Citation

Publication Date: 2007-08-17
Format: Op-Ed or News Article
Bibliography: Jenny S. Martinez, The Real Verdict on Jose Padilla, Washington Post, Friday, August 17, 2007; p. A23.

More

The conclusion of Jose Padilla's criminal trial in a federal court yesterday shows that waging the "war on terror" does not require giving up our constitutional values or substituting military rule for the rule of law. The jury's guilty verdict should be appealed, but the verdict on the Constitution is in: We should keep it.

...

The trial showed that our federal courts are perfectly capable of dealing with terrorism cases. A federal judge presided over the five-month trial of Padilla and his co-defendants with great care for both the rights of the defendants and for national security. The Bush administration has claimed since Sept. 11 that the federal courts cannot be trusted with terrorism matters. It has argued that we should scrap our centuries-old constitutional protections and replace our system of checks and balances with one awarding the executive complete discretion to lock up whomever he wants, for however long he deems appropriate. The Founders rejected that kind of arbitrary and oppressive power. And the federal court in Florida has shown how weak the administration's case for abandoning the Constitution really is.

Other publications by this author

View All

• The Slave Trade and the Origins of International Human Rights Law
  2012-01-04
• The Extraterritorial Constitution and the Rule of Law
  2011-12-22
• International Courts and the U.S. Constitution
  2011-03-24
• Scholars' Statement of Principles for the New President on U.S. Detention Policy: An Agenda for Change
  2009-11-01
• Patricia McGowan Wald
  2009-06-01
• The Mess Left Behind
  2009-03-31
• Flexibility With Truth Commissions
  2009-03-02
• Process and Substance in the "War on Terror"
  2008-01-01
• Antislavery Courts and the Dawn of International Human Rights Law
  2008-01-01
• Questions of Justice
  2007-10-17