In May 2002, federal authorities arrested Jose Padilla-a U.S. citizen who had converted to Islam-as he arrived from Pakistan at Chicago's O'Hare airport carrying $10,000 in cash.
Acting under a provision in the Uniform Code of Military Justice enacted under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution (which empowers Congress "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the Law of Nations"), President Bush ordered Padilla held without trial as an unlawful enemy combatant.
Ever since, liberals have been shrieking that Padilla's detention proved Bush has insufficient regard for civil liberties. The Supreme Court is now reviewing the case.
But last week, Deputy Atty. Gen. James Comey released a seven-page summary of information gleaned from the interrogation of Padilla and others. (Padilla's lawyers would not have allowed him to be interrogated were he detained as a defendant in a criminal trial.) The summary revealed that Padilla trained with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and worked with its top leaders on a plan to blow up as many as 20 apartment buildings in the United States.
Comey also revealed that Padilla tried to sell al Qaeda on detonating a nuclear or dirty bomb inside the U.S., but his al Qaeda superiors thought this impractical.
HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso asked a variety of House members whether they now believe Bush was right to detain Padilla as an unlawful combatant.
Now that we know Jose Padilla was working with al Qaeda and had plans to blow up buildings, do you think the government was right to hold him as an illegal combatant?
REP. WILLIAM LACY CLAY (D.-MO.): . . . I have serious concerns when we hold anybody longer than the law allows. I understand that these may be extraordinary circumstances because of the War on Terror. I think he's a threat to us, and he's dangerous to the well-being of Americans, yes. We passed the Patriot Act a few weeks after 9/11. I voted for it and I support it....This is the War on Terror. So it requires for some rights to be close to abridged or suspended.
Now that we know Jose Padilla was working with al Qaeda and had plans to blow up buildings, do you think the government was right to hold him as an illegal combatant?
REP. ARTUR DAVIS (D.-ALA.): Well, I think there's obviously a broader set of issues. I have not had the chance to look as closely as I would have liked at the issues the Supreme Court is reviewing right now, and I think frankly, a lot of us feel there are no easy answers to this. . . . The question is, when does the authority to hold these individuals expire.
Would you want to release Padilla?
DAVIS: Well, Padilla's situation, I think, is a somewhat easy one, because we know so much about his intentions. But these laws aren't made just for the Padillas, they're made for people who may not fall into that kind of category. So Padilla is an easy enough case-
So you'd want to keep him-you wouldn't want to let him go?
DAVIS: Well, the Padilla case, from what I know about that case, is an easier one, but I'm not so much concerned about the specifics of Padilla as I am fashioning a legal standard that works for a lot of people who may be innocent. . . .
So with Padilla and other people, where it's really obvious, you have all kinds of evidence, you'd want to hold on to them-
DAVIS: Well the problem with that is, it's often not really obvious-
But you think it is in his case?
DAVIS: Well, from what I know of it, that's an easier call. . . . I'll let the Supreme Court judge Padilla's case and I'll try to focus on the big picture, which is, what is the standard for detaining these individuals and what is the standard for when they can be released.
Now that we know Jose Padilla was working with al Qaeda and had plans to blow up buildings, do you think the government was right to hold him as an illegal combatant?
REP. DANNY DAVIS (D.-ILL.): Well, yeah. I mean, if one pretty much signals or indicates what they are contemplating or planning, I think at the very least you owe it to check that out and try and find out if this is real. So while a person may not have committed up front a crime, but you've got them on suspicion in a sense-and while I'm a firm believer in 1st Amendment freedoms and protections, I think it does make sense to check out possible acts of terrorism and possible acts of non-compliance with laws, especially when there's a potential that large numbers of people could be harmed.
Now that we know Jose Padilla was working with al Qaeda and had plans to blow up buildings, do you think the government was right to hold him as an illegal combatant?
REP. TOM FEENEY (R.-FLA.): Well, obviously the explanation publicly is still unfolding, but the truth of the matter is, you cannot treat people in the War on Terror, just because they don't wear a Nazi uniform, like they're simply a domestic armed robbery. You have got to take precautions. If the government presents a case where somebody genuinely was a likely combatant in the War on Terror, they ought to be treated the way any other combatants have been treated in the past. That means they don't get a lawyer, they don't get pre-trial due process protections, any more than when we captured Nazis or Japanese in World War II. But there ought to be some sort of process-an in camera hearing-where they have to demonstrate that before those rights are automatically denied. People conducting war on the United States are not entitled to due process.
Now that we know Jose Padilla was working with al Qaeda and came back from Afghanistan with plans to blow up buildings here, do you think the government was right to hold him as an illegal combatant?
REP. TRENT FRANKS (R.-ARIZ.): Well, my answer is yes. Our Constitution is something that I respect beyond my ability to express, but I think Mr. Padilla puts himself outside the reach of that Constitution in his present circumstance because he is a terrorist combatant against this country. And we owe it to the constitutional rights of others to make sure he can't do what he most certainly would if he could. It's kind of an irony to me that the very judges that would hold him to be subject to the Constitution and therefore under its protections are the very ones, many times, who are legislating from the bench and vitiating the foundations of the Constitution in the first place.
Now that we know Jose Padilla was working with al Qaeda and had plans to blow up buildings, do you think the government was right to hold him as an illegal combatant?
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R.-CALIF.): You know, I just have to see more facts.
You didn't get to see the press conference [on Padilla]?
HUNTER: No, I've been busy working on getting the tools to [the military] to get the work done.
Hello, Congressman McDermott? I'm Dave Freddoso from HUMAN EVENTS. If you have a second I wanted to ask you about Jose Padilla. They had this presentation-
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D.-WASH.): Aren't you that right-wing operation?
Yeah, that's exactly right, that's what we are. But they had-
MCDERMOTT: No, talking to you isn't a good thing, because-
You don't think-
MCDERMOTT: No, no, it's not a good thing.
But we enjoy it.
MCDERMOTT: Talk to one of these other suckers.
Come on, Congressman . . .
MCDERMOTT: No. What was it you wrote about me last time?
The Pledge of Allegiance. That came up later, I noticed. [See "McDermott on God: Out of the Pledge & Not on Our Side"]
MCDERMOTT: Why don't you (laughs) go talk to someone who wants to be in your magazine.
You don't want to? It can't hurt you. You've got a constituency that loves you.
MCDERMOTT: You know, there was a senator from Colorado once who, when guys like you came around, he used to say, "I'm going to paint my a- white and run with the antelopes. So you couldn't say I didn't answer, and if it was a family magazine you couldn't put it in there." But nowadays you guys would write that stuff.
Yeah, I guess so . . . . But what do you think about this guy being held as an illegal combatant?
MCDERMOTT: Well, it's not good to comment on legal stuff when it's in the courts. . .
