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

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 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

1 posted on 01/04/2006 1:29:55 PM PST by new yorker 77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

Next week should be fun.


2 posted on 01/04/2006 1:31:39 PM PST by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

3 posted on 01/04/2006 1:32:50 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah; FOXFANVOX; tiredoflaundry; defconw

It's a step


6 posted on 01/04/2006 1:34:11 PM PST by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake and Bushbot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

LOL!


7 posted on 01/04/2006 1:34:39 PM PST by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake and Bushbot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

More grist for the Alito confirmation hearings.


8 posted on 01/04/2006 1:34:47 PM PST by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Did Judge Napolitano weigh in yet?


12 posted on 01/04/2006 1:38:28 PM PST by babaloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Given the similarity in appearence between Padillo and John Doe number two of OKC fame, I wonder what's really going on.


18 posted on 01/04/2006 1:41:33 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 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.

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