The administration has argued it can hold people without trial.
It won the appeals court case.
But then it decided to file charges against Padilla in civilian court, and obtained an indictment.
I can only guess that the appeals court ruling didn't simply give Bush the "right" to hold Padilla, it actually ASSIGNED Padilla to the military court system. So Bush had to ask to transfer Padilla to the civilian courts.
But it seems that in arguing to do so, the court thinks the administration presented facts at variance with their previous presentations, and so they denied them their request.
Now I guess Padilla's appeal goes to the SC, which has certified the case.
I think the administration is being cautious. It got enough evidence in this case that it could declassify to get a civilian conviction. It has an appeals court ruling that it can detain people. By transfering Padilla, they hoped to avoid the possibility that the Supreme Court would rule against them -- not that they care in THIS case, since they can handle Padilla in civilian court, but because it would weaken the presidency.
I guess that Bush is pretty happy right now that he picked Alito, and not Luttig, for the Supreme Court.....
after the sammi al arian failure to convict - I have zero confidence in criminal trials on these matters.
based on some stuff I read about Scalia's opinion on these matters regarding combatants - we don't have a chance in the SCOTUS. so the administration is trying to do make the best move it can.
Good explanation -thank you.
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.
What the DoJ was trying to do was so indefensible, it wouldn't make any difference who heard the case. A party cannot take one position in a case and then take the complete opposite in another. It's called collateral estoppel.
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?
Good for littig, we cannot stand for one branch to be speaking out of both sides of its mouth to circumvent the system of checks and balances. The executive branch does not have absolute power, even when a republicn is in office.