Supreme Court Asked to Transfer Padilla (Please, Your Honor, Can we Conduct a War on Terrorism?)

Rueters ^ | Dec. 28, 2005 | unknown

[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...

[PerConPat]

What a heck of a way to fight terroism. The President is now required to play "Mother, may I?" with the Judiciary while fighting a global war on terror.

[Rummyfan]

If we have to rely on the yahoos of the federal judiciary to fight this war, we are finished!

[xcamel]

Funnier yet.. heard this on the radio and TV news - hispanics must have been complaining about the pronunciation of his name. Every single broadcast today said "pa-DILL-a" instead of "pa-DEE-ya"

No slant in the news.. none at all.

[Tzimisce]

He's Hispanic? Well then he's OBVIOUSLY innocent and charges are just trumped up by an out of control racist police force...

[ndt]

Funny.. well it is tor-TEE-ah not tor-TILL-ah.

You should point out that in Argentina it would be Pa-DEE-sha and in parts of Central and South America Pa-DEE-ja.

There is more to the Spanish language than Mexico.

Just be glad that is the biggest complaint.

[Marine_Uncle]

Meanwhile the Islamofacist scum watch with keen interest.
I cannot help but wonder if the filth bag left (demorats,courts,L/MSM) are going to practice the same revenge and hatefull tactics if a republican president is elected in 2008. Image a potential eight more years of this crap heaped upon us after GWB leaves office.

[kayak]

Image a potential eight more years of this crap heaped upon us after GWB leaves office.

As bad as this has been, I'd much rather imagine 8 more years like this after GWB leaves office than those 8 years with a 'rat in the White House!

I really don't think I would look good in a burkha.

[ndt]

"Last week, in a rebuke to the Bush administration"

They can call it a rebuke (seems to be popular) and in one sense it is, but only in the narrowness of one decision to deny the transfer. If you read the response from the court, they are very clear that the decision was made because they felt the issue was in need of a final decision from the Supreme Court. On that point I agree.

[PerConPat]

...charges are just trumped up by an out of control racist police force...

Yes, we must not allow the slightest degree of inattention to detail in the vital cause of protecting the entire world's civil liberties. Of course, civil liberties don't matter one bit to our enemies or, sadly now, to those Americans who died on 9/11.

I guess it's going to take another strike, and a dandy at that, before we get serious about the business at hand --kicking the snot out of the Islamofascists and their useful idiots in the West.

[Marine_Uncle]

"I'd much rather imagine 8 more years like this after GWB leaves office than those 8 years with a 'rat in the White House!"
Good point. But it depends on what repub was to get in. A rino that would sell us totally out, could be as bad as the hildebeast.

[PerConPat]

...the decision was made because they felt the issue was in need of a final decision from the Supreme Court. On that point I agree.

I'm afraid, ndt, that my patience is wearing thin with things judicial. I understand that we are a nation of laws; but my concern is that the leftist mania to dot every "i" and cross every "t" pervades the legal profession to a degree that is potentially harmful in the national defense arena.

We, IMHO, need to be very careful when adding the American jurisprudence system to the anti-terrorist mix. I am aware of the Palmer Raids etc..; but as others have pointed out, the enemy is watching and no one in their right mind wants the judges dabbling in the business of stopping vicious terrorists.

I will admit that I am not sure as to why the judges should even be involved with Mr. Padilla, except in the capacity of hearing his criminal trial etc. Perhaps you could inform me as to why this matter was before the appeals court to begin with. Thanks.

[Soul Seeker]

If I recall right, Luttig was one of the Justices that denied the transfer.

This isn't a simple case of Liberals running amuck. Basically the admin doesn't trust the U.S. Supreme Court to make the right decision. Who would? They want to take Padilla out of range of the U.S. Supreme Court suspecting they'll further set bad precedent that diminishes their powers in wartime.

This Appeals Court, with Luttig on it, has balked at allowing venues to be cherry picked for decisions. Personally I think they both have a sympathetic point. The Supremes are NOT to be trusted after giving terrorists rights to our Courts. But setting precedent for admins to hold people then switch them to venues where the rulings might better suit them isn't a good idea either for future administrations.

Luttig has the added belief his verdict that does favor the administration about Padilla's actual case will and should be upheld and wants that vindication as well as the others on that court.

Unfortunately we can't rewrite the past and avoid charging Padilla through a system that allows appeals to the Supremes to avoid them setting bad precedent. Nor will we have five good Justices when the case is likely heard. Only four and kennedy that is capable of anything. It's not an ideal situation either way.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Perhaps you could inform me as to why this matter was before the appeals court to begin with. Thanks."
Wish I could help you. But I haven't a clue. Hopefully someone will step up to the plate with a firm judicial background and explain the reasons behind this madness. I would have thought it as simple as a federal circuit court being assigned the case, based on where this goon lived during his stay in the US, when he did his alleged crimes.

[oceanview]

no choice here - the administration fought this all the way. its clear that they will lose the "enemy combatant" designation case if it gets to the SCOTUS, Scalia will even rule against them. so they are trying to duck it and get Padilla on something in civilian court for which they can actually present a case without blowing our whole intel capability in open court on the "dirty bomb" charges.

[oceanview]

you only agree because you know the decision will go "your way" - that is, Padilla's designation as an enemy combatant will be tossed out.

[oceanview]

Scalia will rule for Padilla in this one - the writings from him I have read make this quite clear.

[mumps]

I think you're missing some of the finer legal points here. The court is not hindering the war on terror; in fact, it accepted the Bush administration's use of "enemy combatant" against an American citizen. Now the DOJ is attempting to swap military and civil jurisdictions, and the court has said, basically, make up your mind. What will be interesting to see is if, with all the skipping back and forth between jurisdictions, Padilla's lawyers don't try to invoke some sort of double jeopardy claim.

[PerConPat]

...so they are trying to duck it and get Padilla on something in civilian court for which they can actually present a case without blowing our whole intel capability in open court on the "dirty bomb" charges.

Makes sense to me. Obviously, I'm not an attorney; but I would expect terms like "minimizing evidentiary complications" and "prosecutorial discretion" to be flying around about now. The real question, and it's always the question, is how much power does the Executive have in the war against terrorists. I hope we can work it out before another bunch of treacherous rats turns our vaunted "civil liberties" against us again in another devastating attack.

It's the never ending fight between the perfectionists and the realists. Questions such as what exactly is an enemy combatant, or what civil liberties apply to suspected foreign terrorists and their domestic fellow travelers etc. will be weighed against the need to protect intel assets and erring on the side of caution when the threat of WMD's are involved.

I know of very few citizens who have been handled ala Padilla; I don't see this as anything but Bush trying his best to protect the nation by sending a clear message to would be attackers. Lincoln, FDR, etc. had a free hand for the most part to prosecute wars; and with some painful but fairly isolated exceptions civil liberties were preserved to a degree that kept us in one piece. The current climate of political treachery that I am witnessing in the country is most troubling.

[PerConPat]

I think you're missing some of the finer legal points here...

No doubt about it. But how much flexibility is an Administration entitled to in the current crisis? If the courts don't raise the double jeopardy claim, the ALCU will. If you can stand more of my ranting, take a peek at my post #18 on this thread.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Actually, it's because that is the way that Padilla pronounces it himself, i.e. Padilla instead of Padiya (according to the news report at the top of the hour on Rush's show).