- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I suspect that the argument that whatever the government has done to Mr. Padilla is beyond the reach of any court got its first success back when courts, including the Supreme Court, I believe, refused to rule on the constitutionality of the Vietnam war, saying that our involvement was a political decision, and thus, should be resolved by political means.
I take it the courts will continue to rule that when the U.S. government snatches people off the street, throws them in a dark hole, and tortures them to insanity, or death, the courts will refuse to rule on its constitutionality because, they will say, doing such things is a political decision.
I know the ruling on Mr. Padilla's conviction will be appealled, I hope, but I suspect, given the way the SCOTUS ruled on challenges to the Vietnam war, they will refuse to feel the force of the Bill of Rights.
The argument that war, habeus corpus, or the use of torture, is a political decision and not a judicial one, means, for me, that the Bill of Rights is only something to make us feel secure against our government's extremisms, when in reality, it has no force.
