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.

[jwalsh07]

"These facts unquestionably establish that Padilla poses the requisite threat of return to battle in the ongoing armed conflict between the United States and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and that his detention is authorized as a "fundamental incident of waging war," id., in order "to prevent a combatant’s return to the battlefield," id. Congress "clearly and unmistakably," id., authorized such detention when, in the AUMF, it "permitt[ed] the use of ‘necessary and appropriate force,’" id., to prevent other attacks like those of September 11, 2001." Luttig.

Which is why is pissed off.

[lugsoul]

That wouldn't be my cookies, that would be your cookies - indicating that you have registered at some time.

[ndt]

"no, they won't escape. Padilla's defense lawyers will have access to them. you know, like in a regular trial. do you understand what that means?"

So you are saying that the only evidence against Padilla is hearsay testimony from people captured on the field of battle or otherwise detained in actions against the state and locked up incommunicado for years.

There is nothing tangible? No recordings? No documents? No photos?

[oceanview]

that could well be deemed inadmissable. hell, perhaps he was just bragging. if he gets the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination, actual evidence would have to be presented against him. do we bring in KSM and Zubayda to testify against him? and when they take the stand and claim they were tortured for the information, what happens then?

this is an extreme example of course - but I am only using it to illustrate that convicting OBL under US criminal rules would be no easy task - unless of course if was a "sham" trial.

[AndyJackson]

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,

Based on?

[ndt]

"what evidence do you have against OBL that he was responsible for 9-11?"

How about the 18 minute tape in Oct. 2004 where he claims responsibility for it.

[oceanview]

photos? documents? any photos or documents showing Tookie Williams killed 4 people?

yes, the key evidence against Padilla in the dirty bomb plot most likely does come from AQ people held in communicado by the US, or via intel methods that cannot be revealed in open court. what do you want me to tell you, that's the nature of the war on terror.

[mrsmith]

"a native New yorker"

And I'm a native Virginian...

It's been rattling around in my brain that since the congress won't declare war on AlQueda- according to the court's view of the war power resolution- which I think is flawed but nonetheless:

Since we were attacked, Virginia and New York should declare war on AlQueda!

Apply under Article 4 sec 4 to the congress for assistance tpo repulse the invasion. I'd love to see the congress wriggle out of that and what the federal courts would make of the president's authority then. Oh and the 14th Amendment- what 14th Amendment rights do terrorists have?

LOL! I think it's fair to say that I'm a bad federalist!

[oceanview]

maybe he was just bragging (I say in my best Ramsey Clark voice).

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The guy is presumed innocent, not guilty.

In a time of War , there are times when the order needs to be reversed....trips to known Al-Queda hangouts is one of those acts that should reverse the presemption of innocence!

[oceanview]

Scalia - I've read some articles posted when this topic came up before, saying that basically Scalia does not believe that any citizen can be denied the right to US rights and trial. I don't think the SCOTUS votes are there to sustain the enemy combatant designation for Padilla - the administration knows this, that's why we are seeing these machinations.

[ndt]

"yes, the key evidence against Padilla in the dirty bomb plot most likely does come from AQ people held in communicado.."

Then if their testimony is the sole evidence that can convict or acquit a U.S. citizen, then yes they should be deposed. To do otherwise to to justify the conviction or even execution of a U.S. citizen on the testimony of questionable sources without even the pretense of fair trial.

"..or via intel methods that cannot be revealed in open court."

Like.. Oh.. I don't know, international wiretaps?

[oceanview]

there is no reason why a military tribunal cannot be "fair". our own soldiers are subjected to them.

[ndt]

"there is no reason why a military tribunal cannot be "fair". our own soldiers are subjected to them."

Then why did Bush back down on this?

[lugsoul]

It would be easy, and the outcome would not be in doubt.

[oceanview]

because he knows he will lose this at the SCOTUS.

[jwalsh07]

Then why did Bush back down on this?

Antonin Scalia.

[ndt]

"because he knows he will lose this at the SCOTUS."

Exactly.

In all likelihood, the designation of enemy combatant being applied to a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil on weak evidence from questionable sources is very likely illegal. This is the question that would be before the SCOTUS. If the Administration thought they were on solid ground here, there would be no reason to back down.

The constitution has served us well, lets not abandon it so quickly.

[oceanview]

and the message this will send when it all unfolds:

it tells AQ that US citizens make the "best" terrorists for use in US domestic operations - because the US of forced to treat them no differently then a guy who just robbed a 7-11.

[oceanview]

actually, this is exactly why Lincoln suspended Habeas during the civil war.