Posted on 02/28/2005 3:20:44 PM PST by 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 countrys constitutional tradition, but it would also be a betrayal of this nations commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties," he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecarolinachannel.com ...
So does releasing his name, which the government has already done.
There is sure to be a huge group who think American citizens should be denied their constitutional rights when the mood fits.
Correct. Supposedly we're in a war to protect our freedoms.
There's a large segment here who are willing to abandon our freedoms to win the war.
Pretty oxymoronic, eh?
three people have been charged in this war on terrorism as enemy combatants. has the government made honest claims about the conduct of these persons to classify them as such? you say you don't trust them; fine, have they provided an honest presentation three times? because if they can't, given the thousands and thousands of other cases where the government brings charges against citizens, we are in alot of trouble.
that is nonsense, no one is saying Padilla should not get a military tribunal.
what is Bush going to, order the military guards at the brig to shoot them? that's not an exaggeration, that's what would happen.
the judicial branch isn't going to protect any citizens in the domestic war on terror - the judicial system is incapable of doing that. we have to put some faith in the executive branch, or we will be hit again.
Gentlemen, I have read this entire thread and have learned much from your posts. Thank you for your patience with all of those who attacked your point of view WITHOUT having read the thread. And thank you for bringing your obvious knowledge and expertise to FR.
(Of course maybe I'm just saying this because I agree with you... and because I want the US to survive this war.) :-)
If so, he should be charged with same.
Lest we forget, the Sixth Amendment was based in part on the fact that the British had a habit of arresting people, and holding them in prison for long periods, without charging them.
we will all recognize abuse when we see it - others with differing opinions on this thread fear the abuse of power. that is a legitimate fear, but lets at least some evidence that its happening before we pull the rug out from under this enemy combatant process.
what gets me is that the same people put blind faith in the judiciary - our most unaccountable and biased branch of government. they are willing to turn these decisions over to their discretion. why? these are the same people who today found some new constitutional right for immunity from captial punishment for Lee Malvo. this is who I am supposed to put my faith in?
he will be charged and tried, by the military tribunal. if Padilla would drop his appeals, the tribunal could get underway. why do you think his ACLU lawyers want a criminal trial for him?
"Yeah I read Quinn and I thought it was a mistake not to try the one who was a citizen."
But we did try him. Hung him too.
"This is just too much power for a President, and particularly so when war has not been declared."
War has been declared. The constitution does not specify a specific format or specific words. And, from an international perspective, once you attack another country you've declared war.
"We could easily end up a banana republic if a politician like Hilary was to win the presidency."
Fiddlesticks. Probably the worst argument against what we've done. Hillary will do any damn thing she pleases if elected regardless of what we do or do not do.
I'm waiting for a reaction to the Nazi American citizens who were executed and have yet to read anything about FDR's "oriental lock-up".
Ask yourself if Bush is more concerned about what's eventually done with Josè than he is with the information this guy has spilled. Charge Josè, he goes to court, and that intelligence becomes public record, available to the enemy.
Very interesting reading.
As for listening to anything that might be spewed from the syphilitic minds of those troglodites over at DU, well I don't have a hot enough shower to get clean after a visit to that hell-hole. They are the minority in this country, even if they scream the loudest. Losers all.
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.