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.
Not that this won't happen, but they would be overturning precident that has stood for the entire history of this
Republic.
from the article I read about Scalia on this subject - that's exactly what he wants to do.
If you don't think they already want US citizens for their operations, you are sleepwalking.
in the war on terror, a small team of terrorists with a nuclear weapon can destroy an american city. far worse then what thousands of soldiers could do during the civil war with single shot rifles.
why give them additional incentives.
Treason is a crime. I'd say even more so--not less so--during wartime. He should be tried.
I agree with thomas here not Scalia. Scalia argues that there are two alternatives. Suspend habeas or treat enemy combatants who happen to be citizens as criminals. It's a hobsons choice. Suspend habeas for everybody or treat the enemy as criminals because they were born here? I like the third way, Thomas way. In time of war, the CIC is the fact finder and when the enemy crosses the border America is a battlefield and the enemy can not be treated as a criminal. We kill them or we remove them from the battlefield for the duration, no matter if the battlefield is Kabul or Kentucky.
I agree, that sums it up well.
Scalia strikes me as a very stubborn guy - I don't think he will flip on this (and who knows what Roberts will do), unless one of the liberals changes sides, I think Padilla wins this in the SCOTUS.
The President says they want to destroy our freedoms. Doing it for them is not a strategy for victory.
A better analogy would be that they would have to treat him as a guy who may rob a 7-11. They'd have to do nothing.
But I think Scalia's remarks on Habeas Corpus were misunderstood. They were directed at the congress which could decide the issue cleanly by facing it.
Of course he can hold to his statement and hope that the public is outraged enough to demand responsible action by congress. Padilla will still be be held for trial for the other crimes. Heck, let him have "actual damages" as Jefferson propposed doing in these cases. Nonetheless he knows that the President does have some plenary military power to repel attacks.
Frankly, I suspect everyone will still find a way to avoid deciding the issue.
and when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was passed it would have been tried as treason- against the state where he was going to blow up the apartments. Under state law with no protections from the federal Bill of Rights.
The federal treason law was not meant for attacks like these. It was directed towards what may be termed political treason. I don't mean that it would never apply to attacks on property of structures of the federal government- though the attack on Harpoer's Ferry was tried as treason against Virginia not the federl government.
What did Bush back down on?
Last time I checked, the population of NYC is approximately 8 million, and no one said just a suitcase bomb (i.e. high-yield nuke loaded on a barge and sailed right into the Harbor). As for the destruction it could cause, it would be worse than any single-day loss during the Civil War - if you want to compare nuclear attacks day after day for as long as the Civil War lasted, be my guest.
Oh I see your point, by your math only tens of thousands, not millions, may die from a terrorist attack. A small price to pay don't ya think? But darn it we can hold our heads high when we attend those funerals.
Sorry but we are in a war. Government power was reigned back in after the Civil War, WWII, etc. A government's first goal is to protect it's people. Terrorism will not just go away- we can't use moral suasion on it. It has to be confronted and fought with whatever means are necessary
"Last time I checked, the population of NYC is approximately 8 million, and no one said just a suitcase bomb (i.e. high-yield nuke loaded on a barge and sailed right into the Harbor)."
So you suggest we do what exactly?
our criminal justice system is basically designed to deal with crime only after it has occurred - its not going to help us much in the domestic war on terror. we prosecuted the WTC 1993 bombers - big deal, it didn't help us worth a damn. in fact, during the trial, information about satellite phone monitoring was revealed that helped AQ changes its communications tactics.
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.