled to at least some due process rights.

The more pressing issue, however, relates to the most fundamental principles of democratic government. The question of legitimate authority was resolved more than 200 years ago when the founders were drawing up the Constitution. It was agreed that the legitimate authority of government rests with the people, but that the people can share that authority with the various branches of government. In turn, it is the government’s obligation to maintain its commitment to the rights of man. This is the essence of what we call “the Social Contract”, and it is executed by strict adherence to The Bill of Rights. The authority of the president is validated by his compliance with these principles. That is why, above all else, he is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. He has no higher duty.

It’s clear that Bush’s intention in denying Padilla his rights is to undermine the rule of law. As we have stated earlier, the case against Padilla is completely without merit. It is simply being used as a fig leaf to disguise the usurping of greater presidential power. There is no better way to increase the authority of the executive than by diminishing the strength of constitutional protections, as one declines the other grows more powerful. For Bush and his mentors the Bill of Rights has become just another minor annoyance that needs to be surmounted by demagoguery and routine PR work.

The Padilla affair is a test case. Obviously, Padilla is no great threat to the general public and could be as easily processed through the criminal courts as dumped in a Navy brig. The real purpose of his detention is to create the precedent for dispatching dissidents or potential enemies of the state when things begin to deteriorate, or when they decide to “ramp-up” for other unpopular conflicts. In any event, it augers poorly for those who still cling to the ideals of American democracy and justice.

The implications of the Padilla case are quite grave. The dispatching of citizens without any legal recourse is, by definition, tyranny. The public relations people who monitor Bush’s every move, have cleverly concealed this fact, but the reality remains the same. The Administration is moving with inexorable determination towards a supreme presidency; the consummate power of the state embodied in one man. Jose Padilla merely establishes the necessary precedent.

We are entering a realm that is foreign to Americans. Even among those who are following the details of this case and the broader activities of the Bush Administration, there is a great deal of skepticism and denial. Many simply cannot face the grim fact that we may be seeing the end to our form of government. It is all happening so quickly and quietly. Unfortunately, history demonstrates that democracy is the exception rather than the rule.

We should not expect the Bush Administration to give up on the Padilla case because of an unfavorable ruling in court. That simply won’t happen. As New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has noted, we are dealing with people “who do not accept the legitimacy of our system”. They will not be dissuaded.

Nor should we expect help from a servile and collaborative media that works exclusively in the interests of those in power. Their mandate is to downplay the significance of stories like Padilla’s and the far reaching affects it will have on all our lives.

In the final analysis, the Bush Administration will not be swayed by the world community, the feckless Congress or the legions of protestors in the streets. We know this from experience. The only obstacle that has effectively slowed the Bush juggernaut is the growing number of insurgents in Iraq who have taken up arms against the occupying army, a clear example of force versus force.

This is an ominous sign for those who hope to sustain democracy in America through conventional and nonviolent means. It also exposes the mind set of an administration that is only deterred by greater strength.

The Padilla case is far from over. It is unreasonable to think that those who seek absolute power will be satisfied conforming to the constraints of the law. Everything we know of the Bush Administration so far suggests that they will not be limited by International law, congressional oversight or the Constitution. Why would they reverse themselves now when so much is at stake?

A victory in the courts would be the easiest way for them to achieve their long-range goal of setting the president above the law. The inalienable rights of man would become provisional, depending entirely on the discretion of the executive. Even the cornerstone of the American judicial system, the presumption of innocence, could be revoked according to the arbitrary judgment of the president.

This is the true meaning of the Jose Padilla case. It is as great a threat to our personal freedom and democratic form of government as any we have encountered in the last 200 years. In pursuing this case the Bush Administration has made itself the de facto enemy of our Constitution and the people it serves.

MIKE WHITNEY can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com



More articles by:

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

September 23, 2019
Kshama Sawant
Amazon vs. the Socialists in Seattle
Jason Hirthler
American Iago: On Washington’s Character Assassins
Craig Collins
Naomi Klein, Autism and Climate Activism
Michael Welton
The Serpent of Their Agonies
Binoy Kampmark
Strong Men in Europe: Tony Abbott Visits Hungary
Amitai Ben-Abba
And in Those Days There was No King in Israhell
Phil Rockstroh
A Careless Bully at the KFC at the End of Empire
Emiliana Cruz
Commemorating Tomás Cruz
Julian Vigo
Legacy College Admissions Are a Testament to What is Legacy Culture
Manuel García, Jr.
See “Official Secrets”
Dave Lindorff
Faux ‘Working Man’s’ Candidate Biden Looking Like a Loser after Philly AFL-CIO Presidential Summit
Tracey Aikman
President Trump, I’m One of the Workers You Lied To
B. R. Gowani
How news media should handle Trump’s lies
Weekend Edition
September 20, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Unipolar Governance of the Multipolar World
Rob Urie
Strike for the Environment, Strike for Social Justice, Strike!
Miguel Gutierrez
El Desmadre: The Colonial Roots of Anti-Mexican Violence
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Pompeo and Circumstance
Andrew Levine
Why Democrats Really Should Not All Get Along But Sometimes Must Anyway
Louis Proyect
A Rebellion for the Wild West
T.J. Coles
A Taste of Their Own Medicine: the Politicians Who Robbed Iranians and Libyans Fear the Same for Brexit Britain
H. Bruce Franklin
How We Launched Our Forever War in the Middle East
Lee Hall
Mayor Obedience Training, From the Pet Products Industry
Louis Yako
Working in America: Paychecks for Silence
Michael D. Yates
Radical Education
Jonathan Cook
Israelis Have Shown Netanyahu the Door. Can He Inflict More Damage Before He Exits?
Valerie Reynoso
The Rising Monopoly of Monsanto-Bayer
John Steppling
American Psychopathy
Ralph Nader
25 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare for the 2020 Elections
Ramzy Baroud
Apartheid Made Official: Deal of the Century is a Ploy and Annexation is the New Reality
Vincent Emanuele
Small Town Values
John Feffer
The Threat of Bolton Has Retreated, But Not the Threat of War
David Rosen
Evangelicals, Abstinence, Abortion and the Mainstreaming of Sex
Judy Rohrer
“Make ‘America’ White Again”: White Resentment Under the Obama & Trump Presidencies
John W. Whitehead
The Police State’s Language of Force
Kathleen Wallace
Noblesse the Sleaze
Farzana Versey
Why Should Kashmiris be Indian?
Nyla Ali Khan
Why Are Modi and His Cohort Paranoid About Diversity?
Shawn Fremstad
The Official U.S. Poverty Rate is Based on a Hopelessly Out-of-Date Metric
Mel Gurtov
No War for Saudi Oil!
Robert Koehler
‘I’m Afraid You Have Humans’
David Swanson
Every Peace Group and Activist Should Join Strike DC for the Earth’s Climate
Scott Owen
In Defense of Non-violent Actions in Revolutionary Times
Jesse Jackson
Can America Break Its Gun Addiction?
Priti Gulati Cox
Sidewalk Museum of Congress: Who Says Kansas is Flat?
Mohamad Shaaf
The Current Political Crisis: Its Roots in Concentrated Capital with the Resulting Concentrated Political Power