The circumstances, detention, and eventual conviction of alleged al Qaeda operative and U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla served to demonstrate yet again the polarization of opinion in the media. The ability to draw dramatically different conclusions and impressions from identical circumstances never ceases to amaze.

Following the guilty verdict of Padilla in mid-August, editorial pages across the land opined on the implications of it all. The New York Times ripped the Bush Administration again for “serial abuse of the American legal system in the name of fighting terrorism.” From the beginning, the administration claimed that Padilla was part of a conspiracy to wreak mass destruction with a radioactive dirty bomb within the U.S.

The administration had held Padilla as an “enemy combatant” for about three years failing to charge him with a crime amid considerable criticism for violating his constitutional rights as an American citizen. When it was apparent that the Court would force the hand of the administration, charges were brought against Padilla in civil court for attempted murder, kidnapping, and acts of terrorism abroad. After weeks of trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict within a day and a half.

Following the verdict, the NY Times was quick to point out the conviction for his “conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas” wasn’t the crime Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft used to lock Padilla up as an enemy combatant in the first place. Calling the entire prosecution “cynical and inept” the Times concluded that the entire episode is “a shining example of how not to prosecute terrorism cases.”

There is actually considerable truth to that, but not the bash-Bush-and-Ashcroft angle the NY Times advances. Had Padilla actually been charged for his plot to use a dirty bomb to kill Americans, he likely would have beat the rap and walked free.

When apprehended by our military, Padilla, aka: Abdullah al-Muhajir, was not read his Miranda rights as a citizen, nor provided access to an attorney. The military was apparently focused more on getting what they believed then, and now, to be an al Qaeda operative off the street and out of business. Within the civil court system, there is little doubt he would have beat the charge because of the procedural mistakes.

The Bush administration undoubtedly understood their dilemma from the beginning, and decided that public safety demanded that Padilla somehow be put out of business — so, they pushed the envelope, labeled him an “enemy combatant,” and locked him up in Guantanamo.

While the NY Times went off on Bush, the Wall Street Journal took a different position. While certainly not excusing the procedural errors made when Padilla was apprehended, the WSJ editors also criticized the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd that has pretended the civil justice system is sufficient to handle today’s war on terror. It is not.

In a capture situation, even if that happens to be on American soil, it’s impractical to assume that at the moment our army, marines, CIA, etc. nab one or more would-be terrorists that they will ask if any happen to be American citizens, read a terrorist suspect their Miranda rights and be sure to get them a lawyer before they interrogate them. If intelligence suggests that a terrorist plot is “going down” it is likely – and fully understandable – that immediate interrogation is going to happen in the interest of saving lives.

No doubt training will limit future procedural mistakes like what happened with Padilla, but it won’t work perfectly. And, with Americans turned jihadist like Padilla and Richard Reid, the real debate should move from Bush bashing to emphasis on training our own operatives to work within the law. And most importantly, we shoudl at reforming the law to allow for the apprehension, detention, and conviction of people like Padilla who would kill innocent Americans.

Fortunately we’ve moved beyond the Wild, Wild West days when there would have been a sham trial before immediately stringing up the accused bad guy from the nearest tree. But, there should be no suggestions that America is more secure by defending a process that would put Padilla look-alikes back on the street. Some may think that is “justice” for Padilla, but it wouldn’t be for the innocent victims that would be targets of his madness. It is one of the vulnerabilities of the American culture that the jihadists seek to exploit.

There is tremendous national outrage at a judicial system that continually seems to favor the criminal and endanger the innocent. Most recently was the triple murder case in New Jersey by Jose Carranza, an illegal alien in the U.S. from Peru. Carranza allegedly robbed and then murdered execution style three Delaware State University enrollees in New Jersey on August 4, 2007 and critically wounded a fourth. He was out on bail even though he had been charged with aggravated assault and weapons charges last April. Literally hours before the heinous murders, Carranza made bail on another criminal charge of 31 separate counts including “raping a 5-year-old girl and then threatening the child and her parents.” Now comes the outrage asking why the “system” failed to protect the innocent.

Padilla allegedly would have killed far more innocent people than Carranza. Doesn’t it make sense to keep the likes of him off the street? A Line of Sight thinks it does.

Instead of defending the rights of terrorists and thugs, and enjoying the blood sport of kicking President Bush around, the media should be blaring at lawmakers to fix a system that protects the bad guys and endangers innocent victims. We are a nation of laws, and we should give those that take an oath to protect us the means to do their job in today’s world.

Bush and Ashcroft weren’t the bad guys — Jose Padilla was. Yes, the administration blurred the lines. Yes, they never took him to court on the dirty bomb charge they used to detain him in the first place. Yes, they finally came up with enough evidence on different charges they could convict him with within the court system. And, yes, they kept him off our streets.

The parents of those college kids wish someone would have kept Carranza off the streets, too. So does an outraged Newark, NJ community and much of the nation. But, the system failed them.

We ought to fix a system like that.