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.
another very good example - we can't be at war with these people in the Sudan, but at OHare airport we aren't.
the whole thing is screwed up.
Mere plotting isn't treason, but I think that principle is more accurately stated that something has to be actually done to advance the treasonous plot. It doesn't have to be carried to fruition to be treason.
I assume that would be true in state trials too since it's an english law "thing" (as you know I'm no lawyer- I have run across the concept in historical accounts).
You really should read Luttigs opinion. You're straying quite far afield of the facts as presented in that opinion.
Hey, I always like it when you agree with me. Somewhat less when you disagree but I can take it. LOL
rereading now. Thanks for the heads up.
so if John Walker had done the same things he did on the battlefield, and made it from the battlefield to an airport in Pakistan, and flown to OHare, would his status have changed?
"so if John Walker had done the same things..."
It would be much harder to prove yes. That is what we are talking about here (among other things), the ability to prove allegations. That is the entire reason for trials.
Why weren't treason/sedition laws as in Title 18 used against a US citizen in this case? It seems obvious that he is not an enemy combatant?
I think it does have to be carried to fruition, or at least that was a requirement way back in the Marshall Court days.
I do not agree that any courts have jurisdiction in the prosecution of a war.
If the people have a problem with the way the executive is prosecuting a war, they should take it up with their elected representatives.
Interpreting the constitution as a suicide pact is believing that your rights are so freaking sacred that they should be given deference to in every circumstance, no matter how extreme, even if the practical result is the death of citizens or soldiers at the hands of our enemies.
"You really should read Luttigs opinion."
I see what your getting at, but keep in mind that this is based on the governments statement of fact, which very well might be 100% correct. Then again it might not.
Collateral estoppel has NOTHING to do with how you argue two different cases.
It DOES apply the principle that, once an issue has been litigated and judgement made, it cannot be re-litigated as though the prior judgement never occurred. It normally applies to the facts of the case, not the interpretation of the law. E.g., the appeal of a criminal case does NOT ( normally ) re-argue the facts established at trial; it ( normally ) addresses procedural issues and rulings, how the law was applied to the facts, the appropriateness of the decision or outcome, and so forth.
Collateral estoppel does not prevent an appeal of the decision to a higher court, or prevent a party from asking the judge for reargument or a revised decision. It is an efficiency rule meant to save judicial resources by avoiding the relitigation of issues of fact that have already been actually litigated. The rule is also intended to protect defendants from the inequity of having to defend the same lawsuit repeatedly.
[ The above is largely paraphrased from Web sources; I'm NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one here or elsewhere. ]
While I sympathise with those who are frustrated by this decision, I don't see any other way it could have gone, as a matter of law. Taken independently, the Government's position in either instance is defensible. Taken all at once by the Appeals Court, you get this outcome.
The Government doesn't want to BE in a Civil Court WHILE at war to decide an issue strictly pertinent to the conduct of the war. The Civil Courts aren't equipped to deal with issues pertinent to the conduct of this ( or ANY ) war. This has been demonstrated repeatedly.
The issue ISN'T the merits of the Government's case as much as the appropriateness of the venue.
Leave him in military custody. Send him to Abu Grahib.
This just shows why judges should have no role in the war on terror.
You know, if Padilla had not been a gang member, I might give a damn. Fry him.
No we should kill him because he is collecting and sending money to terrorists. I realise you liberal folks dont believe anyone would do such a thing , but it happens.
Do you realy believe this clown returned from Afghanistan to come home and lead a life of peace?
I have some land for sale if you are interested.
I know that; but this involves the same case.
[ The above is largely paraphrased from Web sources; I'm NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one here or elsewhere.]
That's good to know. Last thing we need is another lawyer who doesn't undestand collateral estoppel.
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.