Dirty bombs and dirty laws

A law is only as useful as its ability to be enforced. That's why no one in Indianapolis has been jailed for throwing rocks at birds (Code 1975, § 20-6), or why stinky dogs in Galesburg, Ill., aren't snatched by the dog catcher (Ord. No. 84-935, .0311, 2-20-84). \nIt's also why portions of the Fifth and Sixth amendments have recently become essentially null and void. As if the seizing of library records wasn't enough, the government on Friday moved to further curtail civil liberties granted to all its citizens by the Constitution. \nThe case in question is that of detained citizen Jose Padilla, also known as "Dirty Bomber" Abdullah al-Muhajir, a former Chicago gang member who converted to Islam during one of his multiple jail sentences. Upon returning from a trip, which included stops in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport with the status of "enemy combatant."\nTo be guaranteed protection by the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), combatants must heed the "rules of war." According to the Bush administration, Jose Padilla is denied the rights of "lawful" combatants citing GCIII Article 4.1.2, which requires combatants to have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance," and be "carrying arms openly." \nHowever, to be guaranteed protection by the U.S. Constitution, one needs only to be a U.S. citizen, born or naturalized. \nThe Fifth Amendment states that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," which leads us to the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."\nBy holding Padilla indefinitely without charge under a trivial technicality of the GCIII, the government has essentially stripped away his citizenship, a move that could endanger anyone from a protester to a journalist. \nIn February 2005, U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd ordered the government to charge Padilla or release him, citing a parallel case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which the court declared a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."\nPadilla remained in custody pending an appeal by the Fourth Circuit Court, which last week ruled the president can, in fact, indefinitely imprison citizens in accordance with a post-Sept. 11 congressional resolution. \nHowever, if the case to hold Padilla under that resolution is strong enough, then surely the government can bring a case against him for conspiracy, intent to kill or possession of contraband. How can we detain combatants for not following the rules of war if the government won't uphold the rule of law? Padilla's legal limbo threatens the rights and welfare of more citizens than any dirty bomb.