Appeals court reverses lower court ruling in ’dirty bomb’ suspect case

AP Wire

[Brian Mosely]

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday sided with the Bush administration and reversed a judge’s order that the government charge or free “dirty bomb” suspect Jose Padilla.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with al Qaeda.

U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd in Spartanburg, S.C., ruled in March that the government cannot hold Padilla indefinitely as an “enemy combatant,” a designation President Bush gave him in 2002. The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States, including with a “dirty bomb” radiological device.

[Dan(9698)]

Gitmo detainees are not eligible for POW status because we are not at war.

You misunderstand. The reason they are not eligible for POW status is because they are covered by the definitions and rules of the Geneva Convention.

Under the Law of War, different categories of prisoners are clearly defined and who falls into each category.

To categorize them as POWs would be a violation of the Geneva Convention.

It has nothing at all to do with the wording of the authorization of war, or "necessary force" that was passed by Congress.

Congress can go at any time and rescind the authorization or refuse to fund it. They just can't change the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and call an Unlawful Combatant a Prisoner of War.

[Dan(9698)]

Does O'Hare airport count as US soil? Or is that a port of entry?

Because that's where Padilla (why are we not using his Muslim name?) was picked up.

It doesn't have as much to do with where he was captured, as why was he coming into the country.

Under civil law, you must wait until an overt action is taken.

Under the Law of War, enemy combatants may be captured before they do anything bad.

He entered the country to do reconnaissance work. That makes him an enemy combatant. He did not comply with the requirements of the Geneva Convention in how he was identifiable, and so he is a unlawful enemy combatant.

Under the Geneva Convention, he is a spy. If he was attempting to blow things up, he is a saboteur.

In any event, what he was doing was not necessarily a violation of civil law, so he cannot be charged with that.

What he did and was doing was a violation of the Law of War and the Geneva Convention, which is prosecuted by Military Commission.