>I wish those of you who responded to my query gave me more credit than simplistically assuming that I am willing to give up my good civil liberties to bad government because I am scared of the terrorists. The reality is more complex than that and I hoped to explore some of that complexity.
>
>For one thing, I simply do not buy the Hollywood-inspired fantasy that evil government agents frame up some walking innocence just for the heck of it. I am much more inclined to assume some sort of rationality on the part of the people with whom I disagree - I thus find quite probable that the government must have had some bona fide reason to detain Mr. Padilla (whether they reveal that reason is another story).
It is one thing to assume a motive other than "just for the heck of it". But you are obviously assuming much more than that. Your words indicate clearly that you see his detention as being prima facie evidence he must be guilty of something. The underlying premise here is that the government is competent, a premise which is contradicted by their record.
Even if we are to assume the government is acting in good faith, that is they have their reasons and are not locking people up "just for the heck of it", the central concern remains that they are bumbling incompetents who can't seem to get anything right.
We don't have courts *just* to prevent the government locking people up "just for the heck of it" you know. There is also the possibility of them just making mistakes. It must be remembered that law enforcement authorities have unusually suspicious minds. Nothing wrong with that, being suspicious of everyone is what they are paid for. But of course they are expected to investigate whether there are any facts which verify or assuage their suspicions.
Not just lock up everyone they think is suspicious.
Having suspicions is not a "bona fide reason" to indefinitely detain Mr Padilla, or anyone else. You seem to be saying that it is. Neither is it sufficient for them to say that they have their reasons, but will not reveal what they are.
One of the problems with the approach to law enforcement that you are supporting (aside from the fact that it isn't "law enforcement" in any meaningful sense) is that it allows incompetents to operate unchecked. Their motives may be honourable, but if they aren't accountable in open court then their mistakes cannot be exposed. Not only is that bad for the innocent people they may incarcerate, it can be disastrous for the society they are meant to be protecting.
It is unsafe to assume, as you are clearly assuming, that the reason the government wants to lock this person up without trial is a valid reason. Unsafe for for the civil liberties of everyone, but also unsafe from the point of view of the security of society from terrorists.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas