ANOTHER ONE WHO WAS A VERY GOOD BOY. UH, MISGUIDED YOUTH
By Cori Dauber - RantingProfs
The Times today produces an analysis of almost unprecedented length of the life and times of Jose Padilla, otherwise known as the "Dirty Bomber," the man picked up at O'Hare Airport and detained as an enemy combatant both so that he can be interrogated and (more importantly at this stage, I suspect) so that he won't ever rejoin the fight. But, of course, the Times wants to know about his personal journey. How Oprah. They want us to get to know the real Jose.
But, of course, right off the bat the story won't be telling us about the real Jose, because there is no real Jose, not anymore. This is a problem I have not only with the Times but with all of the mainstream outlets. They long ago stopped using his assumed Arabic name even as an "a.k.a." in paretheses next to "Jose." But calling this man "Jose Padilla" takes us off track right from the get go. His problem isn't that he's a misguided youth, a hapless young man trying to find a gang for a feeling that he belongs. He's a religious extremist, and when we ignore that we ignore who this man truly has become.
Never underestimate your enemy. And never willfully misunderstand him, either. These people are motivated by religious beliefs. Now, we can say until we're blue in the face that we understand that their beliefs are not the beliefs of mainstream Islam, that we do not tar every Muslim with the same brush. That's fine. But to take that to the point that we willfully disregard the fact that they see themselves as motivated first, last, and always, by religious ideology is not just silly but dangerous. Besides, if you want to talk about "dehumanizing" your enemy, what dehumanizes him faster than to deny him the right to make his own choices, and the consequences that go along with those choices? Can you imagine the outcry if a newspaper in this day and age was insensitive enough to use the name, "Cassius Clay?" Why? Because we grant grown-ups the power to make choices over their own lives. So why do we insist on calling this man by a name he himself has renounced?
Here's the Times game plan:
Now Mr. Padilla's mother, his ex-wife in Florida, his second wife in Egypt and friends have broken their anxious silence. Together with accounts from former and current government officials and court papers, they trace Mr. Padilla's journey from Pentecostal child preacher to Muslim convert to suspected terrorist, from a Taco Bell in Davie, Fla., to a pilgrimage site in Mecca to the Charleston, S.C., brig.
Yes, a terrorist's personal journey. Grand. (Be sure to take note of which photographs accompany the text.)
If he lived a double life, they were unaware of it. And the American government has said so little beyond its initial, startling allegations about Mr. Padilla that it is difficult to reconcile the two portrayals — the man his relatives thought they knew and the man the government calls an enemy of his homeland.
Right. Because most terrorist wannabees looking to betray, even attack, their own country, they're pretty up front about that with their moms. And most men with his belief, well, those have really got to be marriages based on equal sharing.
Then comes a long tour through his history, as told by his family, and his doings, comings and goings told through his Egyptian wife and father-in-law's eyes. But since, of course, he would leave the Egyptian family behind for long stretches of time during which they really have no way of knowing where he was or what he was doing, it isn't clear what that adds to the tale beyond the fact that he left them behind and they didn't know where he went.
But I know this makes me feel better:
Mr. Padilla certainly could have been charged with "a variety of offenses" based on the same facts that the president relied on to declare him an enemy combatant, in the opinion of Janet Reno, the former attorney general, who, with other law enforcement officials, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Mr. Padilla. Congress, Ms. Reno noted, has passed a number of statutes expanding the government's authority to prosecute terrorists "before they strike."
Great. Well, if nothing else I guess that's another vote for the Patriot Act.
Now, this from the White House Counsel is particularly interesting:
"We realize that our relative silence on this issue has come at a cost," Mr. Gonzales told a committee of the American Bar Association. "Many people have characterized — mischaracterized — our actions in the war on terrorism as inconsistent with the rule of law." People have imagined the worst, Mr. Gonzales continued, suggesting that "the decision-making process is a black box that raises the specter of arbitrary action.
In fact, he claimed, there have been individuals who did not pass the levels of review required to become enemy combatants, which he described as involving legal and factual assessments by the director of central intelligence, the secretary of defense and the attorney general.
Sometimes it amazes me, the way these guys miss opportunities to help themselves out and make their case more persuasive. The fact that there are threshold tests in the administration's mind, and that there are specific, real individuals -- not hypothetical examples, but flesh and blood individuals -- who have not met those tests, is an extremely helpful piece of information in evaluating this policy. So why haven't they been shouting it from the rooftops? |
