Appeals Court Refuses to Transfer Padilla

Associated Press ^ | December 21, 2005 | Toni Locy

[AntiGuv]

WASHINGTON - In a sharp rebuke, a federal appeals court denied Wednesday a Bush administration request to transfer terrorism suspect Jose Padilla from military to civilian law enforcement custody.

The three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused the administration's request to vacate a September ruling that gave President Bush wide authority to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without charges on U.S. soil.

The decision, written by Judge Michael Luttig, questioned why the administration used one set of facts before the court for 3 1/2 years to justify holding Padilla without charges but used another set to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last month.

Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts" by appearing to use the indictment of Padilla to thwart an appeal of the appeals court's decision that gave the president wide berth in holding enemy combatants.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport as he returned to the United States from Afghanistan. Justice and Defense Department officials alleged Padilla had come home to carry out an al-Qaida backed plot to blow up apartment buildings in New York, Washington or Florida.

[clawrence3]

Kill the terrorists before they kill us.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Since nuclear bombs will NEVER GO AWAY, what you you suggest we do?.

Uh how about smashing the networks and rounding up the people who are planning to do this type of thing. Of course that involves being proactive and aggressive in hunting down the cretins.

[SouthTexas]

Joe Wilson will testify. He had no problem the last time he outed another CIA agent.

[ndt]

"our criminal justice system is basically designed to deal with crime only after it has occurred"

I understand what you are saying and you are mostly correct. However, the crime begins to occur during the conspiracy phase that precedes the attack.

I am not nor have I argued that TWOT needs to be moved to a police matter. Only that in the cases that involve U.S. citizens, we need to follow the Constitution and rule of law.

I'm not sure when following the Constitution and rule of law became a controversial position.

[ndt]

"Kill the terrorists before they kill us."

hmmm, nice detailed strategy there.

[ndt]

"Uh how about smashing the networks and rounding up the people who are planning to do this type of thing. Of course that involves being proactive and aggressive in hunting down the cretins."

And where did I say NOT to be?

[oceanview]

when two planes flew into the world trade center.

[clawrence3]

I agree, and it is MILLIONS we are talking about (the top 50 most populous American cities account for more that 45 million people - how about even one "small" suitcase nuke in each one?)

[ndt]

"when two planes flew into the world trade center."

So you hold the position that we should ditch the Constitution due to 9/11?

[thoughtomator]

The short answer is that we are at war and at war you don't give information to the enemy. In WW2 this was known as "Loose lips sink ships." If the case is exposed to the discovery that is part of a civilian trial, we risk revealing to the enemy how we know what we know, and the extent of what we know - and also what we don't know (our weaknesses). Also, I think that the military is a more reliable servant of justice than is the corrupt civilian system.

[Valpal1]

It's isn't that they can't prove the charges, it's that they don't want to give up classified information, informants, methods or channels of intelligence in order to convict the sorry POS.

All that stuff goes public in a trial and then it's intelligence value is wasted or perhaps even putting informants lives at risk.

The courts should have MYODB in this case to begin with instead of their stupid meddling in military matters. I hope when push comes to shove, he tells the courts to enforce their own decisions.

[garbanzo]

IMHO, if you catch an American as a terrorist, just shoot him.

Yeah, let's get rid of the pesky and intrusive legislatures and courts of law and give the executive absolute power to make laws, determine who broke them, and carry out the sentences. And this on a website called "Free Republic", started to monitor corruption in government and misuse of power by the same.

[Sir_Humphrey]

So you hold the position that we should ditch the Constitution due to 9/11?

Not to fight Oceanviews battles, but just exactly where the F fid he say that?

[clawrence3]

Well, ndt, ONE such "detail" obviously includes allowing the NSA to find said terrorists and affiliates.

[ndt]

"I agree, and it is MILLIONS we are talking about"

A suitcase bomb, and if we are talking terrorists, not international missiles that is what we are talking about, has a yield of 10-20 tones of TNT. That is roughly equivalent in explosive power to the Oklahoma City bomb.

[oceanview]

we didn't "ditch" anything, we have exceptions when conditions warrant it under extraordinary circumstances. I see no evidence that the enemy combatant designation has been misused - hell, its hardly been used at all.

[clawrence3]

Agreed - Bush should order the transfer of Padilla immediately, and obviously Luttig should never get on the SCOTUS.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Only that in the cases that involve U.S. citizens, we need to follow the Constitution and rule of law.

I'd agree with that except that Taliban Johnny forfeited that protection when he took up arms against the US. I'd take it one step further, anybody forfeits those rights when they collaborate with the terrorists

[clawrence3]

50 "small" suitcase bombs will kill millions:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

Next question?

[Sir_Humphrey]

That is roughly equivalent in explosive power to the Oklahoma City bomb.

Whew, for a while there I tought we had something to be concerned about.