Federal Judge Orders 'Enemy Combatant' Jose Padilla Charged Or Released

The Carolina Channel.com ^ | February 28, 2005 | TheCarolinaChannel

[MisterRepublican]

SPARTANBURG -- A federal judge in Spartanburg has ordered that an American citizen held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig in Charleston should be charged with a crime or released.

U.S. District Judge Henry F. Floyd ruled Monday that the president of the United States does not have the authority to order Jose Padilla to be held indefinitely without being charged.

"If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote.

In the ruling, Floyd said that three court cases that the government used to make its claim did not sufficiently apply to Padilla's case.

Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization."

Floyd wrote that because the government had not provided any proof that the president has the power to hold Padilla, he must reject the government's claim of authority.

"To do otherwise would not only offend the rule of law and violate this country’s constitutional tradition, but it would also be a betrayal of this nation’s commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties," he wrote.

[jwalsh07]

Wrong.

OK.

[HiTech RedNeck]

You whistle past the graveyard.

[oceanview]

I already said - the government had to provide facts to support declaring Padilla as an enemy combatant, if that hurdle is cleared, the military can hold and try him. he might be acquitted by the military tribunal.

[Mulder]

That fool would have about as much success building a dirty bomb as Beavis and Butthead would have single-handedly building a space shuttle and flying it to Jupiter and back.

This is nothing more than a test case by the one-party statists who are trying to transform us into a totalitarian police state.

The fact that so many "Americans" support repealing Habeus Corpus is disturbing and evidence of just how far the Republic has fallen.

If they succeed in pulling it off, eventually it will be SOP to hold American citizens indefinately without charges. (And you know who the NWO considers the *real* enemy to be).

[1LongTimeLurker]

Saying it's a silly comparison is not an argument. It is a valid comparison. You have the Constitutional right not to be killed by the CIA in the Sudan if you are an American citizen. Yet the CIA did kill an American citizen and known terrorist in the Sudan. The argument is about constitutional rights. You won't take a position because if you do you've compromised your argument.

No, I don't think it is a fair comparison. Engagement in a battlefield in Sudan is much different than being arrested in Chicago.

The basic argument comes down to this: should the President be given an unlimited ability to detain (or even kill) any American citizen at any time because the President deems them as being an enemy combatant.

If you think he should, then again I'll ask, what the hell are we fighting for in Iraq? It certainly ain't our freedom.

[Yasotay]

It's sad that so many people are willing to roll over and give all our freedoms and rights away.

[1LongTimeLurker]

I already said - the government had to provide facts to support declaring Padilla as an enemy combatant

But you don't think that Padilla has any rights to defend himself against those charges?

Given how wrong the government typically is, why do you trust it so much?

[jwalsh07]

You whistle past the graveyard.

More than once. I've seen the edge and, surprisingly enough, it didn't scare me.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Starr had way too much visibility, and there was no terror paranoia to play upon.

Try some of those that the likes of Janet Reno has done in, as more plausible example.

[RonnG]

Jose Padilla? I thought his name is Abdulla al Muhajin. Has he renounced Mohammadism already and now insists on being addressed by his Christian name?

[HiTech RedNeck]

You are speaking of your own emotions, not of prudence.

[1LongTimeLurker]

why didn't Bill Clinton have Ken Starr declared an enemy combatant for trying to "bring down the US government"

1. He didn't have the authority to do so

2. It would have led to another impeachment.

[Worried Texan]

Now that has tentacles that reach a long way. All the way to that Burk kid in Iraq that was beheaded..... To much of that mess will never be told.............

[TheFrog]

I think you missed the section B of the resolution.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirement's

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution

Now go read the War Powers Resolution. It specifically is not a Declaration of War. Nor does it transfer the Constitutional power to declare war from the Congress to the President.

[jwalsh07]

No, I don't think it is a fair comparison. Engagement in a battlefield in Sudan is much different than being arrested in Chicago.

I've already told you it wasn't a battlefield, it was a car on a highway far from the battlefield. I think you do us both an injustice repeating this canard. You can answer or not.

But lets take your argument to it's logical conclusion. You say the Sudan was a battlefield because the CIA sent a missile up the tailpaipe of the islamofascist car killing 5. Al Qaeda sent manned missiles into the WTC killing thousands. Surely that makes America a battlefield, no?

The basic argument comes down to this: should the President be given an unlimited ability to detain (or even kill) any American citizen at any time because the President deems them as being an enemy combatant.

The answer to that question doesn't resdie with you or the courts. It resides with Congress and Congress has claeraly given the CIC the authority to do "ALL" that is required to protect the American citizenry. The proper course of action is through Congress. In fact, if you read back in the thread I take Congress to task for not already addressing asymmetrical issues.

If you think he should, then again I'll ask, what the hell are we fighting for in Iraq? It certainly ain't our freedom.

Me and mine will fight for freedom and to protect our kids and grandkids. Always have, always will. That doesn't require us to pin a tail on our butts and say kick me.

[tort_feasor]

I would think it is rather logical that if Congress has authorized the use of deadly force against persons non-deadly force(detention) is also permitted. The president is showing mercy by not having these people summarily executed for being illegal enmeny combatants.

[oceanview]

why didn't he have the authority? FDR used it, why couldn't Clinton?

let me guess your answer - we weren't at war with any faction that Ken Starr was a party to. That is correct, that's why Clinton didn't have the authority. And its exactly why Bush does. If you read the decision, the judge in this case is rejecting the "at war" argument, that is the basis for his decision (along with the fact that the arrest occurred at OHare, and not in Afghanistan).

[jwalsh07]

Now go read the War Powers Resolution. It specifically is not a Declaration of War. Nor does it transfer the Constitutional power to declare war from the Congress to the President.

I don't have to read anything. All I have to do is watch Congress authorize hundreds of thousands of troops, hundreds of billions of dollars and tell the President to wage war on Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Iraq to know that they declared war. You can give them a pass if you'd like. I've made myself more than clear as to where I stand. An authorization of force at these levels is war and anybody that says different is lying.

[DugwayDuke]

"We cannot get in the habit of declaring American citizens (scumbags or not) as illegal combattants while the court system is still functioning normally."

Really? You need to do some research. We did it during WWII. Read USSC Quirin.

"If we were under martial law, OK I get that. But we are not, and the resolution passed by the Congress, while very near to, was not in fact an act of war."

Really? It authorized the invastion of another country. Usually, most countries consider an invasion as "act of war".

[jwalsh07]

Nor does it transfer the Constitutional power to declare war from the Congress to the President.

There can be no such transfer, the COnstitution is clear, Congress declares war. How they do it is up to them but don't jump on the weasel wagon advertising that Korea, Vietnam, Afgahnistan and Iraq were not "wars".