The lynch-mob standard

Since we have precious little to go on in the way of substance after she rose to the national scene, let's revisit Palin at the convention. Here's The Philadelphia Inquirer:

[...] we all know she can give a good speech.

But it was in that much-heralded speech at the Republican convention that Palin tossed off a line I found more disturbing than anything unearthed about her since. It got a predictably enthusiastic response from the keyed-up partisan crowd.

"Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America," said Palin, and then, referring to Barack Obama, quipped: "He's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Quite apart from the cheap distortion of Obama's position, typical of most campaign rhetoric, this is a classic lynch-mob line. It is the taunt of the drunken lout in the cowboy movie who confronts a sheriff barring the prison door - He wants to give 'im a trial? It is the precise sentiment that Atticus Finch so memorably sets himself against in Harper Lee's masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird, when he agrees to defend a supposedly indefensible black man charged with rape (falsely, as it turns out).

I wonder if Palin really believes her own position on this. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it was just a speechwriter's idea of a great applause line, perhaps she hasn't fully thought it through. The sentiment is on the wrong side of a deep principle, one that we have long honored in this country, that has to do with basic fairness, the rule of law, and ultimately with standing up intelligently to terrorism.

Palin's comments referred to McCain's condemnation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling this summer that upheld detainees' rights to the most basic of legal protections against arrest and imprisonment, a habeas corpus petition. The court ruled that our government cannot just call someone a terrorist, arrest him, and hold him indefinitely without showing some reasonable cause. McCain has called this "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Obama has praised it.

The court's decision is just the latest word in an evolving national discussion of what to do with captured "terrorists." Congress and the White House have been wrestling with this since Sept. 11, 2001, and will continue to do so. Even those who applauded the court's defense of habeas corpus are not so sure that federal courts are the right place for "enemy combatants" to appeal their detention. And among those who side with the court, few would argue that enemy combatants are owed the full legal protections enjoyed by citizens. But certainly anyone arrested and locked away deserves the chance to challenge their arrest.

Mind you, we are not talking about a trial here, just a hearing to establish that there is enough evidence to lock the suspect away.

Palin's applause line applied the lynch-mob standard: Because a man has been arrested, he is guilty. End of story.

End of story? This is what we've become as a country under President Bush: if you're suspected of terrorism or classified as an "enemy combatant", you don't have rights, neither criminal nor prisoner of war. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the writ at Guantanamo Bay was decried by Bush and McCain.

Don't think Barack Obama would really bring change? Well, here's one thing he would change, and he certainly wouldn't condone the "enhanced interrogation" of prisoners.

He is a civil rights lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Can Palin even define habeus corpus and expound on it for a paragraph or two? Maybe someone should ask her. Oh right, she's not giving press conferences, and we need to show her "deference". Defering to voters is so old-fashioned.