Posted on 23-9-2003
Bush's
Legal Black Hole
by Nat Hentoff, The Village Voice, 19 September 2003. Photo
shows Jose Padilla
Ignored by most media, an array of prominent
federal judges, government officials, and other members of the
legal establishment has joined in a historic rebellion against
George W. Bush's unprecedented and unconstitutional arrogance
of power that threatens the fundamental right of American citizens
to have access to their lawyers before disappearing indefinitely
into military custody without charges, without seeing an attorney
or anyone except their guards.
The case, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, is now before
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In a compelling friend-of-the-court
brief on Padilla's behalf by an extraordinary gathering of the
aforementioned former federal court judges, district court judges,
and other legal luminaries of the establishment bar, they charge:
"This case involves an unprecedented
detention by the United States of an American citizen, seized
on American soil, and held incommunicado for more than a year
without any charge being filed against him, without any access
to counsel, and without any right to challenge the basis of
his detention before a United States judge or magistrate . .
.
"[We] believe the Executive's position
in this case threatens the basic 'rule of law' on which our
country is founded, the role of the federal judiciary and the
separations in our national government, and fundamental individual
liberties enshrined in our Constitution."
On May 8, 2002, Jose Padilla, unarmed and
showing valid identification, was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare
Airport by the FBI while getting off a plane. As his court-appointed
lawyer, Donna Newman-who has shown herself to be truly a credit
to the bar-told Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Fox News Channel:
"What they allege is that he had some
'loose talk.' That's their words, not mine, that he was planning,
not a plan exactly, just loose talk about detonating a dirty
bomb. Not him personally because, of course, he had . . . not
even a pamphlet about bomb making when he was seized in the
United States."
Padilla was not charged with a crime, or
with planning a crime. He was held as a material witness in
a high-security prison in Manhattan. But suddenly, without Padilla's
lawyer being informed, Padilla was hauled away by the Defense
Department to a military brig in North Carolina where, in solitary
confinement, he remains.
As Donna Newman says, "While the world
knows about his case, he does not. They put somebody in a legal
black hole."
Padilla has been stripped of his rights-until
now guaranteed by the Constitution-by the sole order and authority
of George W. Bush, who has designated him an "enemy combatant."
As the friend-of-the-court brief by the former
federal judges and other prominent lawyers states:
"There is at present no constitutionally-approved
definition of who is an 'enemy combatant'; there are no constitutionally-approved
procedures governing when and how persons seized in the United
States may be imprisoned as 'enemy combatants' or for how long
. . .
"In the absence of such standards .
. . the judiciary-and the historical 'great writ' of habeas
corpus-serves as the sole safeguard against what otherwise would
be an unbridled power of the Executive to imprison a citizen
based solely on the Executive's hearsay assertions that he or
she has become an 'enemy' of the state."
Habeas corpus, embedded in the body of the
Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was added, provides
a citizen held by the government with the right to go to a court
and make the government prove he or she is being imprisoned
legally.
As Donna Newman, impeded from her right to
represent her client meaningfully, says: "To have the government
say to us, 'You have a right to bring a petition [for habeas
corpus], [but] you just can't speak to your client.' [That]
is absolutely absurd."
And that is absolutely unconstitutional.
In a number of previous Voice columns and
in my newly available book, The War on the Bill of Rights and
the Gathering Resistance (Seven Stories Press), I have reported
both on the series of radical abuses of the rule of law by Bush,
Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld that have now reached a climax in this
case, and on the case of another American citizen, Yaser Esam
Hamdi, also being held without charges and without access to
a lawyer in a military brig.
While the rest of the media failed to vigorously
ring the liberty bell on Padilla v. Rumsfeld, The New York Observer
came through with Greg Sargent's front-page August 11 story,
"Bush's Tactics in Terror Case Called Illegal." It
focused on the brief by the former judges, government officials,
and renowned lawyers alarmed by the president's bypassing of
the Constitution. Quoted was Harold Tyler, a former federal
judge, and deputy attorney general under President Gerald Ford,
who brought him in to cleanse the Justice Department after Watergate:
"They should charge this man if they've
got something against him. And they should give him the right
to counsel. These are all constitutional rights. . . . I have
been a longtime Republican, but I'm a disenchanted Republican
in this case."
The amicus brief he and the other members
of the establishment bar signed declares: "Throughout history
totalitarian regimes have attempted to justify their acts by
designating individuals as 'enemies of the state' who were unworthy
of any legal rights or protections. These tactics are no less
despicable, and perhaps even more so, when they occur in a country
that purports to be governed by the rule of law." And George
W. Bush regularly intones his allegiance to "the rule of
law."
|