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...

[lugsoul]

"Either a majority of Americans are more concerned with national security or with civil liberties in a period of grave danger."

Oh, yes - I forgot. The provisions of the Constitution are unconcerned with the fleeting feelings of the majority. And damn well should be, so that nervous Nellies aren't constantly ceding control of their lives to those who offer specious promises of 'protection.'

[lugsoul]

"So, Lincoln and FDR never swayed from the task of protecting civil liberties during time of war?"

That argument will be worthy of a response just as soon as someone - anyone - can state under what conditions the currently asserted 'time of war' will be over. And if the answer is anything like 'when all the terrorists are dead' or 'when there is no more terrorist threat,' then we are not in a 'time of war.'

[wotan]

There's no reason for the Bush administration to have kept this man in prison for 3 years without charges, as they are basically admitting by attempting to transfer his case to a civilian court.

Oh, I know, because he is charged with terrorism, he must be guilty according to the idiot logic so common in this forum, and, therefore, his civil rights can be denied.

Think, O idiots, what it will mean if Hillary Clinton is elected and she can toss anyone in the clink as long as she wants by charging them with terrorism.

[PerConPat]

So you think that the President is also not coequal since he too can be impeached by congress?

I do, in fact, consider the Congress to be the most powerful branch of the federal government. And if Thomas Jefferson had been able to arrange it, the House of Representatives would have been the most powerful institution.

How could congress possibly hold the President accountable if the judiciary can not find him guilty? Without high crimes and misdemeanors, there can be no impeachment. If you remove that authority from the courts, you also remove it from congress.

I wasn't aware that Andrew Johnson had been found guilty of a crime by any court prior to his impeachment.

Beyond that, whether you realize it or not, by removing the indapendance of the judiciary, you are in fact creating a de facto dictatorship, because the congress would lose their impeachment powers over the president.

Again, I'm not aware of any institution, other than the Congress, bringing charges against Andrew Johnson.

[lugsoul]

They don't need to think. They simply need to comply. And cheer.

[Cboldt]

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.

Discussed at length in this thread -> Appeals Court Refuses to Transfer Padilla

[ndt]

"I wasn't aware that Andrew Johnson had been found guilty of a crime by any court prior to his impeachment."

You are aware that the the House brought the charges, the Senate was the jury and the Chief Justice served as the judge. THAT IS COURT.

[PerConPat]

It would seem pretty clear that having an avowed enemy with thousands of nuclear-tipped missles targeted on our nation constitutes a 'time of national danger' that dwarfs the purely theoretical possibility that a terrorist could obtain a functional suitcase nuclear device and detonate on our shores.

Yes, it was a perilous time. I shudder every time I think of all of the attacks made upon our cities in those desperate days.

For the most part, the radical Islamic terrorists are a bunch of hacks who want to think that their most miserably failed attacks are grand successes for Allah. They got really, really lucky, once...

I would be thoroughly delighted if you are proved to be correct in this very rosy assessment.

You need to manage your fear. It makes you terribly easy to control.

And the same could be said about naivete in the face of an enemy devoted to our destruction.

Oh, yes - I forgot. The provisions of the Constitution are unconcerned with the fleeting feelings of the majority. And damn well should be, so that nervous Nellies aren't constantly ceding control of their lives to those who offer specious promises of 'protection.'

And you also forgot "so that effete social engineers can grab the reins of government and play tinker toy with the nation."

That argument will be worthy of a response just as soon as someone - anyone - can state under what conditions the currently asserted 'time of war' will be over...

Your avoidance of a response to a valid point notwithstanding, the answer to your question is "when the majority of the electorate in the US are convinced that it's over.

[PerConPat]

There's no reason for the Bush administration to have kept this man in prison for 3 years without charges...

Well, that would seem to be grounds for impeachment- if true. And if a majority of the American people are so inclined, I'm sure the Dims will oblige them.

...what it will mean if Hillary Clinton is elected and she can toss anyone in the clink as long as she wants by charging them with terrorism.

It will mean that she would be subject to removal from office, as well.

[PerConPat]

You are aware that the the House brought the charges, the Senate was the jury and the Chief Justice served as the judge. THAT IS COURT.

With the exception on one justice, how does this point to a significant involvement by the Judicial branch? Let me be clear that I have never advocated abolishing the Judiciary.

[ndt]

"With the exception on one justice, how does this point to a significant involvement by the Judicial branch? Let me be clear that I have never advocated abolishing the Judiciary."

Are you for real? I officially give up. If you can see how a judge proceeding over an impeachment trial has anything to do with the judiciary, we are both just waisting time.

[ndt]

proceeding = presiding spell checker "fixed" it for me.

[lugsoul]

It is not a valid point. The Presidents you referenced were acting in response to a declared war with a defined enemy. Using your logic, the 'war on drugs' could be used to justify the expansion of executive power.

[ndt]

With the exception on one justice, how does this point to a significant involvement by the Judicial branch? Let me be clear that I have never advocated abolishing the Judiciary."

Are you for real? I officially give up. If you can can not see how a judge proceeding presiding over an impeachment trial has anything to do with the judiciary, we are both just waisting time.

[ndt]

"The Presidents you referenced were acting in response to a declared war with a defined enemy. Using your logic, the 'war on drugs'"

Yup, easily more deaths involved in that one when you count all the crack head shooting and the like.

Don't forget the "war on poverty". It is fully time for the president to seize all "excessive" properties for the common good. There is even precedent in the Youngstown case. /sarc

[PerConPat]

The Presidents you referenced were acting in response to a declared war with a defined enemy.

Is there an implication here that the President is currently waging a war without proper authority?

[PerConPat]

Are you for real? I officially give up. If you can can not see how a judge proceeding presiding over an impeachment trial has anything to do with the judiciary, we are both just waisting time.

I'm surprised you reacted in this fashion. Of course I'm for real, as are you. Your arguments have been clear, and I have not intentionally tried to twist anything you have posted. My point was to stress that charges involving impeachable offenses do not necessarily have to be brought or tried in the Judicial branch prior to, yes, a trial in the Senate. As I said before, we will not resolve our differing views; but I don't participate in these fora to "win," so I have enjoyed our debate.

[ndt]

Fair enough. I will have to postpone any further debate anyway, it's my wife birth day and I'm starting to get ugly looks for sitting on the computer so long. I think it is time to take her out for dinner :)

[lugsoul]

Nope. There is no implication. There is a direct statement that the horrendously misnamed 'war on terror' is not a war at all as that term is used in the Constitution, and that the use of being 'at war' as a justification for executive perogative is a very, very dangerous proposition when the 'war' is one which will have no end and which has a continually shifting enemy. So, we are "at war" with the "terrorists". Which we have been since Tripoli, I guess. And will be until the end of our days. If that's gonna be the basis for rebalancing our government, I'd much prefer that it be done in a manner consistent with the amendment provisions of the Constitution, rather than a bunch of hokum about 'inherent' powers derived from being at war.

[Peach]

The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."