Mencken on American Bravery, Confirmed
Jason Kuznicki on Sep 29th 2005 10:15 am |
Gene Healy has an excellent op-ed piece about the Padilla case (link via Jim Henley). I have to say that even while blogging is “just a hobby” for me (ie, the tip jar doesn’t get nearly the response I’d like), still, I should have been writing about this case all along.
It’s hard to keep up with the erosion of our liberties these days, but this is the case in which the executive power unilaterally stripped an American citizen of all of his rights and detained him in a military brig, indefinitely and with neither trial nor charges. Jose Padilla was arrested in May, 2002 and shortly afterward was dubbed an “enemy combatant,” a category of persons that is apparently subject only to the laws that the executive thinks proper. Padilla has been in custody ever since, denied the right to counsel and forbidden to speak to the outside world. A Supreme Court challenge was rejected on what amounted to a technicality, and if Padilla loses the revised challenge, a dangerous precedent will have been set in favor of arbitrary executive power.
“But,” you might say, “at least he gets a hearing in a court to challenge his status. And that’s better than what a lot of countries do.”
To which I would reply–What, do we have to go to court, and spend years in the process, merely to win the privilege of knowing what charges we face? And exactly what statute decreed this change in our criminal law? By my reading of the Constitution, it is the legislature, and not the executive, that may alter jurisdictions and practices in the U.S. court system.
There exists a web site whose very name attests to these recent attacks on our civil liberties. It’s called chargepadilla.org. In the old days, we might have demonstrated in favor of freeing the accused; now we merely beg that they be charged with a crime.
And what if Padilla loses? Subsequent challenges will be dismissed out of hand, and later “enemy combatants” will no longer be able even to beg that they be charged–so much for the argument that “at least he has his day in court.” The principle that all detained persons have a right to a proper trial should never be the subject of a court case: It was already the subject of a Revolution, and a Revolution that I thought we had won.
But no, the executive has declared him to be an enemy combatant, a term that is perfectly unknown to U.S. domestic law, and, in a move that should surprise no one, a possible Bush nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge J. Michael Luttig, has recently ruled that all of this was entirely proper. Bush and Luttig are at least in good historical company; such procedures were often employed by the rulers of Old Regime France, who referred to them as lettres de cachet, and who regarded arbitrary, indefinite, secret detentions as a cornerstone of their power.
The American people, who once faced down nuclear missiles rather than surrender their liberties, have replied to the Padilla case by shrugging and changing the channel, so cowed are they by the long shadow of September 11.
At times like these I recall H. L. Mencken’s famous observation that Americans are not the bravest people on earth, as they sometimes imagine, but the most feckless. Threaten them from afar, and Americans become belligerent (as often they should). But attack them at home, and they will assent to whatever arbitrary authority presents itself. Anything, anything to buy a little safety. Even the French–as we are obliged to say these days–even the French had the courage to storm the Bastille and end arbitrary detentions. Surely we should have courage enough to uproot our own Bastille while it is only a seedling, and while it can be destroyed through peaceful, non-revolutionary means.
“But he’s guilty,” you might say. “The evidence is overwhelming.”
All the more reason, then, that we have nothing to fear by charging Padilla and by giving him a fair trial. If we do not, then the next time, when the evidence is not so overwhelming, we may no longer have the power to complain.
Over a year ago, Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute optimistically predicted that Padilla would soon have to be charged with a crime. It hasn’t happened yet. My own guess is that Padilla’s best chance of freedom–or even of facing charges–will come shortly after George W. Bush leaves office.
Of course, if we want to be perfectly consistent about things, the kings of the Old Regime ruled for life.
Filed in Uncategorized
Well said. It’s best to nip this type of thing in the bud.
You hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head with this one. I stand in utter dismay and shock that the American public has not gone absolutely ballistic over this unconscionable abuse of power. This incident represents nothing less than the repudiation of the very values upon which the American system of government was founded.
Well it’s a sign of the times as far as Congress & the media are concerned. Mention Padilla wants to marry a man, or that he mentioned aborting black babies to reduce crime is morally reprehensible, and then you’ll have their attention. I have optimism this case will set a precedent we will retreat from, but that optimism requires my effort. In that vein, where does one go to help? That chargepadilla.org website didn’t seem to, uh, look that professional.
“Of course, if we want to be perfectly consistent about things, the kings of the Old Regime ruled for life.”
and sometimes, especially when they were corrupt and detrimental to the welfare of their people, they didn’t live so very long at all. I have noticed recently that among those “procedural” tv dramas that have to do with various Federal entities, there have been lines written that suggest this “Padilla” effect is a useful but extraordinarily abusive strategy. From NCIS, to E Ring, to Without a Trace and so forth, agents have stated that using the “enemy combatants” status allows them to usurp any citizens rights, even to the point of shipping them out of the US incognito in perpetuity. When MSM fictional programming is laying the picture out there for the citizens in such a “logical” manner, we as a nation are in grave and serious danger of losing all of our Constitutional rights.
The thing is, we’d be nuts to leave ourselves no way to detain somebody who we know is verging on killing people, but we don’t know how. Perhaps we need a new law “conspiracy to commit terror” that we can charge folks with. But then surely such a law, to be good for all we want it, is bound to be so broad as to be easily over used. Your outrage would get more mileage with me if you were to offer a solution to the problem of terrorist cells. Or do you propose we just do what we can under the current rules and take our bloody and barbaric lumps?
Perhaps we need a new law “conspiracy to commit terror” that we can charge folks with.
Well, we already have “conspiracy to commit murder”. What’s the problem with using that? Unless of course they were planning on using halloween masks to commit all this terror.
we already have “conspiracy to commit murder”. What’s the problem with using that?
If that’s right I’d ask the same question. What can’t the FBI et al accomplish with that, and are we safe and happy with them not being able to accomplish that?
If that’s right I’d ask the same question. What can’t the FBI et al accomplish with that,
Probably the lack of proof. If they don’t have the proof to charge someone with planning to kill hundreds of people, or even one person for that matter, why hold them? I think that’s just one of the points point Mr. Kuznicki was getting at.
and are we safe and happy with them not being able to accomplish that?
Heck, let me carry at all times and I’ll feel pretty safe and happy. Arm every citizen and I’ll be even happier. I’d venture I have more to fear from runaway government than my fellow citizens.
Gotta gun big enough to take down a dirty bomb? Want guns on planes? Or were you going to shoot them down from the ground, passengers and all?
Gotta gun big enough to take down a dirty bomb?
Hmm, give up my liberty for the semblance of security? Or hang onto my liberty and have no false hopes that big government will come through for me in the end? 9/11, Katrina, I think I’ll hang onto my liberty. The only thing government has shown us is that its only good at oppression and not very good at providing safety.
Want guns on planes? Or were you going to shoot them down from the ground, passengers and all?
I’d be far more comfortable with private airlines providing trained, armed and undercover personel on the planes. Not government appointed cronies. But we all know now that the stakes are too high to even allow an armed terrorist any leeway on a plane. They’ll be mobbed the moment they make a move since people will be pretty sure they’ll end up dead if the terrorist is allowed to crash the plane.
Either way, you’re missing the entire point of runaway police power to accomplish very little in the way of safety vs. liberty and due process.
Either way, you’re missing the entire point of runaway police power to accomplish very little in the way of safety vs. liberty and due process.
Yes, I’m missing the point. I was inviting somebody to try and make it to me and to others who I imagine will similarly be missing it. You seem to come to this discussion already convinced of the point.
[...] Only a red, an atheist, or a pro-German would ever question American bravery. My, that does sound familiar. And I’m also reminded of this post of mine from several months ago, where I made much the same point: The American people, who once faced down nuclear missiles rather than surrender their liberties, have replied to the Padilla case by shrugging and changing the channel, so cowed are they by the long shadow of September 11…. Threaten them from afar, and Americans become belligerent (as often they should). But attack them at home, and they will assent to whatever arbitrary authority presents itself. Anything, anything to buy a little safety. [...]