Prosecutorial overreach on Padilla ill serves U.S. interest

Friday, August 25, 2006 Miami Herald: The case against accused "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla was problematic from the start. First, the government labeled him an "enemy combatant," holding him in the military brig without charges for three years. Then, before the Supreme Court could put a stop to this dubious process, he was suddenly indicted on criminal charges — but they failed to mention the "dirty bomber" allegations. All of this raised questions about the apparent disregard for due process and whether the threat posed by this and similar cases is being exaggerated to make authorities seem more effective in the war on terror. Now a federal judge in Miami has thrown out part of the indictment, raising even more doubts. Federal Judge Marcia Cooke has questioned the information in the indictment — "very light on facts" — and also has removed one count on grounds that it was repetitious. Padding the case It suggests that the government threw the book at Padilla in order to pad its case. The judge's ruling also could eliminate possible life sentences for Padilla and his co-defendants if they are convicted. Ultimately, the courts will resolve the legal questions, but there is an issue that goes beyond fairness to the defendants. The case fits a disturbing pattern that begins with the government announcing that it has discovered a major threat to U.S. security — but then it can't back up its words with facts. Padilla and others may be every bit as dangerous as the government says they are. But the government has to do as good a job at making its case in court as it does when making the case before the public. If the facts don't match the allegations, the government is doing the public a disservice by crying wolf because the next time — when it really is true — no one is going to believe it.'