Worrisome

If it needs to be said, then let me say it: assuming the charges against Abdullah al Muhajir (ne Jose Padilla) are true, then as far as I’m concerned he can be sent away for the rest of his life. And that would be merciful.

But I worry when a US Citizen is simply locked up in a military prison in solitary confinement, without counsel, without any intent to file charges or try him.

The Bush Administration has labeled him an “enemy combatant.” This, they believe, means they don’t have to do anything further for the next 100 years besides feed him and wait for him to spill his guts. This is, we are told, war — though, of course, it’s not a war that will likely be over in five, ten, twenty, or fifty years.

“”He’s a bad guy; he’s where he needs to be,” says our President. That is, of course, what a trial is supposed to determine — whether he’s really a bad guy.

ABCNEWS’ Terry Moran reported from the White House that there were no plans to put al Muhajir on trial before a military tribunal, or even charge him with a crime, because to do so they would have to strip him of citizenship — a move they do not plan to take.
Instead, the plans are to interrogate him and detain him for, as one official put it, the duration of the war.

Consider what this means. It means that, depending on the good will, honesty and integrity of the folks involved, anyone can be tossed in the cooler, indefinitely.

There are reasons why that sort of power is denied under the Constitution.

Of course, in war, one pushes the boundaries. That’s expected, and even necessary. But this is not an ordinary war. There is no expectation that it will be over any time soon. And even in war there are provisions for how you justify locking someone up.

But former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger took the other side on Nightline.
“This individual is being held under well-recognized principles of international law,” he said. “He is an unlawful combatant, who entered the United States with sabotage on his mind.”
He said there are no differences between al Muhajir’s case and that of Herbert Haupt, an American citizen who was convicted by a military tribunal of attempted sabotage inside the United States, a conviction ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

There is, of course, one major difference — there was in fact a military tribunal held. While not the full package of Constitutional protection, it at least means that there was some sort of judicial review of the facts of the case, not a simple assumption that whatever the cop on the beat says happened actually happened.

“We are a fair people,” he said. “We have demonstrated over a long history that we are fair people and we will treat people fairly in this process, I’m sure.”

I’m sure the residents of Manzanar, c. 1942, would be gratified to hear that.

I agree that, over time, our society is fair. But we can all point to cases where elected officials abused their power. Where folks were arrested unjustly or incorrectly. That’s why we have laws, and procedures, and processes to protect all of us from such a fate. That’s why we have a system that doesn’t just trust that everyone will be fair.

If what Mr. Bush says about al Muhajir is true, then lock him up somewhere turning big rocks into little rocks for the rest of his life.

But forgive me if I don’t automatically assume it’s true just because Mr. Bush says so, or because the folks who reported on the case to Mr. Bush say so. We’ve been down that road before.