Federal court rebuke

The Washington Times ^ | January 2, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[neverdem]

The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com

---

Federal court rebuke

By Jacob Sullum
Published January 2, 2006

---

Advertisement

On criminal justice and national security issues, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered the most government-friendly federal appeals court.

    So when a 4th Circuit panel rebukes the Bush administration for its handling of an accused terrorist, in a decision written by a judge who was on the president's Supreme Court short list, even the president's most ardent supporters have to wonder what's going on.

    President Bush's broad view of his powers and disregard for other branches of government have provoked a backlash well beyond the carping of partisan Democrats. Even a court ready to uphold the president's authority to detain suspected terrorists as "enemy combatants" is unprepared for him to submit his actions to judicial review only when he feels like it.

    The 4th Circuit case involves Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002. Declaring the arrest foiled a plan to detonate a radiological bomb in the United States, the government soon transferred Padilla to military custody, where he has remained since.

    Last year, the Supreme Court ruled the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by Congress after the September 11, 2001, attacks allowed the president to detain another U.S. citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, captured in Afghanistan in 2001. But the court also said Hamdi had a right to contest his enemy combatant status before a "neutral decisionmaker," which the administration avoided by his release.

    By the time the 4th Circuit heard Padilla's case in July 2005, the government had stopped talking about the much-publicized...

[oceanview]

the administration only did this with Padilla because they know they are likely to lose the case regarding his enemy combatant classification in the SCOTUS - setting a precedent that will remove this power from the executive. rather then face this precednet setting loss, they wanted to short circuit the decision by transferring Padilla to other civilian charges and stopping the case from going up.

[oceanview]

and I will also add thet I am happy that Luttig didn't get a SCOTUS appointment after reading this.

[johnmecainrino]

Why would the administration ever appeal anything to the supreme court.

Thier are five hard core liberals on the supreme court, six if o'conner is still there.

[oceanview]

Padilla's lawyers are appealing it, the administration's moves in the courts are designed to avert what they believe will be a final ruling by the SCOTUS eliminating the enemy combatant designation - they want to avoid that.

actually, on the Padilla case, from what I have read - Scalia is also against the administration.

[gondramB]

"the administration only did this with Padilla because they know they are likely to lose the case regarding his enemy combatant classification in the SCOTUS - setting a precedent that will remove this power from the executive."

Right.

Some of this is part of the continual struggle between the branches for power.

And part of this is concern by the executive of over-reaching by the courts.

But what's new is a level of hubris in the executive that is quite a concern.

[gondramB]

"the administration only did this with Padilla because they know they are likely to lose the case regarding his enemy combatant classification in the SCOTUS - setting a precedent that will remove this power from the executive."

Right.

Some of this is part of the continual struggle between the branches for power.

And part of this is concern by the executive of over-reaching by the courts.

But what's new is a level of hubris in the executive that is quite a concern.

[nopardons]

Now, so am I.

[Rodney King]

If you ask me Lutting, who does not oppose enemy combatant stauts, did us all a favor by warning the administration that their entire stance on the issue will be jeopardized if they keep trying to play games with the courts.

[MJY1288]

IMHO Luttig did the Bush Administration a favor in this decision. Luttig basically said that the Bush Administration would undermine their own authority to hold Traitors like Padilla as Battle Field Combatants, and ordered Padilla back into Military custody.... Am I wrong?

[MJY1288]

That's how I see this decision as well, see my post just after yours

[oceanview]

I hardly see that the executive has abused the use of the enemy combatant designation - hell, how many times has it been used against a US citizen?

[MJY1288]

Instead of "Rebuke" this should be Titled "Affirmation"

[Rodney King]

You are not wrong, but the fact is that the administration was rebuked, and to people who see the administration as perfect, their only conclusion must therefore be that Luttig and the 4th circuit were wrong.

[oceanview]

that is true, Luttig did not oppose it. but that is meaningless since his court does not get to make the final decision. but he fails to recognize (or does not care) why the administration is doing this, and is perfectly willing to send it up and have it tossed.

frankly, these claims are finished now (or will be once the Padilla case gets up to the SCOTUS). the administration is learning that it must handle these cases differently - use foreign prisons, don't capture or detain these people on US soil, kill them right away like we did to that fellow in Yemen with the CIA drone missile attack - because once our federal courts get a hold of them, they will grant them every accomodation.

[oceanview]

you are not "wrong" - you are just not seeing the endgame here.

[MJY1288]

Those who are advising this President on how to deal with the Liberal Circuit Courts are simply weak and should be removed. Why not charge Padilla with Treason and put him in front of any Court and sentence him to death for betraying his Nation.

To hell with all these legal classifications, The rat bastard is a Traitor and we should treat him as one, I say give him a fair trial and place him in front of a Firing Squad once he is found guilty

[oceanview]

because you have to give him a trial to do that - a civilian trial with all the rules of evidence. do you want Padilla's ACLU lawyers to be able to depose Khallid Sheik Mohammed? do you want evidence from these NSA "warrantless" wiretaps to be presented, so some judge can rule them inadmissable on 4th amendment grounds?

Padilla deserved a military tribunal as his due process, but the federal courts would not let go of the case so he could be given one. now, we will be lucky if the SOB can be convicted of any charges.

[MJY1288]

From what I can gather, The Bush Administration does not want to go through the process of "Discovery" because it will compromise some of our ongoing operations in Intel gathering around the world.

So I conclude that they would rather let a low level punk like Padilla walk before undermining our tactics..

Am I close :-)

[MJY1288]

See post #19... I think we are on the same page