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 agree and I also agree with Judge Luttig that it is the Administration that is acting fearful. They proposed this transfer to avoid the Supreme Court from possibly overturning the appeals court on the enemy combatant designation. They've probably gotten all the can out of Padilla (i.e. any information he's got left is now years out of date) and so can afford to release him into civilian court jurisdiction.
the DOJ is attempting that "swap" only because they do not want the case regarding Padilla's designation to reach the SCOTUS - when they lose that, the entire concept of enemy combatant for anyone captured on US soil will be out the window.
Luttig stabbed us in the back on the prior appeals court ruling - I am so glad he was not appointed to the SCOTUS.
Yup. Its calleda tripartite system of government, not a dictatorship.
It is not for the executive to "trust" the judiciary. The judiciary is EQUAL to and INDEPENDENT of the executive.
and the judiciary are not gods - they are men, making arbitrary decisions, more often then not rendered based on their political philosophy. and the judiciary is the most unaccountable branch of government.
the judiciary should have nothing to do with fighting wars. we alerady have granted habeas rights to prisoners are Gitmo, we are one minor step away from having the SCOTUS extend full US rights to any non-citizen held by the US anywhere in the world. We are one small step away from having to mirandize terrorists taken captive on the battlefield, I guess the US military will have to travel with criminalists now, collecting evidence in ziploc bags to use at their trials.
so what was the "detailed" reasoning the courts used to decide that one day, Lee Malvo woke up and could no longer face the death penalty? or to decide that the right of unlimited abortion up the the moment before birth was somehow in the constitution?
they make it up as they go along - sure, they can explain it and write some nice words about it (hey, what's law school for if not that), but these are merely opinions of men, nothing more.
They are purposely unaccountable, by design. That they are not democtratically appointed is only another sign that we have a republican not democratice form of government. Bush is as fallible.
and they are shrinking that a little bit with each new decision. I am waiting for them to extend US court jurisdiction to the top AQ prionsers held by the CIA at the foreign prisons. I mean, what the hell, I am sure they can come up with some "well reasonsed decision" to justify that?
the courts have more then enough power to control the country domestically using their "unaccountable powers". we need to get them to keep their hands off issues involving war and foreign enemies before they kill a whole bunch of us. we elected an executive for that job.
who granted habeas rights to the Gitmo detainees?
if the Padilla case goes to the SCOTUS, will they not be stripping away the enemy combatant designation power?
even Ginsburg says the reasoning in Roe is non-existent. just words on a page, the arbitrary opinion of the men deciding it at the time.
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.