Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/9/2005 11:41:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 12:17:44 PM EDT by thompsondd]
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aeUXbHzu7XHU&refer=us


Bush Administration Wins Appeal in Jose Padilla Case (Update2)

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen it determines to be an enemy combatant in the war on terrorism, a federal appeals court ruled.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously ruled against Jose Padilla, the only U.S. citizen now held as an enemy combatant. Padilla, jailed for three years without a trial, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and was recruited by al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks inside the U.S., the administration says. Today's decision reverses a federal judge's ruling that he can't be held without trial.

``We conclude that the president does possess such authority,'' which was granted by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the court said.

Padilla, a Muslim convert and former gang member, was arrested in Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in May 2002. He was designated an enemy combatant by President George W. Bush one month later and was sent to a Navy jail in South Carolina, where he remains. The Bush administration says such detentions are necessary to prevent terrorism in the U.S.

A federal judge ruled in March that the U.S. must charge Padilla with a crime or release him within 45 days. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at the time that the U.S. has the right to hold suspects in the war on terrorism ``for the duration of hostilities.''

The case is a test of the government's power to detain U.S. citizens without trial and will return to the Supreme Court, according to Andrew Patel, a lawyer for Padilla.

Appeal

``An appeal is certain,'' Patel said in an interview from his office in New York today. ``We think the appeals court decision is incorrect, and we think it is contrary to what the Supreme Court said'' in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi.

Hamdi, the only other U.S. citizen ever held as an enemy combatant, was released and flown to Saudi Arabia last year. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Hamdi could challenge his detention in U.S. courts or before a ``neutral decisionmaker,'' including a military tribunal.

Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Virginia in Richmond, said the success of an appeal by Padilla to the Supreme Court will hinge on whoever replaces retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Swing Vote

If Judge John G. Roberts is confirmed as chief justice, ``he would likely vote'' to uphold presidential power as the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist did in the Hamdi case, making O'Connor's replacement the swing vote, Tobias said.

Bush initially nominated Roberts to replace O'Connor but then named him to become chief justice after Rehnquist died Sept. 3. Roberts's confirmation hearings before the Senate begin Sept. 12.

Today's appeals court opinion was written by Judge Michael Luttig, considered to be on Bush's shortlist of candidates to replace O'Connor.

Luttig wrote that, given the facts in the case, Padilla ``unquestionably'' qualifies as an enemy combatant and that the court could discern no difference between Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil, and Hamdi, a U.S. citizen captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

``Padilla maintains that capture on a foreign battlefield was one of the `narrow circumstances' to which the plurality in Hamdi confined its opinion. We disagree,'' Luttig said. ``Padilla poses the same threat of returning to the battlefield as Hamdi,'' he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it is ``disappointed'' with today's decision.

``Contrary to the court's opinion, there is very little reason to believe that Congress either anticipated or endorsed the military detention of U.S. citizens arrested in the U.S.,'' the ACLU said in a statement. ``So long as the civilian courts are open and functioning, American citizens arrested in the U.S. are entitled to due process protections.''

The case is Padilla v. Hanft, 05-6396.



Link Posted: 9/9/2005 11:46:06 AM EDT
I don't see this as good news, sorry.

What happens when Hillary decides our little club here is full of "enemy combatants".

We have a trial by jury for a reason, if we give the President power to detain people he considers dangerous, it will eventually be misused.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 11:48:59 AM EDT
Where is the victory Here?

If you support the 2nd amendment then you must also support 6th.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 11:49:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
I don't see this as good news, sorry.

What happens when Hillary decides our little club here is full of "enemy combatants".

We have a trial by jury for a reason, if we give the President power to detain people he considers dangerous, it will eventually be misused.




+1. Not good news at all. Sure, they have good intentions now, but it can always grow beyond its intended use.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 11:55:09 AM EDT
Dang, a lot of terrorist fans here I see.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:10:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Dang, a lot of terrorist fans here I see.




No, idiot, lots of fans of the Bill of Rights.

Padilla, no matter how much of a shithead, is a citizen, was apprehended on U.S. soil, and deserves his day in court to face his accusers.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:17:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By resq944:
Where is the victory Here?

If you support the 2nd amendment then you must also support 6th.




I guess my ironic sense of humor was lost in the translation somewhere. I looked at it as MORE of our rights going downhill.

What's next, gun confirsation?

Sorry, it's been a long week.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:21:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thompsondd:

Originally Posted By resq944:
Where is the victory Here?

If you support the 2nd amendment then you must also support 6th.




I guess my ironic sense of humor was lost in the translation somewhere. I looked at it as MORE of our rights going downhill.

What's next, gun confirsation?

Sorry, it's been a long week.



aah, I was wondering. I was kind of surprised you were happy about this. Yes it is worrisome.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:24:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Dang, a lot of terrorist fans here I see.



Yes, line me up right behind George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and the rest of our founding fathers who supported the BoR.

That man deserves his day in court then he can be sentenced for his crimes. If we can't convict him of a crime, he needs to be let go.

The rule of law is all we have, relying on the will of whoever happens to be President is foolish.

Lincoln is often criticized for similar actions during the Civil War.



Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:27:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 12:28:37 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]

Originally Posted By magnum_99:

Originally Posted By raven:
Dang, a lot of terrorist fans here I see.




No, idiot, lots of fans of the Bill of Rights.

Padilla, no matter how much of a shithead, is a citizen, was apprehended on U.S. soil, and deserves his day in court to face his accusers.




Double tap.

Look beyond the circumstances & see the potential long-term consequences. It's about the power vested in the office. Too much is being given away for the sake of temporary "safety". Not worth it. Ever. This site & all of its membership would go under the looking-glass, & very well could be if the next president is of that mindset.

Never forget it was the FBI & CIA that screwed up & let us get hit. Didn't have to happen. They were warned by the flight school instructor who was concerned about the situation. PC FBI central yawned at the field office (who apparently wanted to look into it) & told them to let the matter go. So they did. You know the rest: our gov't got more power for screwing up.

Hold onto those guns really tight.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:06:21 PM EDT
If this guy was from 3rd world shitostan, I wouldn't care if they locked him up and never got around to trying him; however this is an American citizen, and no matter how distasteful his actions may be, he deserves a day in court just like the rest of us.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:11:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 1:12:57 PM EDT by napalm]

Originally Posted By resq944:
Where is the victory Here?

If you support the 2nd amendment then you must also support 6th.




Yep.



On the one hand, I'm happy that this scum-sucking piece of terrorist shit isn't walking around free in our society.

On the other hand, I recognize the danger that this poses for the liberties of all Americans.

I'm not happy giving up essential liberties for the illusion of security.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 6:24:59 AM EDT
Today it's Padilla for being a terrorist, tomorrow it's Austin O'Dwyer for making terroristic threats.....

Anybody who cheers this needs because "Padilla's a scumbag terr" needs to realize that it ain't that far a stretch from Padilla to YOU in the name of "well, ___ could be the next Timothy McVeigh. He owns lotsa guns and ammo and rants on the internet. Nobody needs three AR15s and 2000 rounds of ammo unless they are about to start a WAR!"
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 6:30:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:
Today it's Padilla for being a terrorist, tomorrow it's Austin O'Dwyer for making terroristic threats.....

Anybody who cheers this needs because "Padilla's a scumbag terr" needs to realize that it ain't that far a stretch from Padilla to YOU in the name of "well, ___ could be the next Timothy McVeigh. He owns lotsa guns and ammo and rants on the internet. Nobody needs three AR15s and 2000 rounds of ammo unless they are about to start a WAR!"



a great big +1
Top Top