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

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

[jveritas]

Oceanview: Padilla is not going to walk out. He is going to remain in jail for a very long time if not for the rest of his life. No jury is going to acquit him unless it is solely composed from the staff of the New York Times or some left wing Dummies and this is not going to happen.

[oceanview]

I felt that way once too.

until I saw the Sammi Al Arian verdict. we are living in a nation where 40% of the people are braindead, and they serve on juries too you know.

[Cboldt]

... what doom and gloom? I have consistently posted I do not like the way this case is going, but you could see this coming. what can we do, the administration has been "boxed in" by the federal courts - and this is where we are now.

Doom and gloom = Padilla isn't kept according to terms unilaterally set by the administration.

I am coming around to a broader view where I'll trade Padiallia being dealt with in Article III courts (instead of in indefinite military detention), in exchange for Congress getting off the stump and craftng a war resolution (against terror) with some teeth. Congress crafted a suspension of habeas as to Gitmo prisoners, but it took an act of SCOTUS to get them to use the power the Constitution gives them. This is a three part government, and Congress isn't pulling its weight.

[xzins]

All that aside, I'm glad Luttig was not the Scotus appointee. His rationale about the government risking its credibility doesn't sound to me like its based on the law. It sounds based on his opinion....but I'm open to correction.

I don't think its any different than someone who commits a series of crimes in different states, and after his capture those states put their heads together to determine which state to prosecute him in with which charges.

If that doesn't work, then they hand him off to another state to prosecute him under different charges.

This is just that kind of handoff from the military to the civilian courts. Just my 2 cents worth of unlawyerly opinion.

[jude24]

His rationale about the government risking its credibility doesn't sound to me like its based on the law. It sounds based on his opinion....but I'm open to correction.

Luttig is concerned that the Administration is trying to avoid judicial review of its actions. This is nothing at all like your example of differing states with concurrant jurisdictions for other crimes - this is a man indicted for the same crime in two Federal courts. Courts all the time take measures to prevent forum-shopping, in both civil and criminal cases.

Luttig is right on this one. The Executive branch doesn't have unilateral authority to detain a suspect, and then forum-shop to get the answer it likes. The Judicial branch has an interest in ensuring that the hearing that Padilla - an American citizen - gets is full and fair.

[xzins]

Padilla insisted during his "religious" period that he be known as Abdullah al Muhajir.

We would do better referring to him as Muhajir....keeps things in perspective.

Personally, I don't see any problem with the authorities doing a little forum shopping. Go where you can get the conviction. If the guy's not convictable, then he won't be convicted there either.

[jude24]

We would do better referring to him as Muhajir....keeps things in perspective.

No, it confuses the issue that Jose Padilla is an American citizen charged with criminal violations.

Personally, I don't see any problem with the authorities doing a little forum shopping. Go where you can get the conviction. If the guy's not convictable, then he won't be convicted there either.

The fundamental flaw in your assumptions here is that you assume that the courts have uniform standards. The procedural (and, I believe, evidentiary) rules in a military tribunal are radically different than in Federal Court. More importantly, however, once you picked your venue you are stuck with it. You can't just up and move to another venue just because the first venue gave you an adverse ruling.

[xzins]

I appreciate your consistency, but I still think that anyone who is convictable should be convicted. If this guy was engaged in treason, efforts to kill Americans, combat against his own country, spying, or anything else, then I want him convicted, and I want it in the place where he's most likely to be convicted.

He is Muhajir. What is confusing is to call him Padilla.

Just because one is an American doesn't mean he cannot have an Islamic name. One of the guards on my alma mater's basketball team (Univ Cincy Bearcats) is named Jihad Muhammed. No one thinks anything of it, and he isn't suspected of being a terrorist. (He is suspected of not playing up to his potential every now and then. :>)