Supreme Court says government can move Jose Padilla to Florida to face charges

The AP via New York Newsday ^ | January 4, 2006

[new yorker 77]

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court orders transfer of Jose Padilla from military to civilian custody.

[tiredoflaundry]

Does this mean we can hang him now?

[GarySpFc]

It's a shame ole sparky is not up and running anymore.

[Peach]

I'm not sure I can even remember a time he was right. It must be like being a weatherman for him -- he's got a 50-50 shot of being right and no consequences for when he's wrong.

[oceanview]

don't get too excited folks, the key part in the article is:

"The high court said it would decide later whether to review Padilla's challenge to his military detention."

that is the crux of this case - whether the SCOTUS will toss the enemy combatant designation entirely. they will still rule on that matter at a later time apparently.

for now, it means Padilla goes to court on these lesser charges in civilian court. let's just hope its not another Sammi Al Arian type jury of Floridians empaneled. Padilla could still walk on all of this.

[Howlin]

Did Judge Napolitano weigh in yet?

I won't be satisfied until I hear from John Dean!

[Peach]

The case to move Padilla to a civil authority. Have you not been reading the other comments posted here?

[Howlin]

Thanks for reminding us about that one.

[oceanview]

no, that's not the "case" they are referring to. the "case" they are saying the administration will lose is the one about his combatant designation - and that one is still in play.

[saveliberty]

Not yet. I think that hanging isn't an option under the law anymore is it?

Unless you have the court determine that he's a work of art in which case he should be hung.

[Peach]

LOL. I'll bet Nancy Pelosi is lining Dean up now for the Sunday shows to tell us how wrong SCOTUS was to make this decision :-)

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

[Lurking Libertarian]

The "Bush Wins" part of the title may be premature. The Court's Order authorizes Padilla's transfer to civilian custody but makes it clear that the Court has not yet decided whether or not it will grant review of the case.

[Peach]

Hah! Must be nice having a job as a commentator like Napolitano and be able to be wrong so often and still keep the job.

[tiredoflaundry]

I have a lot of laundry line.......
;-)

[RobbyS]

Lawyers are by definition people who use the law for the special purposes of their clients. That does not mean they know what is lawful.

[Peach]

Napolitano has commented about both instances and he lost on this one.

[PerConPat]

The legal issues and posture are a bit more complex than "legal/illegal,"...

Thanks for the ping on the other thread. I'm waiting to hear the details. But I can hardly believe that a majority of the Court would back the Administration. Maybe, and a pretty thin maybe at that, the Court is finally coming to the realization that the President and the Congress are responsible for conducting war; fear of a backlash which could seriously harm the Court's credibility might be in play here.

[OldFriend]

You have freepmail

[saveliberty]

LOL! I knew that you would.

Should we file the case now?

[oceanview]

I wonder if the SCOTUS will also duck it (the combatant designation case)? maybe there has been some implicit agreement that if the administration no longer uses it, the SCOTUS will agree not to rule on it, now that Padilla is headed to civilian court on other charges?