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.
those kinds of interventions by police forces - arresting people before the crimes are actually committed, are rare. let's face it, our justice system is, in almost all cases, prosecuting people post-facto of the crimes being committed.
judicial opinions are just that - opinions of the judge making the ruling at the time, they hold no special weight when considering what is right or wrong.
the witnesses who put most of organized crime away have similar backgrounds. what was Padilla doing in Pakistan? vacationing?
as was pointed out up thread - the citizen the CIA blew away in Yemen (or the Sudan, I forget) with a missile - did we violate his rights? he certainly was not afforded the normal rights a citizen criminal suspect is. so what should have happened there?
I see, you are the true thinking conservative - not Scalia.
Yeaaaaaah, I see.
(not)
It might not be popular with some, but the Constitution places ALL warfighting decisions in the hands of the President.
Better not elect someone you don't trust. In the meantime, you're stuck with the guy you've got.
If he says to try someone as a captured enemy combatant, then we better try that someone as a captured enemy combatant.
The alternative is to dismantle your defense system.
As much as I hated what happened to those folks at Waco, I don't for a moment think they had no part to play in their own demise.
All the little Nancy boys on the Fourth are upset that after three--errr--two picks by Bush for the High Court they've yet to make a showin'
"We held a guy for five months, cleared him, dropped in the middle of freaking Macedonia with no ID and no money. WHOOPS, just got it wrong, my bad. We've got some Chinese guys down at Gitmo that we ADMIT have done nothing wrong (they, too, went to Pakistan, btw). We're still holding them, because we don't know what to do with them, but they've been there for YEARS, and we have no reason why - none. And we admit that."
I have read everything you have written on this thread up to this post. Regarding crime, you are absolutely correct on everything. The only problem is, this is not crime, this is WAR. There is a difference. When it comes to war, the primary authority on how to handle people captured in war is the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions state that a person captured on the battle field can be held for the duration of the war.
"if Osama Bin Laden landed on a plane at OHare airport tomorrow night, would you give him a civilian trial? what would you do with him?"
Shoot first and ask questions later.
give the SCOTUS a few months - they will be reading him his miranda rights.
And none of those I referenced were captured on any battlefield.
"And none of those I referenced were captured on any battlefield."
First of all, you started talking about Jose Padilla. How can you, after September 11th 2001 not claim that an airport in the USA is not a battle field? You also referenced some chinese that are at Gitmo. The only people sent to Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan or Iraq. Those are 2 more battle fields. I don't know about your story about the person who was dropped in Macedonia, but I would not be surprised if you are believing a story that is not on the up and up. There are a lot of people who want to believe that this WAR can be fought in a criminal court room or the court of public opinion and several have been proven liars.
Perish the thought! I just meant that the plot could reach treason without being fully implemented, not that an actual treasonous act didn't have to occur.
Blackstone is the source Marshall and I are both turning to. We're all saying the same thing.
Say, that nuclear monitoring puts Scalia in a bind doesn't it? He either approves of the President using his inherent authority to override a constitutional right or he rewrites Kyllo! Of course he may find Fifth Amendment rights "more equal" than the Fourth's.
Seriously, a war in the US really brings us to the muscle and bone of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment doctrine's "new federalism" takes away a lot of the Founders' decisions on what to do (but I'm the only one beating that horse LOL!).
Well, Merry Christmas to you and God bless you and yours and all of us!
Execellent links, especially the Padilla case history and associated documents.
I'm sure it depends on the person, not just the battlefield designation. Civilians are typically not detained as POW's, for example, and enemy who are not wearing uniform (e.g., spies) can be summarily executed.
Airports are battlefields? LOL. So is Ground Zero then, I suppose.
I don't know about your story about the person who was dropped in Macedonia, but I would not be surprised if you are believing a story that is not on the up and up.
I think the reference is to Khaled Masri (aka El-Masri).
HEY DEMOCRATS! Ask these Americans what they think about wire taps on Al Qaeda?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549000/posts
Ground Zero? A battlefield? They only attacked it twice.
Yeah - but I've been there since then, and in many airports since then. Did that make me a "person on a battlefield" in the meaning intended to justify incarceration of belligerants? I think not, and your implication that Padilla's presence at an airport makes him "on a battlefield" is laughable.
FoxNews reports that SCOTUS has permitted the transfer to civilian court, requested by the administration.
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.