'Enemy Combatants' Cases Go Before Supreme Court

AP ^ | Apr 28 2004

[george wythe]

A former Chicago gang member and the son of an oil industry worker from Saudi Arabia -- both American citizens -- are the subjects of the Supreme Court's most far-reaching review to date of individual rights and liberties in a time of terrorism and war.

The court is hearing arguments Wednesday in back-to-back cases -- relating to Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla -- in an effort to address the debate over national security versus civil liberties during the war on terrorism. Both men are suspects in terrorism cases.

A Bush administration lawyer argued Wednesday the president has broad authority to detain terrorism suspects as "unlawful enemy combatants" without trial -- to keep them from returning to "the field of battle."

But a lawyer for one of the Americans argued Bush has gone too far by jailing citizens indefinitely and denying them access to lawyers and courts.

One of the justices asked if the president was granted detention power when Congress approved the use of military force shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The administration's lawyer argued Congress signed off on the broader powers.

The lawyer replied that Congress didn't intend for "widespread, indefinite detentions." He said if that were the case, Americans could be locked up all over the country without their cases being heard.

The Bush administration won its arguments in lower courts in the Hamdi case but lost a federal appeals court fight in the Padilla case.

[cake_crumb]

They'll rule against holding them.

[Defiant]

If the Supreme Court interferes with the conduct of the war by the Commander in Chief, the White House should tell the Supreme Court to pound sand. Telling them who they can take as prisoners in a war is the same as telling them what targets they can hit, what tactics they can use, etc. It would be an overreach, and Bush ought to send that signal, so they don't try it and cause a constitutional crisis.

[george wythe]

From another version of the story

Padilla was arrested two years ago in Chicago on suspicion of plotting to detonate a radioactive bomb. He was first placed in custody of civilian authorities, but was transferred to military detention in June 2002.

In legal filings, the Bush administration said it has unilateral authority to order enemy combatant seizures and detentions, even inside the United States, but added that Congress also signed off on that course. Congress approved use of military force a week after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

[george wythe]

They'll rule against holding them.

I'm wondering why Jihad Johnny was not declared an enemy combatant, even after he was caught red-handed in Afghanistan.

Jihad Johnny got lawyers and due process, while Padilla and Hamdi are not even allowed a basic military hearing to establish whether they are enemy combatants.

[GrandEagle]

who they can take as prisoners in a war
This is NOT about POW's - Specifically not about them.

[GrandEagle]

if the president was granted detention power
It matters not, even the Congress has no authority to grant these powers. If you are arrested in the United States, the government has no choice how to handle it.
However, if captured on the battlefield, the Court has no authority to interfere.

[NJ_gent]

"f the Supreme Court interferes with the conduct of the war by the Commander in Chief,"

The President's power as Commander in Chief is not unlimited. Martial law has not been declared, Padilla has not enlisted in the US armed forces, and he was arrested by civilian authorities in an area which is not even arguably an active zone of combat devoid of civilian authority, which is the rule of thumb for legally declared Martial law.

"the White House should tell the Supreme Court to pound sand."

Just how would it be helpful for the White House to do this when the Supreme Court could simply order Federal Marshals to take control of the Brig holding Padilla? You really want to see a shootout on American soil between Navy MPs and Federal Marshals? I don't. W could kiss the '04 election goodbye the moment that footage hits CNN.

"Telling them who they can take as prisoners in a war is the same as telling them what targets they can hit, what tactics they can use, etc. "

They're not telling the President what prisoners may be taken, merely reaffirming the right to due process which exists for American citizens. You can lock Padilla up, but you must give him the opportunity to prove that you've got the wrong guy. If he fails to do so (which I suspect he would), then you get to try him in a military tribunal or what have you. The key is, he must get a trial, for all of our sakes.

[Core_Conservative]

if captured on the battlefield, the Court has no authority to interfere.

I agree with this statement. Where is the battlefield? It is everywhere, including the United States, as we were attacked on our soil, that makes these "gentlemen" enemy combatants in my book!

[cake_crumb]

I believe it was because of the media circus preemption, in an attempt to slap him on the wrist, tell him never to do anything like that again, and let him go free....also he did a deal for information.

[Alberta's Child]

The Supreme Court ought to put a stop to this immediately -- at least with regard to U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil.

If you think the Bush administration's policy in these two cases is a good idea, realize this: It's not a stretch to imagine a Democratic administration labeling anti-abortion protesters "enemy combatants" under any number of Federal statutes and locking them up permanently.

[george wythe]

If President Hillary declares you an enemy combatant, than you will be OK with it, right?

No access to lawyers, no access to any courts (mililary or civilian), not even a basic military hearing to establish whether you are in fact an enemy combatant.

Just send Core_Conservative to prison for life, because Hillary says so.

[GrandEagle]

Where is the battlefield?
I really do understand, however this is a VERY dangerous thing to tamper with. Our Constitution has served us well through many wars and difficult times. I would rather stick with it. The assumption is that without ignoring the Constitution we can not arrest and prosecute these guys.

[Core_Conservative]

President Hillary

Time to move - declared an enemy combatant? Shoot first, second...etc until I run out of ammo, or I die!

[cake_crumb]

You make an excellent point. The first name that popped into my head was Bill Clinton in relation to Waco. However, there's a big difference between a dirty bomb and an anti abortion protestor. The battlefield IS here, at least in part. It started here.

[NJ_gent]

"The battlefield IS here, at least in part. It started here."

Is the civilian authority intact, and are the courts able to operate? If so, the requirements for Martial Law have not been met. I agree these are more dangerous times than most of us can remember, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our roots in liberty and justice. In 1812, we were not only invaded; Washington DC was burned to the ground. Yet even then, no official took the position that citizens could be plucked off the street and detained indefinitely with no opportunity to prove their innocence.

US soil may indeed be called a "battlefield", but unless and until we have an absence of the rule of law, we should not pretend as though we do.

[Alberta's Child]

However, there's a big difference between a dirty bomb and an anti abortion protestor.

You and I might think so, but if you believe that your government will think so I think you are being terribly naive.

"All governments are corrupt."
--- radical leftist lawyer William Kunstler

[NJ_gent]

" Time to move - declared an enemy combatant? Shoot first, second...etc until I run out of ammo, or I die!"

How valiant... One thing, however - nobody yelled, "hey Padilla! Get over here, you're an enemy combatant!". What they did do is have FBI agents arrest him. That conversation went more along the lines of, "Mr Padilla? We have a material witness warrant authorizing your arrest". This occurred at an airport. You're going to bring your arsenal of firepower into the airport with you? You're going to shoot any police officer or FBI agent who questions you or tries to place you under arrest? Padilla wasn't declared an enemy combatant until after he was in jail. Good luck getting guns and ammo into jail with you.

[george wythe]

President Hillary

Time to move

Our rule of law must prevail, whether we have a Democratic or Republican President.

The genius of our constitutional democracy is that it has survived rogue and corrupt presidents. The rule of law cannot depend on a specific man or woman.

I'm not moving anywhere. This is my country, and I will die here.

[Modernman]

Time to move - declared an enemy combatant? Shoot first, second...etc until I run out of ammo, or I die!

Why let it get to that point? I'm not sure that giving every American who is accused of being an illegal combatant a trial is necessary. However, at the very least, an American accused of this should have a chance to go in front of a court to make the government show (1) that they have the right guy (i.e. "I'm not Jose Padilla, he's my neighbor and you guys raided the wrong house.") and (2) that the person is in fact an illegal combabtant (i.e "Yes, I'm Jose Padilla, but I'm not a terrorist- my identity was stolen.")