Padilla Verdict

Somehow the "right" takes great solace in Padilla being found guilty and somehow finds it an indictment of the left. While I may not cruise a whole lot of blogs I haven't found any who maintained that Padilla hadn't committed a crime, I didn't; but what I did find was a whacking bunch who objected to BushCo's methods regarding detention. GeorgeII had decided that he had the kingly power to decide how an American in America should be treated under the law. That was the objection, that and the detention conditions. If anything a conviction justifies the Constitutionally mandated treatment of Americans, certainly not the authoritarianism of say, Jules Crittenden who proves just what a cretin he is by referencing Geo. Washington's treatment of a British soldier/spy during the Revolution - which in case anybody is as historically ignorant as Jules - pre-dated the Constitution by quite awhile. " Military tribunal, execution." This twisted logic involves John Andre' the British officer caught out of uniform trying to work out Benedict Arnold's surrender of West Point.

By the way, just for Jules' illumination, violating an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution by an officer or government official is treason and since Habeas Corpus is Constitutional law and since GWB decided to violate it he should be given that treatment, apparently. Since I've already stated in other posts that I disapprove of capital punishment I'd be happy with an orange jumpsuit and house of many bars. The Supreme Court wouldn't approve of a George Bush pardon of George Bush so maybe...

I have no particular reason to believe the jury got the Padilla verdict wrong and sending him away for a good long time is a good idea, applying the same principle to some one with considerably more ability to harm this nation - GWB - seems apt to me. I'd almost be willing to bet the jury would come in quicker.

The entire reason the government is so constrained in its approach to individuals in criminal law is simple, it is a balancing of the resources of each, the full strength and resources of the government can be brought to bear on an individual, rightfully or not, and in order to achieve some semblance of justice the individual must have protections from the application of that power. The fear mongers and the fearful would undo that balance, they would just trust GeorgeII, I do not trust him at all and particularly I don't trust his unknown successors down through the years.

During the past two decades this country has become more "rightwing" in the sense of approving of authoritarianism, the paternalistic view that government knows best and I see no sign of rebellion to that course. There is a world of difference between asking the government to help you do something and having it do things to you. Government is an exercise in power and expecting it to not use power is foolish wishful thinking. Government will go where ever it is allowed to, it is the nature of the thing and people which is why people who had lately revolted from the most powerful nation on earth and one intimately connected to their sociology set such high bars for government. We keep forgetting this, gun banners are too ignorant to understand the MAD (mutually assured destruction) component of the Second Amendment and the fearful are too scared to understand that the provisions of the Fourth are one assurance that the government cannot simply become vindictive.

Time passes and sociology changes and fear ebbs and wanes but people do not stop being human and having character defects, at some point those defects will be in operation high within government, it is inevitable; the question being, how much power do you want available to such a person? People will just insist on not understanding that government is not a moral construct, it cannot be one, it is composed of laws and law enforcement - these are not suggestions - these are rules backed by force, which is not a system of morality. The morality is only present in those framing the laws and enforcing them, even the Constitution is not a moral document, it is a series of limitations placed on those who would govern.

When we acquiesce to the fear of a Padilla and allow extraordinary measures we allow the future to run off the rails set in place by the Constitutional Convention, we become subject rather than citizen, we sell our children's future for questionable present gain. Freedom and liberty are a risky proposition, but then being alive is a dangerous business and it is ultimately fatal, oh well, maybe the trick is doing it well - not cringing and whining.

A Truly Sad State of the Union

When a New York Times Editorial runs a 'to do' page for restoration of civil liberties in the United States of America there is a serious problem. Whatever your view of the political leanings of the NYT it seldom runs a laundry list in regard to the government. Here's their dirty laundry:
Restore Habeas Corpus
Stop Illegal Spying
Ban Torture, Really
Close the C.I.A. Prisons
Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
Ban Tainted Evidence
Ban Secret Evidence
Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence
Respect the Right to Counsel

You'd think they were referring to Soviet Russia, or Pinochet, or..., not the USA. This is not a moonbat lefty hired in to create ink, this is the unsigned Editorial Board position of one of the leading papers in the country. At any other time in the last half century this would be an atomic bomb, during the lifetime of the Framers this stuff would probably have resulted in either imprisonment or armed insurrection. The NYT talks about fixing the acts foisted on us by the REPUBLICANS, I'm a bit more reactive, this junk should be shitcanned and then addressed in a meaningful and reflective manner. You don't deal with dog poo by sticking an artificial flower in it, spraying perfume on it, and calling it a ROSE.

Those of you around for my Democratic Primary run will remember that I was hopping mad about this stuff then and I still am. I stated then and I'll restate it now, this is more important than getting us out of Iraq. The war in Iraq is the President's mess and short of shutting the government down the Democrats are pretty much out of luck. This is a Congressional mess, this junk came almost exclusively from their club. Our Congress put their foot on the neck of American liberty and justice and they're sitting around on their hands. The Republicans can get on board or be made to pay very publicly.

Now How Could This Happen???

Lawyers for US citizen Jose Padilla are arguing that his case should be dismissed due to "outrageous" government conduct during his three year, eight month detention as an "enemy combatant." The conduct referred to is administration of LSD, assault, and solitary confinement while in the Navy Brig. The government denies such treatment but states that even if it were so, prosecution should continue. He is charged with conspiracy by becoming a recruit to help wage violent jihad, bomb plots and other charges dismissed when he was moved from military to civilian custody.

I have no opinion regarding the validity of the charges against Padilla, but one thing is clear, no matter how this procedes it will contain a blot on the record of the USA. There are a couple issues, first his detention without trial and second the accusation of torture that is bolsterd by the government's own policy in this area. The President of the United States and his Party's own Congress have led us to this pass. Now the Justice Department is advocating that misconduct of the US government has no bearing on a case being prosecuted. This is a sorry pass to come to.

I Object and I hold them in Contempt.