Posted on 12/21/2005 2:06:48 PM PST by 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.
I would support rendition of Mr. Padilla if that's the case.
Then the Bush Administration decided to try Padilla in a civilian court. Luttig is having none of that. I don't blame him since the Bush Administration supplied evidence and arguments attesting to Padillas status as an enemy combatant.
The risks are high that Padilla will never see the inside of a prison and that SCOTUS will overrule Luttig and friends which is why the Bush administration backed down and sought to change Padillas status.
Then, perhaps, Judge Luttig should have gone along with the Solicitor General on this one too?
Fine - whatever you say.
What the DoJ was trying to do was so indefensible, it wouldn't make any difference who heard the case. A party cannot take one position in a case and then take the complete opposite in another. It's called collateral estoppel.
Have you even read the Luttig opinion?! He stated very clearly that the government's two positions are NOT mutually exclusive.
And you would admire Luttig more if he had agreed with the administration's argument that Padilla was an enemy combatant, and then turned around and overturned his own decision by agreeing with the administrations new argument that he wasn't an enemy combatant and should be tried in the civil courts?
I.e. you would admire Luttig more if he took a results-oriented approach to the law? Sounds like you would get along just fine with Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, et al, who decide first what result they want, and then go backwards to concoct legal justifications for that result.
If you want results-oriented approaches, don't bother with the charade of using the courts...
Thats the story and in my view they should have stuck to it and seen it through. At worse, SCOTUS rules against them. Padilla can still be tried. And if the American people are dissatisfied with the outcome, Congress can pass laws regarding citizens who make war on Americans on the battlefield of New York or Afghanistan.
Personnally, I don't think it's necessary. Consider this. A group of citizens joins Al Qaeda. They make war on America. If they are simply criminals they can not be shot on sight. They have to be Mirandized and taken with minimal force. They then get court appointed attorneys paid for by loyal citizens. It's ridiculous.
And now consider this non hypothetical. An American citizen known to be in a car in the Sudan with fellow jihadists was killed by CIA guys firing a missile from a drone. According to the argument that he was a US citizen not engaged in direct conflict and thus a criminal entitled to rights, they committed murder. You think the SCOTUS will address that? I don't. So, one of two things is true. the rights of American citizens are dependent on geography or somebody is FOS.
It is the courts who are ditching the constitution or more correctly interpreting it as a suicide pact.
GWB isn't el presidente for life and is subject to impeachment by Congress should they feel he is in fact abusing his powers under the guise of national security.
Plain and simple, the courts should butt out, because we elect our leaders and can remove them and replace them at will. Once again, the courts are gathering power and authority to themselves and inserting themselves into politics as representatives and protectors of our rights.
It's bull squeeze. From the very beginning the courts should have shoved this question back at congress, saying the courts have no jurisdiction and if congress wants to do something about it, then congress should get busy.
I am praying that Scalia gets a clue and a dose of humility.
I would have admired Luttig more if he'd said, "This is executive branch execution of a war. The courts are out of their turf."
The administration can argue anyway they want, they can do handstands, because this case shouldn't be in the courts in the first place.
And that's what Luttig should be bright enough to see.
He was just trying to be nice. Read between the lines.
> I would support rendition of Mr. Padilla if that's the case.
"Rendition?" I'm not a lawyer. What is that? Rendering as unto pork rinds?
That about says it all. This lawyer agrees with you, FWIW. :)
I'm really thinking of treason in the "adhering to the enemy" sense rather than in the "levying war" sense. *Planning* to levy war (or *planning* to set off a dirty bomb or fly a plane into a building) wouldn't be considered as *actually* levying war, so it couldn't Constitutionally be considered treason.
al qaeda is a foreign military, and Padilla was a "member". he may not have been on a battle field in Afghanistan with them, but what difference does that make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.