Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Justice Dept. Wants to Charge Padilla. Minor Hitch: No Dirty Bomb, No Admissable Evidence

Peter Junger alerts me to this damning report, MSNBC – Facing Defeat?

Justice Department lawyers, fearing a crushing defeat before the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few weeks, are scrambling to develop a conventional criminal case against “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla that would charge him with providing “material support” to Al Qaeda, NEWSWEEK has learned.

The prospective case against Padilla would rely in part on material seized by the FBI in Afghanistan—principally an Al Qaeda “new applicant form” that, authorities said, the former Chicago gang member filled out in July 2000 to enter a terrorist training camp run by Osama bin Laden's organization.

But officials acknowledge that the charges could well be difficult to bring and that none of Padilla's admissions to interrogators—including an apparent confession that he met with top Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah and agreed to undertake a terror mission—would ever be admissible in court.

Even more significant, administration officials now concede that the principal claim they have been making about Padilla ever since his detention—that he was dispatched to the United States for the specific purpose of setting off a radiological 'dirty bomb' has turned out to be wrong and most likely can never be used against him in court.

(bold added). Locked up for two years in solitary on charges that “turned out to be wrong.” Argued to the Supreme Court that the government should be able to label a citizen an “enemey” and hold him for ever with no court review. And the charges “turned out to be wrong”. How about that.

Call me cynical, but I've always suspected that a substantial part of the reason why Justice is so hell bent for leather to bury Padillia has to do with the very peculiar circumstances — quickly forgotten — that surrounded his arrest.

AG Ashcroft was in Moscow when Padilla was arrested in Chicago. The arresting agents said they thought he wanted to make a “dirty bomb”. There are in fact two kinds of bombs called “dirty bombs”: the first, the sort Padillia was talking about (and all the evidence is that it was all talk), is a conventional explosive with radioactive dust or material thrown in to further injure people in the blast radius. So instead of taking out, say, a building, you also hurt the people who breath in the dust. Nasty — very nasty — but of fairly limited scope compared to the other type of 'dirty bomb', which is a radiologically enhanced nuclear weapon, a city killer.

Somewhere along the route from Chicago to DC to Moscow, wires got crossed and Ashcroft got it into his head that Padilla was planning a city-killer. And he gave a moderately hysterical (in the frightened, not funny, sense) press conference about this in Moscow, which caused the US stock market to drop almost 2%.

Of course it turned out Ashcroft had got it all wrong, which had to be very embarrassing.

It's sad to even entertain the idea that pique explains a historic assault on the rights of American citizens, but these are sad times.

Posted in Civil Liberties | 3 Comments

Torture: Wrong Yesterday, Wrong Today, Wrong Tomorrow

In nothing new under the sun, the Curmudgeonly Clerk notes accurately that many prior administrations have done quite horrible things in wartime. He notes the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, and the Japanese internments as examples of FDR's wartime moral failings. To which one might of course add the general conduct of the anti-insurgency campaigns in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, the bombing of Cambodia, most of the century-long campaign against Native American tribes, just to name a few.

From this basis, he concludes I was wrong to approvingly quote Kevin Drum saying that “Under this administration, we seem to have lost the simple level of moral clarity that allowed our predecessors to tell right from wrong.”

Continue reading

Posted in Guantanamo, Iraq Atrocities, Law: Constitutional Law | 8 Comments

Apologia Pro Tormento: Analyzing the First 56 Pages of the Walker Working Group Report (aka the Torture Memo)

I have read a redacted copy of the first 56 pages of the Torture Memo (alternate source). The memo — or at least the approximately half of it we have — sets out a view as to how to make legal justifications for the torture of detainees unilaterally labeled by the government as “unlawful combatants”, including (but not limited to?) al Qaida and Taliban detainees in Guantanamo.

Here are my initial comments on some of the main points, especially those regarding Presidential powers and international law. I've concentrated on those parts because those are the relevant issues I think I know the most about; in contrast, I say little here about the direct criminal law issues. I wrote this in a hurry, so please treat these as tentative remarks. I look forward to discussion with other readers, and will post amendments and corrections when they are brought to my attention.

Continue reading

Posted in Guantanamo, Law: Constitutional Law, Law: International Law, Torture | 120 Comments

Iraq, the Chicken Version

Juan Cole's dark sense of humor brings us Iraq-themed chicken jokes. This being about Iraq, things do not usually go very well for the chicken. Let's hope Heidi Bond doesn't see these.

Posted in Iraq | 1 Comment

Basic Evil

While we lawyers get all het up about how people with a JD and a basic knowledge of the Constitution could sign a torturer's charter, and whether this is a banal evil or virulent evil, or both, Kevin Drum has his eye on the basics:

But put aside the technical analysis and ask yourself: Why has torture been such a hot topic since 9/11? The United States has fought many wars over the past half century, and in each of them our causes were just as important as today's, information from prisoners would have been just as helpful, and we were every bit as determined to win as we are now. But we still didn't authorize torture of prisoners. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Reagan — all of them knew it wasn't right, and the rest of us knew it as well.

So what's different this time? Only one thing: the name of the man in the White House. Under this administration, we seem to have lost the simple level of moral clarity that allowed our predecessors to tell right from wrong. It's time to reclaim it.

And just imagine what those guys will do if they don't have to worry about re-election.

Posted in Guantanamo, Iraq Atrocities, Law: Constitutional Law | 7 Comments

Pride Goeth Before A Fall

Fellow Citizens: Are you proud of the way your government treats foreign reporters? Or, like me, are you angry and ashamed by this disgrace to our nation, and this offense to our allies? [Update: Link fixed!]

Posted in National Security | 2 Comments