Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PerConPat
"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.
13 posted on 12/28/2005 8:02:59 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: 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.

Padillawas arrested in Chicago. His lawyers filed a petition for habeas corpus in New York. The federal court in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, both held that a U.S. citizen arrested on American soil cannot be held as an enemy combatant. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed, 5-4, solely on the ground that the federal courts in New York had no jurisdiction over Padilla's habeas petition because Padilla was not being held in New York (he is being held in a Navy brig in South Carolina).

Padilla's lawyers then re-filed his habeas in South Carolina. The Fourth Circuit held (contrary to the Second Circuit's earlier ruling) that Padilla could lawfully be held as an enemy combatant. Padilla asked the Supreme Court to hear the case again, and, the day before its answer in the Supreme Court was due, the Government asked the Fourth Circuit to release Padilla from military custody so it could try him in a civillian court (on different charges, not the "dirty bomb" allegations that led them to seize him initially).

The Fourth Circuit refused, saying that Padilla was entitled to have the Supreme Court consider the issue which the Fourth Circuit had already ruled on.

90 posted on 12/29/2005 4:35:44 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson