Court Rules U.S. Can Indefinitely Detain Citizens

Washington Post ^ | 09/09/05 | Jerry Markon

[Pikamax]

Court Rules U.S. Can Indefinitely Detain Citizens Ruling Comes in the Case of 'Enemy Combatant' Jose Padilla

By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 9, 2005; 10:39 AM

A federal appeals court ruled today that the president can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in the absence of criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. The government contends that Padilla trained at al Qaeda camps and was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the United States.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has been held without trial in a U.S. naval brig for more than three years, and his case triggered a legal battle with vast implications for civil liberties and the fight against terrorism.

Attorneys for Padilla and a host of civil liberties organizations blasted the detention as illegal and said it could lead to the military being allowed to hold anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library.

[Patrick1]

The liberals make poor defense lawyers for Islamo Fascists.

[commonerX]

(0)

[Borges]

I recall Judge Napolitano explaining why he agreed with the earlier ruling. The implications of this are disquieting.

[YouPosting2Me]

"Court Rules U.S. Can Indefinitely Detain Citizens"

Isn't it called welfare?

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Can any lawyer out there tell me about this effect on habeas corpus+

[Ignatius J Reilly]

I'm not a lawyer, but I did spend a last night at a Holiday Inn so I'll chip in my bit. This is in effect a suspension of habeas corpus. As another poster mentioned the implications are somewhat disconcerting.

[GrandEagle]

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not much left

[jwalsh07]

Luttig and fellow travelers have concluded that there is no difference between Hamdi and Padilla, both are enemy combatants as well as citizens, and both can be held indefinitely based on the Congressional Authorization given to Bush.

I agree with Luttig.

[clee1]

I don't like this a bit.

He that trades freedom for security deserves neither.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

OK, so round up the race hustlers and MSM idiots, a more sane and gentler world would ocurr overnight.

[edcoil]

Didn't Abe Lincoln suspend habeas corpus during the civil war?

Afterwards it was restored. Guess we need to focus on when this will end.

[Kryptonite]

Federal prosecutors asserted that Bush not only had the authority to order Padilla's detention but that such power is essential to preventing attacks. In its ruling today, the 4th Circuit overturned a lower court and came down squarely on the government's side.

...

The decision by a three-judge panel was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who sources have said is under consideration by President Bush for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

SWEET! I've had Luttig as my #1 choice for the SCOTUS - hope Bush has the nads to do what is right.

[Jibaholic]

This is very, very bad.

We don't own guns for hunting or home defense, so why are so many conservatives fine with this?

[jwalsh07]

This is in effect a suspension of habeas corpus.

Any idea how much judicial review Padilla has had?

As another poster mentioned the implications are somewhat disconcerting.

Yes, removing enemy combatants from the battlefield is very disconcerting...

To the enemy.

[edcoil]

Has nothing to do with guns. Has to do with the government taking anti-americans into custody until the problem is over.

[Victor]

Good. Now indict the scumbag lawyers who even brought this case forward under charges of aiding and abetting the enemy.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

It may be OK with you to live in a country where the government can throw you in jail indefinetly without charges or a trial, call me crazy but I don't like the idea.

[Uncle Fud]

Has to do with the government taking anti-americans into custody until the problem is over.

That would be fine if we were fighting this war to win.

[jwalsh07]

Can any lawyer out there tell me about this effect on habeas corpus+

I'm not a lawyer, just a blue collar guy, but I think I can answer your question.

None. Padilla asked for and got judicial review. In this round he lost. Such is life.