Jeffrey Steinborn, a criminal defense attorney in Seattle, has these thoughts on why we should all care about the Adminstration's treatment of the detainees, including U.S. Citizens like Jose Padilla:

Remember Pastor Niemoller. His message was simple but reflects what appears to be an inevitable rule of history -- if you don't stand up for those whom we all most detest, it won't be long before there's no one to stand up for us. What I have observed in some 35 years as a soldier in the war on drugs is that the U.S. government hones and polishes its techniques -- pre conviction forfeiture without effective due process, trial by ambush, erosion of the bill of rights . . . etc -- by using them on those for whom the fewest will speak up. Having polished these techniques and getting them accepted by the public as legitimate law enforcement techniques, they then turn them against the rest of us. Drug dealers have been a convenient target for a long time. Look how far the government has been able to push the constitution in the name of the war on drugs. Now we have someone even more easily branded as unworthy of due process. Of course Pastor Niemoller was talking about a situation where people were targeted for overtly religious or ethnic reasons and exterminated. We're much too modern and sophisticated for that. We now target them because they're evil. And, instead of killing the detested folks we now just lock them up forever. Nor do we have to tattoo them anymore -- now we have DNA. The whole system is a bit more expensive than just killing everyone, but reasonably effective.

That's where we defense lawyers come in and do our job as an essential institution in a democracy. We are the last few who will stand up. True, we despise this enemy, and fear his undemocratic terror tactics. The point of our system is that it's strong enough and flexible enough to survive this sort of threat, so long as we don't abandon our basic due process principles. And, of course, there is no evidence that we are going to make ourselves any safer even if we do give up a bit of liberty. Do you trust the Bush crime family to know where to draw the line? Operation Pipe Dreams suggests that they don't. With domestic law enforcement turned over to an administration that covers the breasts on statues I don't think we can afford to take their word for it when they single out a person and claim that person has engaged in conduct that exempts him/her from due process. To the contrary, that's the point where due process becomes the most important.

Anyone who thinks the line between military action and police action still has some significance in this society isn't paying attention to current law enforcement techniques. For more than a decade the military has been heavily involved in domestic drug law enforcement. The posse comitatus act is a shadow of its former self. In Washington, where I live, the government regularly uses military personnel and equipment to conduct routine two-bit marijuana investigations. The military is trained and equipped for domestic law enforcement of all kinds. They have learned the drill by practicing on drug suspects. This line has already been breached. Allen is not just being paranoid when he fears that the war on terrorism will extend to the war on drugs. Drugs were co-opted into the war on terrorism almost immediately. Remember the super bowl adds following 911? The fact that drug dealers are tried and convicted in courts doesn't answer the question. The real danger here is in the erosion of the rights that once made that trial process fair. The erosion process is pretty subtle, particularly if you're not directly involved in it. But for many accused of drug dealing it's only one step away from what the administration now does with those it labels "terrorists." It just looks a little better on the surface.

It seems to me if there's not enough evidence to convict persons at a trial, then there's not enough evidence to detain them indefinitely without counsel. It reminds me of the system they have in the terribly modern country of Singapore. Accused have the right to counsel so long as counsel would not interfere with the investigation. And, of course, until the accused confesses, counsel would indeed interfere with the investigation. Meanwhile they lock you up incommunicado, and throw a little cold water on you now and then when you think about sleeping. Sooner or later you confess and then you get a lawyer. I wonder what we do to the detainees we call terrorists?

Jeff Steinborn
"Fight Terrorism -- Smoke Homeland Grown"