Appeals Court Orders Jose Padilla released in 30 Days!

FOXCNN

[Dog]

Breaking...

[Lazamataz]

Great, I've always had an affinty for physical violence but its been scarce of late.

In the America you yearn for, there will be plenty to go around.

[oceanview]

well, we agree on that at least. you are making the point as to why its impossible to provide Padilla a trial, we all know these witnesses cannot appear or even be deposed by the shrill brooklyn lawyer that Padilla has. so what is the government supposed to do with Padilla? those arguing in favor of this decision, are essentially saying he should be released, which is likely also the real motive of the 5th column judges who made this ruling.

[Sandy]

No one has suspended the Great Writ. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 2. Padilla’s right to pursue a remedy through the writ would be meaningless if he had to do so alone. I therefore would extend to him the right to counsel as Chief Judge Mukasey did. See Padilla, 233 F. Supp. 2d at 599-609. At the hearing, Padilla, assisted by counsel, would be able to contest whether he is actually an enemy combatant thereby falling within the President’s constitutional and statutory authority.

Yup. Even the dissent disagrees with the government's position.

[Doc On The Bay]

AGREE! IF we're SURE this POS was planning to detonate a "Dirty Bomb" ANYWHERE--but we are having Trouble "Proving It 'Legally,'", then we SHOULD "Release Him!!"-- at 40,000ft over his "Place of Origin!," WITHOUT a Parachute!!

As we should "Release" the other "Combatants" in Cuba.

We are in a WARTIME Situation; the "Judiciary" has, apparently "Forgotten That Fact!!"

Our "OH-SO-Careful" Peacetime Judiciary haven't operated in a time when America was in MORTAL DANGER. They have FORGOTTEN that the "PRIME DIRECTIVE" is to "Preserve the Republic!"

They (The "Judiciary) Think that the (NEVER-Legitimized) UNSPECIFIED "Rights" of Aliens (Non-Citizens) TRUMP National Security in a Time When We are Under Attack by an Amourphous Foreign Enemy.

To Those of us who are US CITIZENS, the "Judiciary" is suffering a SERIOUS "BRAIN CRAMP!"

NON US CITIZENS are NOT "US CITIZENS,"--& are NOT subject to the Laws & Protections of our Constitution.

IF I Come from Tashkent with a Nuclear Bomb to Destroy the Supreme Court, I am NOT considered a "US Citizen!!"

SOMEHOW, the US JUDICIARY have FORGOTTEN WHO THEY WORK FOR!!

SIGH!

Doc

[Sandy]

Bottom line (from the opinion):

Based primarily on the plain language of the Non-Detention Act but also on its legislative history and the Supreme Court’s interpretation, we conclude that the Act applies to all detentions and that precise and specific language authorizing the detention of American citizens is required to override its prohibition. [emphasis mine]

[mrsmith]

Heck,even I agree he should have some access to an attorney.

What do you think of the ruling?
Their cite of Endo shows just how far they'll go to avoid the question at hand- how do you decide who is a combatant? Military detention is obviously a use of military force under the congressional resolution.

[John Valentine]

Patriot Act not part of the Padilla case, not even mentioned in pleadings, or decision.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Jonathan Turley was hailing the decision on CNN. Aaron Brown had that thang going where he could not stop smiling.

[JulieRNR21]

Here's another thread that will interest you......Ping

[Torie]

Since nobody "declares war" anymore in a formal sense, perhaps the court just that the "enemy combatant" exception is, and perhaps never was, needed for the reasonable protection of America, and therefore just blue penciled it.

It is all a bit of a legal mess, however, because in times of stress, one tends to want to let the government do what it must, come what may, since the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But when "wars" such as this one, appear to have the functional equivalent of a near perpetual time frame, perhaps some clearer rules need to be promulgated. One might feel a bit uncomfortable just putting someone in the can without a lawyer for indefinite periods, indeed periods that seem to have the prospect of stretching out as far as the eye can see.

Potus should go about promulgating some rather clearer procedures, so that SCOTUS will feel comfortable in putting this decision in the dumpster.

[Sandy]

Habeas has not been suspended

...which is essentially the court's point.

[Action-America]

This is just one small victory on the road to returning the US to Constitutional government and forcing Dubya to adhere to the limits of the Constitution, that he swore to protect and defend. But, much more needs to be done, to reign in Dubya and Ashcroft. There is still the possibility that this ruling may be overturned in the SCOTUS and there are still the many Constitutional abuses of the (ANTI)Patriot Act to deal with.

At least for now and in this one case, the Court has rightly restored our system of checks and balances, which are there to protect the people from a President, who would be King.

 

[Torie]

Lashing out out Bush personally, is really unnecessary. It is a policy and legal dispute, with folks on both sides acting in good faith. It will all be worked out in due course. I don't worry about rampant tyranny seizing America, because the American culture is inimical to that. That, rather than any law, is the reason I don't lose much sleep over these matters.

[Sandy]

What do you think of the ruling?

I think it's very interesting. The stuff regarding the Non-Detention Act as a response to the detentions of WW2 is something I wasn't familiar with. A most important point that the court makes is that the Non-Detention Act was non-existent during Quirin, yet nevertheless the President had Congressional authorization for the ww2 citizen detentions.

The court says Congress needs to pass specific legislation. I have no problem with that. I'm not done reading it though. I got sidetracked by this thread.

[jwalsh07]

which is essentially the court's point.

Its one point, IMBCO the more far reaching point is the encroachment on the executives powers to prosecute war within the borders of the US.

[Action-America]

It is a policy and legal dispute, with folks on both sides acting in good faith.

Good faith?

Gimme a break!

The 6th Amendment is written very clearly and should leave no doubt in even the mind of a school child, that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." If Dubya and Ashcroft are acting in good faith, then that implies that neither of them can comprehend that simple statement, which makes them out to be idiots. So which is it? Are they acting in good faith or are they idiots? Either way, they have no business in positions of power.

I don't worry about rampant tyranny seizing America, because the American culture is inimical to that.

I have just three things to say in regards to that ludicrous statement. The first two are, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. The third is that these two examples demonstrate that once we allow the government to subvert the Constitution, for any reason, even our American culture finds it almost impossible to turn back the clock.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."   --- James Madison

That's what we are seeing now. Whenever the government or anyone in it attempts to subvert the Constitution, every day that we allow to pass, before reversing that assault on our liberties, makes it that much tougher to reverse it and that much more unlikely that it will ever be reversed. I'm glad to see the court taking a stand for the Constitution at this time, so we can reverse this assault on our liberties, before it becomes so permanently enshrined in law, that our chances of reversing it will be as poor as our chances of reversing the the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Dubya and Ashcroft have to be stopped NOW or our children will have to face a future without these Constitutional protections and they will look back and know that it was us, who failed them, just like we know that our ancestors failed us in 1934.

 

[jwalsh07]

A most important point that the court makes is that the Non-Detention Act was non-existent during Quirin, yet nevertheless the President had Congressional authorization for the ww2 citizen detentions.

4001(a) post dates Quirin but the Joint Resolution post dates both and pesumably Congress considered that prior to the resolution.

Surely the language in the resolution referring to "all necessary and appropriate force" includes detention.

But even more to the point, Congress has had 18 months to reconsider and amend the reolution and has not done so. Evidently they are satisfied that President Bush is executing the war on terror within the parameters they set forth. <

[Torie]

You are just a worry wort. In the end, Americans will have the government they choose, with the checks and balances they choose, usurpative SCOTUS a distraction admittedly. I am confident that what Americans choose will not materially detract from this great and unique land of ours being a most agreeable place to live, not only for me, but for generations to come. That is the bottom line, and why, unlike you, I am not a worry wort. I trust the judgment of my fellow citizens overall, and over time, to effect reasonable responses to most pressing problems.

By the way, on a gun nut site, this is the first time I have heard mention of the Firearms Act of 1934. Oh, the horror.

[Torie]

I have not read the decision, and am just spamming here really. But if this case is purely statutory, then it is not particularly interesting. It will be dealt with, without much fuss. But there are Constitutional issues lurking out there, when it comes to perpetual wars. Trust me.

[jwalsh07]

Perhaps but this decision didn't make any attempt to address them and they had an opportunity to do so.

I'm thinking a court appointed lawyer to represent scumbags in habeas hearings while barring the Ninth Circuit from engaging in same. Whaddaya tink?