Appeals Court Refuses to Transfer Padilla

Associated Press ^ | December 21, 2005 | Toni Locy

[DBeers]

Good explanation -thank you.

[TChris]

OK, that makes sense. I'm guessing that the existing SCOTUS would love to give GWB a nice smack across the face in a 5-4 decision blowing American citizen "enemy combatant" status out of the water, historical support and precious SCOTUS stare decisis notwithstanding.

[lugsoul]

If he will walk in a trial, he shouldn't be in jail for years. I'm amazed how many folks here feel differently, but we shouldn't be jailing people for what we think - but can't prove - they did, or for what we think they might do.

[lugsoul]

That's a good idea. We should kill him because you have heard enough in the press to know he should die.

[mrsmith]

"In a sharp rebuke"

... to the Supremne Court!

I feel very safe in saying that he wants this important issue decided- one way or the other. He would probably support the administration from his remarks on Hamdi (like any constitutionalist would LOL!). But whatever the outcome he feels all the branches of the government need their feet held to the fire- and he's just the man to do it, bless him.

...and that no one should mess around with the Fourth District.

[ndt]

"If he will walk in a trial, he shouldn't be in jail for years."

I'm disturbed on a couple of conflicting levels with this whole thing.

If there is evidence that Padilla was planning on setting off a dirty bomb, last I checked, that was a criminal offense, why not try and convict him?

If there was evidence that Padilla was planning on setting off a dirty bomb, why would you try him on a lesser charge that will allow him to walk in the not so distant future?

If there *was not* reasonable evidence that Padilla was planning on setting off a dirty bomb, then why was he disappeared for 3 years?

[mrsmith]

"happy right now that he picked Alito, and not Luttig,"

Luttig's remarks have been very favorable towards the administration's view of it's detention power in war.

The Supreme Court and the congress have just been avoiding this issue, now the administration wants to avoid it too. Good for Luttig for trying to put some spine into our public servants.

[jwalsh07]

Good on Luttig.

[lugsoul]

Looks like a good opinion to me.

Either they can justify holding him as an EC, or they can't. If they can't, I hope this guy gets a time credit for whatever sentence he gets in the civilIAN (it ain't civil) case.

That's not a pro-terrorist opinion, though from everything I've heard about this guy he's pretty lame as terrorists go. But the idea that our government can just grab a citizen and hold them for years without ever having to prove to anyone why they are doing so is repugnant.

[lugsoul]

I truly hope the answer to your last question isn't necessary, because if it is, I'm pretty sure the answer is because our government thinks it can do whatever it wants. And it thinks that because so many allow it. Cheer it, in fact.

[oceanview]

he would have been tried by military tribunal in a prompt manner, had the US courts not stuck their hand into the mix. he was in jail for years because of the delays and appeals preventing his tribunal.

we can "prove" it - you want to let the ACLU depose KSM and Zubayda in Poland? That's the government's problem with this case.

[jwalsh07]

"The district court acknowledged the need to defer to the President’s determination that Padilla’s detention is necessary and appropriate in the interest of national security. See id. at 179. However, we believe that the district court ultimately accorded insufficient deference to that determination, effectively imposing upon the President the equivalent of a least-restrictive-means test. To subject to such exacting scrutiny the President’s determination that criminal prosecution would not adequately protect the Nation’s security at a very minimum fails to accord the President the deference that is his when he acts pursuant to a broad delegation of authority from Congress, such as the AUMF.

As for Padilla’s attempted distinction of Quirin on the grounds that, unlike Haupt, he has never been charged and tried by the military, the plurality in Hamdi rejected as immaterial the distinction between detention and trial (apparently regarding the former as a lesser imposition than the latter), noting that "nothing in Quirin suggests that [Haupt’s United States] citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities."

124 S. Ct. at 2640 (emphasis added).

Luttig.

[CatoRenasci]

Well, he's just sealed the fact that if Ginsberg or one of the other libs on the court retire, he won't be nominated....

[lugsoul]

we can "prove" it

Do you have some basis for knowing this other than simply accepting whatever you are told by the government?

If our standard is simply that we'll believe whatever the government tells us, why have any kind of trial or tribunal at all?

[oceanview]

see post 31. do you understand what the rules of evidence are in a regular criminal trial? that's what we would need to give Padilla if he wins the right to a civil trial, and the government knows it cannot function under those rules. they indicted him on the lesser charge because on that charge, they feel they can bring evidence into open court that will not compromise national security - like letting the ACLU depose KSM in Poland (or wherever he is now).

Do you think the government just accidently picked up the wrong guy at OHare airport one night, and has been holding him and litgating this for years just for the hell of it?

[oceanview]

so they invented all of this stuff? the trips to Pakistan, the intercepts, the intelligence of the meetings Padilla had with AQ? they just walked into OHare airport one night and picked up some innocent dude at the baggage carousel?

[oceanview]

Padilla does deserve a hearing on the facts of his case - I have never said otherwise. he deserves a miltary tribunal, he has since day one. if the federal courts would get their damn hands off this case, he could have it.

in any case, you are going to get your wish on this case - the SCOTUS will grant him a civilian trial, he will not be indicted on the dirty bomb charges because the government cannot produce the wintesses and evidence required in civilian court to convict him of that. if they don't get him on these lesser charges - he walks.

[Sandy]

so they invented all of this stuff?

Maybe, maybe not. Determining the facts is why we have trials. The guy is presumed innocent, not guilty. You have it backwards.

[ndt]

"do you understand what the rules of evidence are in a regular criminal trial? that's what we would need to give Padilla if he wins the right to a civil trial, and the government knows it cannot function under those rules."

You mean those pesky laws that are intended to prevent innocent people from being summarily detained and wrongly convicted? Yes, I have heard of those.

"they indicted him on the lesser charge because on that charge, they feel they can bring evidence into open court that will not compromise national security"

If he is truly the threat that the administration presented him as then they should gladly take this to the Supreme Court.

After 3 years what secrets are left? It's not like his former associates don't now he has been busted. Please explain to me why, after 3 years of following up on any leads gained from his detention, the government is not capable of trying him under those rules.

"Do you think the government just accidently picked up the wrong guy at OHare airport one night, and has been holding him and litgating this for years just for the hell of it?"

Do I think so? I sure as hell hope not, but you know, that is utterly impossible to answer one way or another, if the evidence is never presented.

[Sandy]

Scalia v Thomas. Can't wait to see how this turns out.