Citation
Publication Date:
Format:
Bibliography:
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
- Antislavery Courts and the Dawn of International Human Rights Law
- Questions of Justice
- Slave Trade on Trial: Lessons of a Great Human Rights Law Success
- Curbing Misuse of the "Enemy Combatant" Provision
- The Law of Torture
- The Military Commissions Act and "Torture Lite": Something for a Great Nation to be Proud Of?
- Understanding Mens Rea in Command Responsibility from Yamashita to Blaskic and Beyond
- Inherent Executive Powers: A Comparative Perspective
- Brief Amici Curiae Bar Associations, Human Rights Organizations and Other Legal Groups in Support of Petitioners
- Why Latinos Should Oppose the Gonzales Nomination
Author
- Jenny S. Martinez
- Stanford Law School
- jmartinez@law.stanford.edu
- 650 725.2749