Posted on 12/28/2005 6:50:02 PM PST by PerConPat
Wed Dec 28, 5:35 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to transfer American "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla from U.S. military custody to federal authorities in Florida -- one week after an appeals court refused a similar request.
In a filing to the high court, Solicitor General Paul Clement asked for Padilla's release so he can stand trial on charges of being part of a support cell providing money and recruits for militants overseas.
Padilla was indicted last month in Florida for conspiracy to murder and aiding terrorists abroad but the charges make no reference to accusations made by U.S. officials after his arrest in May 2002 that he plotted with al Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.
Last week, in a rebuke to the Bush administration, a U.S. appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, denied the Justice Department's request to approve his transfer from military to civilian custody...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I'll re-read some of what you've posted tomorrow morning. I had thought that FNC reported today a defendant was claiming the government can't use the wiretaps against him, but I could be wrong about that; I was only half listening.
Read the summary; got it.
exactly right.
those cases will be entering the system soon, and you can be sure the left is simply going to shop them to a court like the 9th circuit to get a favorable ruling tossing out wiretap evidence, at which point the media will again assert the "Bush broke the law, impeach him" mantra.
they would have given Padilla his due process - a military tribunal - if the federal courts had kept their hands off this case. it is the courts that have delayed this, and resulted in his 3 year detainment without a trial (a military tribunal is a trial).
what you see now is the endgame - the administration knows they will lose the enemy combatant designation case in the SCOTUS - so they have to try Padilla on charges on which they can actually bring evidence in open court. that's what the request to transfer him to civilian court is all about. the appeals court (led by Luttig) and apparently the SCOTUS want to stick it in their eye and rule on the enemy combatant designation, setting a precedent to disallow its use in the future.
they only "backtracked" because they know they will lose the case in the SCOTUS. if they thought they would win it, they would be preparing Padilla for his military tribunal right now, rather then assembing this civilian case in Florida on lesser charges - to try and get him on something at least.
Under the Constitution, US citizens are entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers. A military tribunal doesn't provide this. Such tribunals are part of the executive branch and are not subject to the usual checks and balances.
The Constitution is not, of course, a suicide pact. If we had thousands of US citizen/terrorists one might have to ignore Constitutional guarantees, but my understanding is that this was the one and only US citizen being denied his right to a speedy trial by a jury of his peers. We should not lightly discard our protections against encroachment by government.
extend this concept to the battlefield. suppose instead of being caught at OHare airport, Padilla had been caught after a shootout in an Afghan cave. what happens then, does he also get the trial you say he deserves? does the army have to mirandize him? does the army have to travel with a criminalist to take evidence against him as they would for any "normal" criminal? do the soldiers at the shootout need to be deposed for his trial? how would he get a fair trial, if these normal procedures that are part of any criminal prosecution in this country, were not followed?
Padilla cannot get a trial by the standards in the civilian justice system. are the foreign wiretaps used admissable? do we have to allow his lawyers to depose the top AQ people we have captured as part of Padilla's defense?
as far as I am concerned, he gave up his citizenship when he became an agent of a foreign power.
Why not? So long as we are talking about a handful of US traitors, why abandon our usual legal procedures? Consider your own example. What if he says "I wasn't firing on US soldiers. They kidnapped me because they heard I was American, but didn't kill me because they found out I'm a Muslim." Sounds implausible to me. I'd vote guilty if that's the whole defense. But what if he can bring forth credible witnesses that support his story?
Something Bush said shortly after 9/11 has stuck with me, although he quickly forgot it. To paraphrase, he said we should go about our business and not let terrorists force us to change our way of life.
What would have happened to a German-American who sided with the Nazis during WWII, went to Germany to fight against our troops, entered into a plot to return to the US to kill a massive number of civilians in America, was captured while entering the country, and was carrying proof in his possession of his contacts with top Nazi leaders?
I think he would have been (should have been) executed as an enemy spy by a military tribunal, and that his capture would have been part of the war effort and not a civil matter.
Yeah...last I checked the Constitution hasn't been officially repealed. Padilla is a US citizen captured in the United States. The Supreme Court really does have a issue of law here. It is vitally important to decide if the President alone gets to decide who does and does not get the protections of the Bill of Rights.
No doubt you are thinking of Burger, et. al., but what does that have to do with Padilla?
so you want to have the US military travel with a criminal investigation team, just in case they might encounter US citizens on the battlefield? do we have to arraign the captured person within 48 hours too?
we are either at war with these people, or we aren't. either they are agents of foreign powers, or they aren't. we can't be at war with just some of them, while any US citizens who join the cause get treated like someone who just robbed $50 from a 7-11.
the proponents of "trials in all cases for US citizens" believe that even if that person is not on US soil, they have the same rights.
some time ago, the CIA killed a US citizen in Yemen I believe with a drone missile. I guess those CIA agents should be arrested, they clearly violated the due process rights of that suspect by simply blowing him away as soon as they had the chance. no arrest, no trial, no due process - just a hellfire missile up his a*s.
Thank you for all the legal reasoning you have demonstrated in this thread. I now have ample ammunition to justify the actions of my Confederate ancestors, when they summarily executed Yankee officers for inciting servile insurrection in the south. Terrorism should never be permitted to go unchalleged.
well, take from it whatever you will.
however, my line of reasoning on this issue is going to lose ultimately in the SCOTUS. and don't think this will not go un-noticed by our enemies - who will seek to have their cell members in the US obtain legal resident and citizenship status as quickly as possible so they can be protected by the judicial system of the country they are trying to destroy.
Why is then the Bush Admin running from the US Supreme Court, the final arbiter of law in the US? Secondly, the mumbling about "the war effort" doesn't magically eliminate the Bill of Rights. Never has, never will - the Constituion simply doesn't give the President that power even in times of war.
Please answer the following. Would you include among the wartime powers of the Presidency as the right to suspend Congress and rule by decree?
The right to shut down dissident newspapers or TV channels?
The right to outlaw particular religions?
The right to suppress peaceful demonstrations against the war?
The right to outlaw private ownership of guns?
The right to arbitrary search and seizure?
The right to arbitrary seizure of property without compensation?
The right to hold people without indictment or trial?
The right to inflict punishment on people without trial?
I'm serious about your answer to these questions.
Padilla is Abdullah al Muhajir.
And that is precisely what this all has to do with the German analogy.
Padilla did exactly those things.
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.