Bush's rule of law: Just another double standard

When Scooter Libby was indicted last week, George W. Bush promptly reminded us that "in our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial."

Really, George?

Then why do you hold such different standards to those you hold in detention in your "war on terror"?

Nat Parry explores this double standard in a new article at Consortiumnews.com.

An excerpt:
-----
George W. Bush reacted to the indictment of Dick Cheney’s top aide, Lewis Libby, with a startling assertion about the U.S. legal system. "In our system," the President declared, "each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial."

While Bush’s statement was surely intended to remind the public that Libby has yet to be convicted of a crime, it was remarkable to hear Bush endorse the presumption of innocence and due process after all he has done to erode those principles.

For four years, it has been a central legal precept of the "War on Terror" that Bush has the absolute right to imprison anyone of his choosing, including American citizens, who are then denied even a day in court, let alone a fair trial or presumption of innocence.

While the "rule of law" is usually defined as the universal protection of everyone equally under the law, Bush’s "rule of law" seems to mean, "We rule, so we decide who’s protected by the law." Those protections are denied people whom Bush deems "terrorists" or "bad guys."

Bush’s lip service to presumption of innocence, for example, must have been cold comfort to Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held without charges and without the benefit of his day in court since May 2002.

Padilla was arrested at Chicago’s O'Hare airport and accused of plotting to set off a radiological "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city. Bush unilaterally determined that Padilla was closely associated with al-Qaeda and represented a "continuing, present and grave danger" to the United States.

Bush cited his powers as commander in chief in declaring Padilla an "enemy combatant" and ordering him detained indefinitely at a military prison in South Carolina. Bush said Padilla was a "bad guy" and "he is where he needs to be, detained."

Padilla could be jailed for the duration of the war on terrorism, a potential life sentence given the fuzzy goals and indefinite timetable of the conflict. No trial is to be held.

Major Victory?

Padilla’s capture was initially portrayed by the administration as a major victory in the "War on Terror." Bush said there was a "full-scale manhunt on" for other terrorists involved in the alleged plot, but to date, no one else involved has been captured.

Later, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the Padilla bomb plot amounted only to "some fairly loose talk" and "there was not an actual plan" to attack U.S. cities. [Washington Post, June 13, 2002]

In other words, nothing concrete in the alleged plot had occurred. Padilla had no bomb-making materials, no target, no operational co-conspirators, no plan. Beyond assertions from administration officials, there also was no evidence of Padilla’s guilt.

Yet, three-and-a-half years later, Jose Padilla remains locked up in a South Carolina naval brig caught in a murky legal twilight zone.

In contrast to Libby’s presumption of innocence – despite evidence of his guilt cited in a federal indictment returned by a grand jury – Padilla has been presumed guilty despite a complete lack of publicly available evidence. For Padilla, there is not even an indictment.
-----
[Read more.]