Detention Attention

June 2, 2004

Jose Padilla, an American citizen, returned to the US from Pakistan in 2002 and was arrested in Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was initially detained as a material witness, but was later declared an "enemy combatant" by the Department of Defense, meaning that he could be held in prison indefinitely without access to an attorney or to the courts.

This week, the Dept. of Defense released documents which describe the alleged terrorist activities of Jose Padilla: Summary of alleged activities derived from documents and U.S. Dept. of Defense interviews with Jose Padilla.

NY Times: U.S. Spells Out Dangers Posed by Plot Suspect

Officials disclosed for the first time that Mr. Padilla, a former Chicago gang member accused of becoming an operative for Al Qaeda, had cooperated extensively with American interrogators after his capture in May 2002. While the broad outline of the accusations against Mr. Padilla has been known for two years, the declassified documents provided new details about plots to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb" or blow up an apartment building, perhaps in New York City.

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Comey asserted that "if Padilla had been handled by the more conventional criminal justice system, he could have stayed silent and 'would likely have ended up a free man.'"

Mr. P attempts to parse the Deputy Attorney General's statement:

Comey = Deputy Attorney General
Padilla = United States citizen picked up on U.S. soil and denied access to a lawyer and whom the government argues it can hold on a Navy brig without charges until the end of time.
the more conventional criminal justice system = the criminal justice system prescribed by the United States Constitution. You may have heard of it.
could have stayed silent = Could have asserted his Fifth Amendment rights. You know, the one wedged right there in between the 4th and the 6th in the Bill of Rights? That one.
"would likely have ended up a free man" = "would have had access to a lawyer until we had enough evidence to put him in jail forever"

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick asks "Isn't it wacky that all this evidence—released as a sop to an American public that's about had it with secrecy, abuse, and intimidation—was itself obtained through secrecy, abuse, and intimidation?" Proof, Negative: The Justice Department's triumphant victory over the Constitution.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Padilla's case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla on April 28 and is expected to issue a decision before the end of its term this summer.

Jenner & Block: U.S. Supreme Court Brief Resource Center: Rumsfeld v. Padilla