Today's Hot Topic: The Padilla Verdict
In "The Editorialist," columnist Rob Anderson concludes his daily roundup of the nation's opinion pages by noting the op-ed Jenny Martinez published in the Washington Post about the Jose Padilla trial. Anderson writes:
Padilla is guilty: The WaPo applauds the fact that Jose Padilla has finally had his day in court, but writes that what "was extraordinary, and reprehensible, was how long Mr. Padilla had to wait for the kind of due process most Americans take for granted." The NYT notes that it's "hard to disagree" with the jury's guilty verdict against Padilla, but argues that it would "be a mistake to see it as a vindication for the Bush administration's serial abuse of the American legal system in the name of fighting terrorism."
And leave it to the WSJ to criticize Bush administration foes who cite Padilla's case to argue that "the civilian criminal-justice system is adequate to the task of preventing terrorism, and thus the military shouldn't be holding enemy combatants at all." If war opponents had their way, the editors argue, Padilla "would walk free today." Undoubtedly those WSJ editors enjoyed Jenny S. Martinez's op-ed in the WaPo today, in which she labels the decision a "Constitutional victory." The trial, she writes, "showed that our federal courts are perfectly capable of dealing with terrorism cases."