Skip to comments.
Supreme Court says government can move Jose Padilla to Florida to face charges
The AP via New York Newsday ^
| January 4, 2006
Posted on 01/04/2006 1:29:53 PM PST by new yorker 77
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court orders transfer of Jose Padilla from military to civilian custody.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: enemycombatant; gwot; padilla; ruling; scotus; terrortrials
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
To: new yorker 77
2
posted on
01/04/2006 1:31:39 PM PST
by
Tarpon
To: new yorker 77
3
posted on
01/04/2006 1:32:50 PM PST
by
Petronski
(I love Cyborg!)
To: Tarpon
Good !!
Now we can start treason proceedings against him. Maybe we can make it a Capital charge.
4
posted on
01/04/2006 1:33:16 PM PST
by
Ouderkirk
(Funny how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather...)
To: new yorker 77
How can this be? Hotshot lawyers all over the place have been telling us this is illegal. LOL
5
posted on
01/04/2006 1:33:46 PM PST
by
Peach
To: Bahbah; FOXFANVOX; tiredoflaundry; defconw
6
posted on
01/04/2006 1:34:11 PM PST
by
saveliberty
(Proud to be Head Snowflake and Bushbot)
To: Petronski
7
posted on
01/04/2006 1:34:39 PM PST
by
saveliberty
(Proud to be Head Snowflake and Bushbot)
To: new yorker 77
More grist for the Alito confirmation hearings.
To: Petronski
Good news, I expect to hear the scums lawyers start talking plea bargain soon.
9
posted on
01/04/2006 1:35:52 PM PST
by
TXBSAFH
("I would rather be a free man in my grave then living as a puppet or a slave." - Jimmy Cliff)
To: Peach
Hotshot lawyers all over the place have been telling us this is illegal. Hahahahaha. I know just what you mean. -- roll eyes --
The legal issues and posture are a bit more complex than "legal/illegal," FWIW.
10
posted on
01/04/2006 1:37:02 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Peach
Including very conservative lawyers such as Michael Luttig:
A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., refused last month to allow the transfer of Padilla from military custody in South Carolina to civilian custody, citing the government's use of one set of facts before the courts to justify Padilla's military detention without charges and another to persuade a grand jury in Miami to indict him on the terrorism-related charges. In that appeals court decision, Judge J. Michael Luttig warned the administration that it risked its credibility with the courts by changing tactics in what could be interpreted as an effort to avoid judicial scrutiny.
11
posted on
01/04/2006 1:37:21 PM PST
by
Huck
(Don't Vote: It only encourages them.)
To: Peach
Did Judge Napolitano weigh in yet?
12
posted on
01/04/2006 1:38:28 PM PST
by
babaloo
To: babaloo
The Judge isn't worth his paycheck; he's wrong about nearly everything. He must be related to someone at FNC; otherwise he'd be on the street.
13
posted on
01/04/2006 1:39:29 PM PST
by
Peach
To: Cboldt
A couple of judges have been on FNC telling us that surely the administration would lose this case, FWIW.
14
posted on
01/04/2006 1:40:30 PM PST
by
Peach
To: Peach
He's been more wrong than right for a long time. This ought to get him steaming.
15
posted on
01/04/2006 1:40:51 PM PST
by
babaloo
To: Huck
Luttig ruled the way he did because he felt the administration was playing court ping pong with Padilla.
His opinion differs from lib reasons.
I would compare his ruling in this case to Alito's rulings in favor of abortion rights groups in other cases.
They still are both solid conservatives.
16
posted on
01/04/2006 1:41:14 PM PST
by
new yorker 77
(FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
To: Ouderkirk
Now we can start treason proceedings against him... Do you think they will really have the cajones to charge him w/ treason? I don't think so.
17
posted on
01/04/2006 1:41:26 PM PST
by
Tamar1973
(There's NOTHING I need at 5 a.m., except more sleep!!!!!)
To: Huck
Given the similarity in appearence between Padillo and John Doe number two of OKC fame, I wonder what's really going on.
To: new yorker 77
A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., refused last month to allow the transfer of Padilla from military custody in South Carolina to civilian custody, citing the government's use of one set of facts before the courts to justify Padilla's military detention without charges and another to persuade a grand jury in Miami to indict him on the terrorism-related charges. It seems to me this argument would only be valid if the two sets of facts were mutually contradictory
Were they? I don't see why they necessarily should be.
19
posted on
01/04/2006 1:41:59 PM PST
by
chesley
(Liberals...what's not to loathe?)
To: Peach
A couple of judges have been on FNC telling us that surely the administration would lose this case, FWIW. Which case? The request to remove Padilla to a civil authority (granted by the lower court, reversed by the appeals court, and granted by SCOTUS), or the underlying action, which is still pending on SCOTUS docket?
20
posted on
01/04/2006 1:42:36 PM PST
by
Cboldt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson