Foreign Policy Threatens Our Freedom

In this case, the Pentagon is seeking the authority to arrest any
American (and any foreigner) suspected of terrorism and punish him
without having to comply with the constraints of the Bill of Rights
and without any federal court interference with such detention and
punishment. A government win in the Padilla case would constitute the
most major transformation in American criminal law since the inception
of our nation, because it would effectively give U.S. military
officials the omnipotent authority to arrest, detain, and punish
anyone in the country simply by accusing him of "terrorism."

The Pentagon's claim is that its "war on terrorism" is akin to a real
war and therefore that terrorist suspects, including those who are
American, are not criminal suspects who have broken terrorism laws but
rather "war combatants" who have been captured waging war illegally.

The Padilla case represents the back door to ultimate military control
over the American people and would bring to the forefront the Founding
Fathers' fierce opposition to standing armies, based on the tremendous
threat that an all-powerful military force poses to the freedom and
well-being of the citizenry. For if the military has the omnipotent
authority to take any American into custody and punish him without
right to counsel, due process of law, or trial by jury, no one could
be considered safe from arbitrary arrest and punishment.

The Padilla case involves Padilla's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus filed in a federal district court in South Carolina, which the
government vehemently opposed. The federal district judge in that case
ruled in favor of Padilla, holding that under our system of government
military forces are not permitted to arrest and punish an American
citizen and deny him the protections of the Bill of Rights. The court
rejected the Pentagon's "enemy combatant" argument, holding that
terrorism is a criminal offense under U.S. law rather than an illegal
act of war. The judge ordered the government to either charge Padilla
with violating U.S. law or release him. Not surprisingly, the
government has filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Padilla has asked the Supreme Court to bypass the Court of
Appeals and consider the appeal directly from the district court.

The Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri case

Al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar who was initially arrested in New York
on terrorism-related charges. This case is now pending as a habeas
corpus proceeding in the same South Carolina federal district where
the Padilla case is pending. Here the government is seeking the same
authority that it is seeking in the Padilla case but with respect to
foreigners suspected of terrorism and arrested here in the United
States. That is, the Pentagon wants to be able to detain people and
punish them without having to comply with the Bill of Rights and
without federal court interference.

Given the way it has been handled, this case is actually a bit more
frightening than the Padilla case. Al-Marri was actually indicted by a
federal grand jury in Illinois on terrorism-related charges. Thus, he
was under the jurisdiction of a federal district court, where he was
being accorded the procedural protections of the Bill of Rights. One
day, the government asked the judge to dismiss the charges and when
the request was granted, al-Marri was immediately transferred to the
custody of the Pentagon, which proceeded to transfer him to the South
Carolina brig in which Padilla has been jailed. (The judge dismissed
the indictment "with prejudice," which means that the government is
now precluded, under the constitutional bar against double jeopardy,
from charging al-Marri with the same offenses contained in the
indictment.)

Thus, when we combine the Padilla and al-Marri cases, we see that the
Pentagon is seeking the authority to arrest any person, American or
otherwise, and punish him and also the authority to yank anyone out of
the federal court system and punish him — all without having to comply
with the Bill of Rights and without having to deal with the federal
courts.

Al-Marri's attorneys have asked the South Carolina federal district
court for the same order that was issued in the Padilla case: Charge
him or release him. The court's ruling is pending.

The Ahmed Omar Abu Ali case

The Abu Ali case should frighten every American, especially when it is
combined with the Padilla case. In this case, Abu Ali, an American
citizen, was studying in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. government, suspecting
that he was conspiring to commit terrorist acts against America, had
Saudi Arabian officials take him into custody and hold him for 20
months without charges. Under pressure from a U.S. federal judge in
Washington, U.S. officials finally secured the extradition of Abu Ali
and are now claiming that he "voluntarily" confessed to conspiring to
commit terrorism in the United States.

Abu Ali is contending that Saudi officials tortured him, a contention,
not surprisingly, that U.S. and Saudi officials are now denying. But
as most people know by now, there's not one federal official who has
any credibility when it comes to issuing denials about torture. U.S.
military personnel do engage in torture, sex abuse, rape, and murder,
as we have learned, and torture, at the very least, has been either
official or unofficial U.S. policy, as best exemplified by the
Pentagon's infamous School of the Americas, which even used printed
torture manuals to teach and guide military officials serving brutal
U.S.-supported, right-wing regimes in Latin America.

Moreover, given the government's long-time policy of "rendition,"
whereby U.S. officials kidnap and transport suspected terrorists to
friendly authoritarian regimes for the purpose of torture, denials by
U.S. officials that Abu Ali was tortured lack credibility and not
worthy of belief. Given the brutal authoritarian Saudi regime, it is
almost a certainty that Abu Ali was tortured while in Saudi captivity,
which is the most likely reason that U.S. officials sent him there and
left him there for some 20 months.

Combine Padilla with Abu Ali and what you would get is an extremely
dark age in American history. If the government wins in these cases,
the Pentagon will have the unlimited authority to seize any American
and immediately transport him on a U.S. jet to Egypt, Jordan, Syria,
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uzbekistan, or Cuba, where he can be tortured,
raped, sexually abused, or murdered — during which time he will
"confess his crimes," of course.

"But the Pentagon said that its policy is to send only foreigners to
Guantanamo," you might respond. That was a discretionary and tactical
decision that the Pentagon made early on, until it could firmly
establish that its wrongful actions outside the United States were
immune from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and from federal
court interference.

Imagine the public outcry if the Pentagon had started rounding up
Americans right away, including newspaper editors, dissidents, and
government critics. It was much smarter for the Pentagon to lie low,
leaving Americans alone or having them indicted, all the while
vigorously pursuing the power it so desperately seeks in the Padilla
case, knowing that the Congress and the American people are sleeping.

The Pentagon knows that if it can secure a ruling in the Padilla case,
it can begin playing the same games with American terrorism suspects
that it has been playing with foreign terrorism suspects. If that
happens, military officials will be authorized to arrest any American
and send him overseas for torture, rape, sex abuse, or murder. And
there won't be anything any federal court will be able to do about it.
If the government wins in the Padilla case, the American people will
quickly awake from their slumber but it will be too late.

Those who think that the president's self-proclaimed power to label
anyone, including Americans, an "enemy combatant" constitutes a
limitation on the Pentagon's power should not delude themselves. In
the "war on terrorism," the president is not about to question the
judgment of the military authorities. The Pentagon will simply place
several hundred blank "enemy combatant" slips on the president's desk
for signing, and the Pentagon will later fill in the name of the
person being taken into custody.

The Zacarias Moussaoui case

Moussaoui is a foreigner who was indicted in federal district court in
Virginia for conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. One significance
of this case is that it reveals the government's arbitrary and
capricious application of the law. That is, some people — Padilla and
al-Marri, for example — were thrown into the military system, which
denies them the protections of the Bill of Rights and the federal
court system outlined in the Constitution. Moussaoui, on the other
hand, is being treated as a criminal defendant, which is the way all
people accused of terrorism should be treated.

It should be noted here that a another terrorist suspect — Yaser
Hamdi, who was an American citizen taken into custody in Afghanistan
during the recent U.S. invasion — received the "enemy combatant"
treatment. When the U.S. Supreme Court held that Hamdi was entitled to
seek habeas corpus relief in federal court, U.S. officials decided to
release him in Saudi Arabia rather than charge him with terrorism in
federal court. For a more detailed account of the Hamdi case, see my
article "Padilla, Hamdi, and Rasul: Charge Them or Release Them."

In other words, with some defendants the government says, "That
defendant is an enemy combatant" in the war on terrorism, meaning that
he will be punished by the military. With other defendants, the
government says, "That defendant has committed the crime of
terrorism," meaning that he will go through the federal court system.

Such an unequal application of the law, not to mention the arbitrary
and capricious manner in which the designations are made, also
violates the "rule of law" concept that President Bush loves to preach
about to the world.

It's important to note, however, that even though Moussaoui is in the
federal court system there are people who have suggested that the
government should do to him what it did to al-Marri — secure a
dismissal of the indictment and transfer him to the Pentagon for
military treatment.

After fiercely contesting the case since his arrest in 2001, Moussaoui
recently pled guilty to all counts of the indictment. The sentencing
stage of the case is now pending.

Prior to the entry of Moussaoui's guilty plea, there was another major
significance of the Moussaoui case: The government was attempting to
deny him two important rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights — the
right to compulsory process of witnesses and the right to confront
one's accusers.

The government has witnesses in its control, who are situated
somewhere in the government's secret international gulag for terrorism
detainees, and who, it was claimed, would have exonerated Moussaoui
with respect to his alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The
government wanted to be permitted to present to the jury "summaries"
of what the witnesses supposedly have said rather than being required
to retrieve the witnesses from the gulag and bring them to testify in
person (or by videotape deposition) at the trial.

The reason the government gives for its refusal to produce the
witnesses is "national security." The real reason for their refusal
was probably that they were terrified that the witnesses would
disclose in a federal court of law the extent to which they've been
tortured and sexually abused while in U.S. control or custody, which
could subject U.S. officials to criminal prosecution.

One reason that the case was so important was because of the
government's attempt to use hearsay to convict Moussaoui, a principle,
which if upheld, could be applied to other people accused of
terrorism. Hearsay, as you may know, is a statement that someone has
made about the accused outside of court. When it is allowed to be
introduced in court, the defendant is unable to confront the person
who made the statement and unable to cross-examine him. That's why we
have the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, which the
Moussaoui case would have emasculated if the government had been able
to get away with it.

The district judge in the Moussaoui case had ruled in favor of
Moussaoui and the Constitution. However, the government appealed and
prevailed in the federal Court of Appeals. Moussaoui's lawyers had
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the appeal.

If Moussaoui had later been convicted based on the hearsay evidence,
he could have again taken the issue up on appeal. By pleading guilty,
he has effectively waived the argument. But the principle by which the
government seeks to use hearsay against other people accused on
terrorism continues to stand, both for Americans and foreigners
accused of terrorism in federal district court.

Conclusion

These four pending legal cases provide good examples of how the U.S.
government's pro-empire and pro-interventionist foreign policy that
holds our nation in its grip ultimately redounds to the detriment of
the American people. That foreign policy policy is not only
threatening the lives of the American people with the possibility of
terrorist "blowback," — and not only threatening the lives of U.S.
military personnel and the people of Iraq — and not only gradually
corrupting the inner spirit of the American people — and not only
threatening the economic well-being of our country with out-of-control
federal spending — it is also threatening the freedom of the American
people through major federal assaults on civil liberties, as the
Padilla, al-Marri, Abu Ali, and Moussaoui cases demonstrate.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. Send him email.

www.fff.org/comment/com0505f.asp