TheTip.org
Username:
Password:

Not a member?
Signup!
Polls Members Refer Forums Write for TheTip! Home Impeach Bush




Impeach George Bush


Jose Padilla Denied Justice at the Supreme Court

After three years of detention without access to a lawyer and without being charged, Jose Padilla's case was taken up by an independent attorney. A lower court had ruled that the government must abide by the consititution and charge Padilla. In order to avoid a supreme court showdown, after three years the government finally changed the supposed charges from terrorism related charges to domestic misdemeanors flaunting the court. The federal appeals court was non-plused. The supreme court refused to hear the case today along partisan lines.

Source: Associated Press, 2006-04-03

Candidate: Judiciary

A divided Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Jose Padilla, held as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights for more than three years, sidestepping a challenge to Bush administration wartime detention powers.

Padilla was moved in January to Miami to face criminal charges, and the government argued that the appeal over his indefinite detention was now pointless.

Three justices said the court should have agreed to take up the case anyway: Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

And three other court members, including Chief Justice John Roberts, said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."

An appeals court panel had all but called for the high court to deal with the case, saying it was troubled by the Bush administration's change in legal strategy — it brought criminal charges only after it looked like the Supreme Court was going to step in.


Justices first considered in 2004 whether Padilla's constitutional rights were violated when he was detained as an "enemy combatant" without charges and access to a lawyer, traditional legal rights. Justices dodged a decision on technical grounds. In a dissent Justice John Paul Stevens said then that "at stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society."

Justices are reviewing a second case arising from the government pursuit of terrorists, an appeal by a foreign terrorist suspect facing a military commission on war crimes charges at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Arguments were last week.

Padilla's case was different. It asked the court to clarify how far the government can go when its hunt for terrorists leads to Americans in this country.

Based on the vote breakdown, it appears the court would have agreed to hear the appeal had Padilla not been charged.

"In light of the previous changes in his custody status and the fact that nearly four years have passed
since he first was detained, Padilla, it must be acknowledged, has a continuing concern that his status might be altered again," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, Stevens and Roberts. "That concern, however, can be addressed if the necessity arises."

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and a convert to Islam, was arrested in 2002 after a trip to Pakistan. The government alleged at the time that he was part of a plot to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb" in the United States.

The Bush administration has maintained since 2002 that it had the power to detain him without charges. However, in an abrupt change in strategy, the government late last year brought criminal charges against Padilla. His appeal was pending at the Supreme Court at the time.

The charges do not match the long-standing allegations that Padilla sought to blow up apartment buildings. Instead, he was charged with being part of a North American terrorism cell that raised funds and recruited fighter
s to wage violent jihad outside the United States.

The strategy shift angered a panel of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which had ruled last September that Padilla's constitutional rights had not been violated by his detention.

Judge J. Michael Luttig, a conservative who was named to the bench by President Bush's father, wrote in a decision late last year that the administration's actions left the impression that Padilla had been held in military custody "by mistake."

Ginsburg said Monday that although Padilla is charged in civilian court "nothing prevents the executive (branch) from returning to the road it earlier constructed and defended."

"This case, here for the second time, raises a question 'of profound importance to the nation,'" she wrote.

Padilla pleaded innocent in Florida to the criminal charges and is scheduled to be put on trial this fall. A federal judge refused to set bail for Padilla after a prosecutor said he had a history of arrest
s and convictions for violent crimes — including murder as a juvenile.

The case is Padilla v. Hanft, 05-533.

Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
Add your Comments to this article
Display Name:


User Originated Comments:


Send this article to:
Your Email:

Related News

6-23-2005
Thought You Owned Property?
4-29-2004
California Denied Right to Pass Clean Air Laws
4-29-2004
The Fix is in II - Scalia, Cheney Agree
9-4-2003
Estrada Defeated
8-14-2003
Fox News vs Al Franken
7-2-2003
Bush's 'Blind' Justice in Texas Executions
6-8-2003
Another Unworthy Judicial Nominee, Carolyn Kuhl, a Forshadowing of Who's to Come
2-23-2003
Judge Denies Constitutional Separation of Powers











Donate some Clicks!













This RingSurf The Political Science and Politics Webring Net Ring
owned by TheTIP.

[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]

NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Thetip.org assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in these materials. Thetip.org makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Further, Thetip.org cannot edit, control, review for truth or accuracy, or screen for defamation or obscenity any content provided to the Website by a third party through postings, uploaded files, or any other form of communication, nor can Thetip.org ensure prompt removal of defamatory, obscene, inappropriate or unlawful content after transmission. Any such third party postings, files or other communications do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or positions of Thetip.org.

Thetip.org makes no, and expressly disclaims any, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the Website, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Thetip.org makes no, and expressly disclaims any, warranties, express or implied, regarding the correctness, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and reliability of the text, graphics, links to other sites and any other items accessed from or via this Website or the Internet, or that the services will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components. Under no circumstances shall Thetip.org, its affiliates, or any of their respective partners, officers, directors, employees, agents or representatives be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, special or consequential damages for lost revenues, lost profits, or otherwise, arising from or in connection with this Website, the materials contained herein, or the Internet generally.