| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
Jose Padilla - Supreme Court Bound
In the aftermath of 911, one major thing changed - the President was given broad rights to wage war against - well - anyone. Unfortunately, this included American Citizens, in particular Mr. Jose Padilla who has been held without charge and without an opportunity to respond to charges against him, and at first without access to lawyers, despite a ruling that the Bush Administration must charge him. Today Padilla's case was turned again as an appeals court overruled the earlier court's ruling that he must be charged. But it's a travesty against the Constitution.
Source: New York Times/Thetip.org, 2005-09-10
Candidate: Republican Party
This is what the fifth ammendment says:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In particular, that in order to hold someone to answer for a crime (capital or otherwise) they must be indicted before a grand jury.
The exception is for active service military personnel. It is the only exception.
And yet one appeals court says the legislation can grant the president unconstitution powers. If this precedent becomes the standard, anyone - and that means you - can be held for an indefinite period of time without any reason except that the state deems them an enemy combatant - a political enemy.
Note that Jose Padilla didn't actually do anything illegal here in the United States. He was involved in Al Quaeda before the 9/11 attacks and had fought against US troops in Afganistan before 9/11. BUT the US troops weren't supposed to be in Afganistan then anyway... So who was breaking the law?
Here's the NY Times report....
______________
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 - A three-judge federal appeals court panel ruled unanimously on Friday that President Bush had the authority to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen who fought United States forces on foreign soil.
The panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., threw out a ruling by a trial judge in South Carolina that Mr. Bush had overstepped his bounds by detaining Jose Padilla, a Chicago native, for three years.
The military has asserted that Mr. Padilla (pronounced pa-DILL-uh) was an operative of Al Qaeda who fought in Afghanistan, was trained by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, and was considering various terrorist plots in the United States. Law enforcement authorities have also identified Mr. Padilla as a former gang member in Chicago who converted to Islam.
In an opinion written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who has been considered by President Bush for a nomination to the Supreme Court, the panel said Mr. Bush had the right to detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant under the powers granted the president by Congress after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the president of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with Al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war," Judge Luttig wrote. "We conclude that the president does possess such authority," citing the Congressional authorization.
Joining Judge Luttig in the ruling were Judges M. Blane Michael and William B. Traxler Jr.
Although Mr. Padilla lost his challenge to being detained, his situation is vastly different today than when he first came to public attention after his arrest at O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002.
For one thing, the government no longer presents as the main charge against him that he had intended to set off a "dirty bomb" that would spew radiation in some American city. Instead, as his case made its way through the court system for the second time, the government all but eliminated that accusation, saying he may have been planning to use gas lines to destroy apartment buildings.
Government lawyers argued that the main new reason he should be detained as an enemy combatant was that he fought American forces in Afghanistan alongside Qaeda colleagues. Another difference is that all parties, even the Bush administration, appear to accept that Mr. Padilla is entitled to some kind of hearing at which he could contest the accusations against him.
Both changes are the results of the altered legal landscape that followed the Supreme Court's rulings on June 28, 2004, when the justices considered a set of challenges to the administration's legal strategy to detain suspected terrorists.
In those cases, the justices ruled that a person who appeared to also be an American citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, could be detained by President Bush as an enemy combatant because he was purportedly captured while fighting in Afghanistan. But the court also said he was entitled under the Constitution to contest the allegations made against him by "a neutral decision maker."
The court declined to rule that day on Mr. Padilla's case, saying that his challenge to detention had been wrongly filed in New York federal court rather than in South Carolina, where he was being held in a Navy brig.
In his ruling, Judge Luttig cited the Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdi case repeatedly. For their part, government lawyers tailored their most recent affidavits regarding Mr. Padilla's offenses to more closely resemble those attributed to Mr. Hamdi, notably fighting American forces in Afghanistan.
The appeals court ruling did not directly address the issue of what kind of hearing Mr. Padilla is entitled to, but that is almost certain to be the subject of another round of litigation. Mr. Hamdi was sent back to his home country, Saudi Arabia, before that issue was resolved.
Jonathan M. Freiman, a New Haven lawyer who represents Mr. Padilla, said that he would appeal Friday's ruling. He said it was a "a sad day for the nation when a federal court finds the president has the power to detain indefinitely and without criminal charge any American citizen whom he deems an enemy combatant."
Mr. Freiman said the only fair hearing for Mr. Padilla would be a trial in an American civilian court. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in her controlling opinion in the Hamdi case, wrote that some kind of military tribunal with rules of evidence more favorable to the prosecution than in civil courts might suffice for Mr. Hamdi.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said in a statement on Friday that he was pleased that the appeals court "has reaffirmed the president's critical authority to detain enemy combatants who take up arms on behalf of Al Qaeda and travel to the United States to kill innocent Americans. "
"As the court noted today,' Mr. Gonzales continued, "the authority to detain enemy combatants like Mr. Padilla plays an important role in protecting American citizens from the very kind of savage attack that took place almost four years ago to the day."
Prof. Neal Katyal of the Georgetown University Law School, who is challenging the government in a case involving another detainee, said he believed that the appeals ruling was fair.
"It's a quite reasonable interpretation given the facts as presented," Professor Katyal said.
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
From: possibly an answer
2005-09-14 02:51:44
who are the red berets?? they are private
"contractors" from an organization known as
"blackwater". they are mercenaries "mercs" for
hire to anyone that will pay their fee for
anything, including -ss-ssinations and killing (at
their discretion). they are most likely in the
employ of halliburton, and contracted by the bush
crime family. isn't our appointed "president" a
truly wonderful "christian" person. does that
answer your question...
From: Questions to ask:
2005-09-12 22:30:28
is it at all questionable to the american people
to question the alterior motives of their leaders,
especially those that wish to change laws that
protect us from the threat of harm.
i ask
who is a bigger threat? one who speaks loud with
questions of political scourge, or 10 armed men
breaking into your home while you are dreaming in
your beds of peace and a brand new day?
i
ask you, with your freedom's in mind... who is
the terrorist?
the citizen or the men who
order such envasions?
i ask why was a 3
star general in charge of cleaning out new orleans
while us troops said that they were scheduled to
go home, yet they were ordered to stand and watch
the borders of afflicted areas while non-us troops
(red berets) clean out new orleans? what were
they doing and why. or who were they searching
for? why is fema, a anti-terrorist organization,
in charge of a natural disaster?
who
exactly are the red berets? what is their
specialty? why are they blowing up
buildings?
and shooting at power
transfomers?
Related News
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
owned by TheTIP.
[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]
NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH