That's right. Read the title again and see if something bothers you. I seem to remember from way back in my elementary days that this phrase, a cornerstone of our Constitution, was
innocent until proven guilty. But then again, my memory isn't what it used to be. However, somewhere in the back of my aging brain, I seem to also remember something about guilt being proven in a court of law by a judge, not in a detention cell by interrogators.
Sure we've associated this type of thinking with third world governments. But surely not from the US of A? Well, get over it. The "war on terra" seems to once again have spurred the Bush administration to blur the rules of when and where the Constitution actually applies.
Case in point, Jose Padilla. According to James B. Comey Jr., Attorney General John Ashcroft's deputy, Padilla is a bad guy. For all I know, he's probably right. But here is what is scary as hell to me:
"He would very likely have followed his lawyer's advice and said nothing, which would have been his constitutional right. He would likely have ended up a free man, with our only hope being to try to follow him 24 hours a day, seven days a week and hope -- pray, really -- that we didn't lose him."
Mr. Comey Jr. is basically detailing to the press why Mr. Padilla - a citizen of the United States of America - has been deprived of his constitutional rights. He's not even trying to hide that Mr. Padilla's rights were denied. He's not denying that Padilla has been held without charge for months. He's not contradicting that Padilla was denied council for months. Now Remember this is a direct quote from Mr. Comey Jr. speaking on behalf of the Attorney General of the United States of America - not some backwater police chief or third-world war lord.
Wow. So the ends justify the means. Without his lawyer there, they were able to get a confession out of Mr. Padilla. Stupid Constitutional rights. Always getting in the way of confessions.
Think what you like about Mr. Padilla. He may just be a really bad guy and we are better off for having him in custody. But at what price to our freedom? At what price to the rule of law? At what price to our constitution? Precedent is a very slippery slope.
There's an excellent editorial from Richard Cohen today in the Times, and Slate has more on the circumnavigation of the US Constitution in this case.