|
American citizens can now be held indefinately without trial
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DaveSZ |
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...zu7XHU&refer=us
Bush Administration Wins Appeal in Jose Padilla Case (Update2)
Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen it determines to be an enemy combatant in the war on terrorism, a federal appeals court ruled.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously ruled against Jose Padilla, the only U.S. citizen now held as an enemy combatant. Padilla, jailed for three years without a trial, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and was recruited by al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks inside the U.S., the administration says. Today's decision reverses a federal judge's ruling that he can't be held without trial.
``We conclude that the president does possess such authority,'' which was granted by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the court said.
Padilla, a Muslim convert and former gang member, was arrested in Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in May 2002. He was designated an enemy combatant by President George W. Bush one month later and was sent to a Navy jail in South Carolina, where he remains. The Bush administration says such detentions are necessary to prevent terrorism in the U.S.
A federal judge ruled in March that the U.S. must charge Padilla with a crime or release him within 45 days. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at the time that the U.S. has the right to hold suspects in the war on terrorism ``for the duration of hostilities.''
The case is a test of the government's power to detain U.S. citizens without trial and will return to the Supreme Court, according to Andrew Patel, a lawyer for Padilla.
Appeal
``An appeal is certain,'' Patel said in an interview from his office in New York today. ``We think the appeals court decision is incorrect, and we think it is contrary to what the Supreme Court said'' in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi.
Hamdi, the only other U.S. citizen ever held as an enemy combatant, was released and flown to Saudi Arabia last year. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Hamdi could challenge his detention in U.S. courts or before a ``neutral decisionmaker,'' including a military tribunal.
Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Virginia in Richmond, said the success of an appeal by Padilla to the Supreme Court will hinge on whoever replaces retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Swing Vote
If Judge John G. Roberts is confirmed as chief justice, ``he would likely vote'' to uphold presidential power as the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist did in the Hamdi case, making O'Connor's replacement the swing vote, Tobias said.
Bush initially nominated Roberts to replace O'Connor but then named him to become chief justice after Rehnquist died Sept. 3. Roberts's confirmation hearings before the Senate begin Sept. 12.
Today's appeals court opinion was written by Judge Michael Luttig, considered to be on Bush's shortlist of candidates to replace O'Connor.
Luttig wrote that, given the facts in the case, Padilla ``unquestionably'' qualifies as an enemy combatant and that the court could discern no difference between Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil, and Hamdi, a U.S. citizen captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
``Padilla maintains that capture on a foreign battlefield was one of the `narrow circumstances' to which the plurality in Hamdi confined its opinion. We disagree,'' Luttig said. ``Padilla poses the same threat of returning to the battlefield as Hamdi,'' he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union said it is ``disappointed'' with today's decision.
``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 U.S.,'' the ACLU said in a statement. ``So long as the civilian courts are open and functioning, American citizens arrested in the U.S. are entitled to due process protections.''
The case is Padilla v. Hanft, 05-6396. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| America the land of the free where everybody is innocent untul proven guilty. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
America the land of the free where everybody is innocent untul proven guilty. |
Not anymore. :( |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| Its not so black and white my friend. The man isn't innocent. He fought against the U.S. I am not saying it is or should be lawful for this man to be held until terrorism doesn't exist (btw does this administration really think they can rid the wolrd of terrorism?! What ing balls), however this man is by no means some innocent civilian. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: |
Free Jose Padilla
by Mike Whitney; May 23, 2005
May 8 marked the third anniversary of the imprisonment of Jose Padilla. Padilla was apprehended at Chicago�s O� Hare Airport in 2002 by Federal officers under the shaky �material witness� provision and trundled off to prison. In a conspicuous effort to poison public opinion, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced on national TV that Padilla was conspiring to set off a �dirty bomb� (radioactive device) within the United Sates. To date, the government has never produced any evidence to corroborate their spurious claims. In all probability, Padilla may be entirely blameless. Jose Padilla represents the crowning achievement in the war on terror. As the situation in Haiti and Afghanistan steadily deteriorates, and as America�s 8 divisions continue to bog-down in the Iraqi quagmire; the administration�s one unassailable accomplishment is the death-blow it has delivered to the Bill of Rights. Padilla now faces his 4th year of captivity without any formal charges filed against him and without any reasonable expectation of defending himself in a court of law.
The government defends its detention of Padilla on the grounds that he is an �enemy combatant�. The term �enemy combatant� means �presumed guilty� and its application to US citizens or foreign nationals allows the state to operate outside the confines of international human rights law and the Bill of Rights. Simply put, it is the end of the rule of law in America and a rejection of a legal tradition that dates back 800 years. Most likely, the phrase originated in a right-wing think-tank as a way of dealing with potential enemies of the state while ignoring the law. In fact, it has no legal meaning, but its use assumes that the president has the authority to conduct the war on terror however he sees fit; using �all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided terrorist attacks��or, in order, to �prevent future acts of international terrorism.� (Congress; Joint Resolution Sept 18, 2001) The Bush administration believes that this empowers the president to strip citizens of their constitutional rights and detain them without charges. So far, the courts have failed to stop this disturbing overreach of executive power. When Padilla�s case appeared before the US District Court, Judge Henry Floyd disputed the administration�s defense of the �enemy combatant� label saying, �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.� Indeed, it�s not the purview of the president to invent laws as he goes along, but to �preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States�.
The moniker �enemy combatant� creates the greatest constitutional crisis the nation has ever faced. It undermines the principle of �inalienable rights� by allowing the president to pick and choose who is entitled to the benefits of citizenship. More importantly, it presumes that suspects have no right to challenge the terms of their detention through access to the legal system. The media breezily refers to the plight of enemy combatants as �legal limbo. It is not limbo; it is despotism.
In Justice John Paul Stevens scathing dissent (to the Supreme Court�s refusal to hear the Padilla case) Stevens articulates the gravity of Padilla vs. Rumsfeld. He said the Padilla case poses �a unique and unprecedented threat to the freedom of every American citizen�At stake is nothing less than the essence of a free society�For if this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.�
Stevens is not exaggerating; the threat posed by placing our freedom in the hands of the president is incalculable. The Supreme Court�s refusal to hear Padilla�s case demonstrates its tacit support for the unlimited power of the president and its unwillingness to address whether Padilla is entitled to any protection under the Constitution. Their rejection condemns Padilla to indefinite detention and shows the world that they are incapable of meeting the requirements of their profession.
The Supreme Court is meaningless if it stubbornly refuses to clarify even the most fundamental points concerning constitutional protections and personal liberty. (The court would not even rule on Padilla�s habeas corpus petition, that is, whether he can be kept in jail without being charged with a crime)
In his brilliant article �The Supreme Court and Enemy Combatants�, Marc Norton notes a critical opinion written by Judges Rehnquist, Kennedy and O� Connor. (joined by Breyer) Norton says, �The key finding by this gang of four is to uphold the concept of enemy combatants, for citizens and non-citizens alike. �There is no bar to this Nation�s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,� they boldly declare.�
No bar to holding a citizen as an enemy combatant? What is the Bill of Rights if it is not a bar to the arbitrary power of the state? The court�s finding is a clear vindication of Bush�s power-grab and the court�s culpability.
Readers should carefully consider Norton�s quote and judge for themselves whether it is consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the Bill of Rights. If the Court majority is willing to overturn the inalienable rights of its citizens and confer absolute power on the executive, the task before us is to remove the erring jurists on the court.
When Justice O� Connor issued her blistering statement that, �A state of war is not a blank check for the President�; it was slapped on the front page of every newspaper across the nation. Unfortunately, there�s not a word of truth in O� Connor�s declaration. The high court cleared the way for Bush to summarily disregard the due process rights of citizens according to his own discretion. By endorsing (in principle) the enemy combatant label, the court removed the guarantees of a speedy trial, the right to confront ones accusers, the right to produce witnesses for one�s defense, the right to an attorney, the right to challenge the terms of one�s incarceration, and the right to an impartial jury of one�s peers. All of these protections are inserted into the Bill of Rights for one reason alone; to establish the procedures that make it impossible for the government to do what Bush has done to Padilla. The provisions (in the Bill of Rights) are expressed in clear, unambiguous language so the state cannot rob citizens of their freedom without just cause and hard evidence� �nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.� (5th amendment)
��without due process of law!�
Padilla is innocent; a random victim of government-demagoguery and public hysteria. Even if the allegations were true, it wouldn�t make a bit of difference. The terms of his imprisonment have never been justifiable and he should be released without delay. His continued incarceration (in a 5� by 7� windowless cell in Norfolk, VA.) is an affront to a nation that claims to be committed to human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.
The Bush administration has no interest in Jose Padilla, a hapless gang-banger caught up in the 9-11, anti-terror dragnet. It�s the precedent that�s paramount; the go-ahead to toss citizens in jail at the whim of the president and to dispose of enemies without recourse to the law.
The path to tyranny is paved with the language of tyranny. The intrusion of �enemy combatant� into our jurisprudence obliterates the ideals of constitutional protections and inalienable rights. Jose Padilla is just a minor player in this much grander scheme. We value the law because it protects the very least among us by putting a wall between ourselves and the long-arm of the government. Bush�s actions have removed that wall and put every one of us within the grasp of the all-powerful state.
Free Jose Padilla!
|
Source: ZNet |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Its not so black and white my friend. The man isn't innocent. He fought against the U.S. I am not saying it is or should be lawful for this man to be held until terrorism doesn't exist (btw does this administration really think they can rid the wolrd of terrorism?! What ing balls), however this man is by no means some innocent civilian. |
In posting this article, I am by no means attempting to defend Jose Padilla's alleged actions.
The point is, that this ruling sets a dangerous precedent in that it would allow for the administration to detain anyone it deems an "enemy combatant" for an interminable period of time (as it should be obvious to anyone that the "war on terror" is often conducted as a war against an unseen and undeclared enemy with no clear end in sight).
This ruling, if upheld, can be broadly interpreted to simply include ANYONE those at the helm of power deem an "enemy combatant" regardless of whether or not they were guilty of anything related to terrorism.
There would be no ramifications for this action on the part of the government, and no way for those presumed guilty to contest that presumption. They would simply rot in a cell.
That is my fear, and I don�t feel it�s at all unfounded. I actually feel like the US Constitution has been rendered meaningless, but it�s really been more of an ongoing process as opposed to some sudden event.
Let me spell it out for you, if this ruling if final, if it�s upheld, there will be nothing to stop the government from simply dragging you out of your house in the middle of the night and throwing you in jail for years at it�s whim.
Madison is spinning in his grave.
Feel free to disagree (I was about to say, �It�s a free country,� but thought again, and felt I may have spoken too soon). I am simply a natural skeptic of authoritarianism. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: |
Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty
LA Times 08/14/02: Jonathon Turley
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.
Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.
The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.
The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.
Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case are virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating Navy brig in Norfolk, Va.
This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."
In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C. The administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights.
Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.
Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps.
Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens. Of course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable.
We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself, neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty.
For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal, where security must precede liberty.
Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.
Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks.
His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.
In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a young lawyer, Will Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would cut down every law in England to get after the devil.
More's response seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast ... and if you cut them down--and you are just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Every generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts who view our laws and traditions as mere obstructions rather than protections in times of peril. But before we allow Ashcroft to denude our own constitutional landscape, we must take a stand and have the courage to say, "Enough."
Every generation has its test of principle in which people of good faith can no longer remain silent in the face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are defending.
|
|
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Wow, this is a sad day. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| finally some progress can get going..:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Its not so black and white my friend. The man isn't innocent. He fought against the U.S. I am not saying it is or should be lawful for this man to be held until terrorism doesn't exist (btw does this administration really think they can rid the wolrd of terrorism?! What ing balls), however this man is by no means some innocent civilian. |
I dont vare if he fought against the us or not, i dont care if hes gilty or not, if the evindence shows he is, chrage him and book him, if he isnt set him free, but dont hold him for 3 ing years without trial. |
|
|
| Aiwendil |
"With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged."
---Jean-Luc Picard, Captain, USS Enterprise
:stongue: |
|
|
| Dupz |
I wouldnt know whether I should laugh or cry. If the man is indeed guilty or even suspect of being so, then charge him. What's the problem??? The US has a judicial system set up to deal with this stuff.
If he's being used as a scapegoat, then let him go, you're violating human rights that are against the laws of your own country (the laws that were set by your founding fathers).
The US was founded as such a great nation that the only way to go was, unfortunately, down.. we're living in a time that will one day be looked upon and frowned at. |
|
|
|
|
