|
Washington Post - September 9, 2005
Bush's power to detain US enemy combatant upheld
WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has the power to detain Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who has been held in a South Carolina military brig for more than three years as a suspected enemy combatant without being charged, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
"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," wrote Judge J. Michael Luttig in the opinion for the three-judge panel.
"We conclude that the president does possess such authority," wrote Luttig, a conservative whom the Bush administration has been considering for a possible Supreme Court nomination.
The ruling by the court based in Richmond, Virginia, was a major victory for the Bush administration. Andrew Patel, an attorney for Padilla, said he thought it would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It is very troubling that a court would be willing to uphold executive detentions in a democracy. Terrorism does not change over 200 years of legal tradition," he said in New York.
Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and convert to Islam, was suspected by U.S. officials of plotting with al Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.
On May 8, 2002, Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after returning from Pakistan. Bush then declared him an enemy combatant, and Padilla was placed in solitary confinement at a Navy brig in South Carolina -- where he remains.
The appeals court reversed a decision by a federal judge in South Carolina who ruled in February that Bush had no authority to have Padilla held as an enemy combatant. The judge said Padilla must be released if he is not charged with a crime…..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900852.html
ACLU - September 9, 2005
ACLU responds to court ruling upholding detention
of Jose Padilla
NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union expressed disappointment at today's ruling upholding the military detention of Jose Padilla, and reversing a trial court decision that had ordered the government either to criminally charge him or to release him.
The ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro said:
"Contrary to the court's opinion, there is very little reason to believe that Congress either anticipated or endorsed the military detention of U.S. citizens arrested in the United States when it authorized a military strike against Afghanistan following 9/11.
"So long as the civilian courts are open and functioning, American citizens arrested in the United States are entitled to due process protections provided by a traditional criminal trial.
"While we disagree with today's ruling, it is also important to understand its limitations. It does not authorize the government to designate and detain as an 'enemy combatant' anyone who it claims is associated with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups."
http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=19060&c=36
The Journal Times opinion– September 12, 2005
Padilla court ruling threatens our rights
A federal appeals court panel on Friday sided with the Bush administration and concluded the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen because of his alleged terrorist ties.
The 3-0 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overturned the previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd of Spartanburg, S.C., who held last March that the federal government cannot hold Jose Padilla indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," a designation President Bush gave him in 2002.
Judge Floyd said the government had to charge him with something or release him.
We hold no great sympathy for Padilla, but we do believe that he - like any American citizen - deserves his day in court. The appeals court got that wrong when they decided he didn't.
We would hope the Padilla case has a different outcome when it is finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Padilla, in case you have forgotten the name, is the former Chicago gang member who has been detained for the past three years at a Navy brig in South Carolina. When he was arrested at O'Hare International Airport, federal officials alleged he was part of a plot to explode a "dirty bomb, a low-level radioactive bomb, here in the United States, and that he had turned up along the Pakistan border after the Taliban stronghold at Tora Bora fell.
The government is no longer claiming Padilla was going to set off a dirty bomb here and now says it suspects he plotted with al-Qaida leaders to blow up apartment buildings using natural gas. No such plot was ever acted upon.
Those are serious charges and they should be sorted out - in a court of law.
Sadly, the appeals court ruling says the government allegations - which have already proven suspect on the "dirty bomb" issue - are all the proof needed to hold Padilla or any U.S. citizen.
As appeals court Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote Friday, "Padilla, after all, in addition to supporting hostile forces in Afghanistan and taking up arms against our troops on a battlefield in that country ... also came to the United States in order to commit future acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens and targets."
Excuse us, judge, but those are the government allegations ... they need to be proven in a court of law.
By ruling that Padilla can be held indefinitely without getting a chance to face his accusers in court, the appeals panel is undermining the basic constitutional protections of every American.
A year ago the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration's aggressive detention procedures for those suspected terrorists and American citizens held as "enemy combatants" saying they could not be indefinitely detained simply on the government's say-so.
We trust the high court will reiterate that message. Padilla should get his day in court and be given a lengthy prison sentence if he is found guilty. But the lengthy prison sentence should come after a verdict - not before it.
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2005/09/12/opinion/iq_3678432.txt
|
