E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
This New York Times article confirms something I suspected as soon as Padilla's indictment was announced. The Bush administration is desperate to avoid accountability on its detention and interrogation policies not because of what it may need to do in the future but rather because of the illegality of what it has already done. As a result, Administration officials dropped any mention of the previously touted "dirty bomb" plot against Jose Padilla, because prosecuting that theory would lead to inquiries about what exactly it had done to get the information that formed the basis of the accusation.
The decision not to charge [Padilla] criminally in connection with the more far-ranging bomb plots was prompted by the conclusion that Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Zubaydah could almost certainly not be used as witnesses, because that could expose classified information and could open up charges from defense lawyers that their earlier statements were a result of torture, officials said. . . . . In an interview on Wednesday, a British lawyer for another man accused by the United States of working as Mr. Padilla's accomplice in the bomb plot also accused American officials of working to extract a confession. The lawyer said the United States had transferred the man to Morocco from Pakistan, where he was captured in 2002, in an effort to have him to sign a confession implicating himself and Mr. Padilla.
"They took him to Morocco to be tortured," said Clive A. Stafford Smith, the lawyer for the suspect, Binyan Mohammed. "He signed a confession saying whatever they wanted to hear, which is that he worked with Jose Padilla to do the dirty bomb plot. He says that's absolute nonsense, and he doesn't know Jose Padilla."
Not to belabor the obvious, but information obtained by torture has two significant defects. First, it won't stand up in court because it's unreliable. Second it violates basic human rights, and that's an important reason why our constitutional system doesn't allow such practices in the first place.
It seems that the Administration's decision to flout the Constitution and the rule of law has come home to roost. The Administration assumed all along that it was entitled to do whatever it wanted, and that no one should object, because, after all, it was fighting evil. But the best way to fight evil is not to do evil yourself.
And what about Padilla's own treatment while in military custody?
[P]art of the bombing accusations hinged on incriminating statements that officials say Mr. Padilla made after he was in military custody - and had been denied access to a lawyer.
"There's no way you could use what he said in military custody against him," a former senior government official said.
What I'd like to know is whether Padilla will be permitted to talk about what we did to him in the military prison. One assumes (or at the very least one hopes) that it did not rise (or sink) to the level of "enhanced" interrogation techniques the CIA has been using. Perhaps the very fact that the Bush Administration is willing to allow Padilla his day in court means that they did nothing more than question him without a lawyer present. But it will certainly be interesting to learn what interrogation techniques the Administration was willing to employ on an American citizen held in South Carolina over the course of three year's time. And it will be interesting to see whether and how the Administration attempts to keep information about what it did to Padilla from the public.
Statements in the district court litigation in New York suggest that Padilla was subjected to psychological techniques designed to break him; indeed, the Administration initially argued that he could not be given a right to see an attorney precisely because it would undermine the effectiveness of those techniques. See Padilla ex rel. Newman v. Rumsfeld, 243 F. Supp. 2d 42, 46, 50 (SDNY 2003). If so, it is worth knowing what sort of techniques were used.
Are the threads of the Administration's coverup starting to unravel? Stay tuned.
"The decision to indict Padilla for what he did before going to Afghanistan has no effect on their intent or ability to hold him as an enemy combatant"
Are we really serious here? He was indicted by many accounts to prevent the SC to decide upon the latter issue. The gov't wants him shifted to civil custody, making the earlier lawsuit "moot" (in the AG's words, not some blogger's), which seems to me to have some "effect" on the matter.
The fact we "already know for years" that serious claims of torture were present in notable to me too. I guess it's true, depending on who "we" are.
As to improper interrogative methods. Well, the argument in Padilla was in part that incommunicado was improper. Such was the slant of Stevens' dissent in the case.
Do you mean like torture? Well, I guess not. Assumingly, torture or "coercive interrogation" (other than the usual in police departments across the country) has not become accepted on U.S. soil yet. Though, who knows at this point.
As to the original post, "It seems that the Administration's decision to flout the Constitution and the rule of law has come home to roost." Unclear. Padilla is still is custody, and as HG suggests, they could in theory just put him in military custody again if the criminal trial doesn't go so well.
This is a pretty silly post by Prof. Balkin, like most of his on this topic. But rather than continuing in his rather childish fantasy that something really bad is going to happen to Pres. Bush, why doesn't Prof. Balkin set forth his affirmative vision? The facts are pretty simple: the government has credible evidence of a terrorist plot (sort of like they did in August 2001), but nothing that would stand up in court. What should they do? Can they detain the people against whom there is credible evidence? Or do they have to wait until the buildings fall? Most left-wing commentary from the legal academy is devoted to not answering this question, which is why no one takes it very seriously.
Again, I'm unclear how ... and this takes up a significant part of the original post ... statements like "And what about Padilla's own treatment while in military custody?" is really not about him. Or, about asking him about his treatment etc.
Is Padilla such a non-issue (or mostly besides the point) now so that even a post directly about him, though sure raising other points, is not really about him?