Encyclopedia Brown Strikes Back

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina decided that Jose Padilla needed to be released from prison by April 14, or charged with a crime. To those who don't recall, Padilla's been detained since May 2002 on charges that he planned to detonate a "dirty" bomb in an American city. While these charges have been apparently denied, Padilla 's ties to al Qaeda and September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have not been denied, and it appears likely that Padilla participated in plans to blow up buildings in major U.S. cities, if not a dirty bomb.

I've been uncomfortable myself with the Padilla case and the government's stance that Padilla, an American citizen, could be held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant." Of course, the nice part about living in a democracy with respect for the rule of law is that the courts can and do have the power to set aside executive action that goes too far. I don't think the Bush Adminstration is right in the Padilla case, but nor do I think they're way out of bounds with their belief that he can be designated as an "enemy combatant." With that being said, the District Court's ruling will stand unless overturned by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. I'm guessing both will review Judge Henry Floyd's opinion before Padilla gets anywhere near the street.

Perhaps they can explain the absurd passage in Judge Floyd's opinion... well, let me leave it to Michael Billok, a law clerk at my former employer, who appropriately questions Judge Floyd's dismissal of Supreme Court precedent and draws a great analogy...

During World War II, U.S. citizen Herbert Haupt was captured while trying to blow up bridges, railroads and manufacturing plants for Nazi Germany. The Supreme Court held in its "Ex parte Quirin" decision that Haupt could be tried by military tribunal, and he was subsequently executed. Haupt and Padilla were both United States citizens; both planned acts of destruction on behalf of an enemy of the United States; and both were captured on U.S. soil, oddly enough, in Chicago. Yet the court practically dismissed Quirin out of hand, even stating that "Quirin involved a war that had a definite ending date. The present war on terrorism does not."

Enter Encyclopedia Brown. The boy detective creation of Donald Sobol, Brown could solve any mystery over dinner and before dessert. He once examined a sword that was supposedly inscribed and presented "at the First Battle of Bull Run" in 1861 and immediately classified it a hoax. How so? In 1861, there hadn't yet been a Second Battle of Bull Run, so nobody could know the 1861 battle was the "first," and not simply the only, battle.

So, a question for the judiciary: How did the Supreme Court know in 1942, the year Quirin was decided, that World War II would have "a definite ending date" in 1945? Do presidents in wars with known ending dates have more discretion to fight the enemy than presidents in wars where the conclusion is unknown? What's the matter? You haven't touched your dessert.

Somewhere out there, the Lord of Truth is also smiling. The best part is, I'm pretty sure the case in question appeared in the first Encyclopedia Brown book, and involved a typical attempt at a swindle by the unforgettable Bugs Meany, leader of the Tigers.

I guess Judge Floyd believes that FDR knew an end date existed during World War II, but just decided not to tell the rest of the nation. Which brings me around to a final question -- if President Bush told Judge Floyd that a definitive end date existed for the War on Terror, but refused to disclose it, would it be okay to hold Padilla indefinitely?