[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             THE IMPORTANCE OF DUE PROCESS FOR JOSE PADILLA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 24, 2004

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has agreed to 
hear two important cases regarding the balance between national 
security and the rights of American citizens. And in a February 24th 
editorial, the Rocky Mountain News clearly explains why we all have a 
stake in the outcome of the cases involving Yasr Hamdi and Jose 
Portillo.
  While both evidently are American citizens now being held as unlawful 
combatants, their cases are not identical. As the editorial explains:

       Both men are citizens, but the incarceration of Hamdi seems 
     less convincingly a civil-rights incursion than the 
     incarceration of Padilla. While Hamdi deserves his day in 
     court, grabbing a prisoner at the site of armed hostilities 
     in a foreign country is a different matter from picking 
     someone up at a domestic airport.

  And, in the words of the editorial, here is the bottom line:

       The obvious issue with Padilla is that if the 
     administration can stick him away as long as it likes without 
     an indictment or court proceedings of any kind, why can't it 
     do the same thing with any of us?

  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point, and exactly why the Portillo 
case is so important. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching 
the full text of the editorial.

             [From the Rocky Mountain News, Feb. 24, 2004]

                  Padilla Deserves Due Process--Still

       Some argue the Bush administration was justified in 
     arresting a U.S. citizen and holding him for two years 
     without due process because, after all, he was in league with 
     terrorists. The logical fallacy here is known as begging the 
     question--you assume the conclusion in the proposition.
       How can the administration know Jose Padilla was a 
     terrorist intent on mass killings through use of a ``dirty'' 
     bomb without due process? And if this can be proven, why 
     doesn't the government initiate a trial?
       The Supreme Court is now going to take on the question of 
     whether the administration violated the Constitution in 
     holding Padilla, arrested in Chicago after a trip abroad, and 
     Yaser Hamdi, captured in a battlefield in Afghanistan. Both 
     men are citizens, but the incarceration of Hamdi seems less 
     convincingly a civil-rights incursion than the incarceration 
     of Padilla. While Hamdi deserves his day in court, grabbing a 
     prisoner at the site of armed hostilities in a foreign 
     country is a different matter from picking someone up at a 
     domestic airport.
       The obvious issue with Padilla is that if the 
     administration can stick him away as long as it likes without 
     an indictment or court proceedings of any kind, why can't it 
     do the same thing with any of us?
       It's hard to see how the Supreme Court could side with the 
     administration in the Padilla case, even if a few other 
     presidents, most notably Abraham Lincoln during the Civil 
     War, have gotten away with the suspension of due process. 
     Moreover, there is language both in Article I of the 
     Constitution and the Fifth Amendment that allows exceptions 
     to due process protections when there is a public danger. We 
     simply don't believe that language would be correctly applied 
     to the Padilla situation.

                          ____________________