Posted on 04/03/2006 11:44:56 AM PDT by truth_seeker
Supreme Court Rejects Jose Padilla Case By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
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."
Andrew Patel of New York, one of Padilla's lawyers, said: "I think there is a message here, saying if the government tries to do this again it's not going to take another four years for them (the justices) to straighten it out."
Viet Dinh, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration who teaches law at Georgetown University, said now the government can "go full-steam ahead with the criminal trial."
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 fighters 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 arrests and convictions for violent crimes — including murder as a juvenile.
The case is Padilla v. Hanft, 05-533.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Note Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter against the administration. GHW Bush was sleepwalking when he appointed Souter.
6-3 is "a divided court". Nice work, AP.
The administration only finally brought him to justice in order to avoid a ruling on the constitutionality of their actions. What were they afraid of?
GHWB was, unfortunately, sleepwalking throughout the entirety of his administration - at least domestically - its what got him defeated....
I remember an interview with Padilla (why don't we use his Muslim name?) and he said Jose was caught "on the streets of O'Hare airport".
He was arrested at a port having returned from an international destination. Good enough for me.
THere was no surprise that Ginsdilla, Breyerdilla and Soupad wanted their brother terrorist/terrorist sympathizer given appeal rights of some sort.
>>>The administration only finally brought him to justice in order to avoid a ruling on the constitutionality of their actions. What were they afraid of?
And if found to be not guilty of criminal charges, can the administration then choose to once again detain him indefinitely as an enemy combatant?
Padilla=Padilla's lawyer
the ABC top-of-the-hour radio spot called it "sharply divided".
It makes more sense than "narrowly split".
The question wasn't whether the detention was legal, but whether the court should address the issue of its legality. The government finally putting him on trial removed the legal need for this case, but those three justices wanted the issue decided now rather than wait for the next case.
I disagree with those three. The government's move was brilliant, as it changed the constitutionality into an academic exercise, and courts are supposed to decide cases, not academic exercises.
I'm sure they could. But I'm also sure that decision would be on a fast track to the Supreme Court to decide an issue they don't want decided.
I just hope that if he's guilty (high likelihood) he's convicted and gets the max.
Bush defeated? He won the last election. He overcame the Patriot act filibuster, got two U.S. Supreme court judges approved over strong objections. He saw the Iraqi's approve a constitution and start defending themselves.
The only thing I can think of that is being defeated are the insurgents, the democrats and their allies in the lamestream media.
He is talking about the senior Bush being defeated.
Yes, he needs to be charged as a traitor and hanged. Osama is an enemy, but this guy is a traitor... worse than an enemy. And our enemies would like nothing better than to spread how to make dirty bombs across our country.
So, if this traitor knows how to spread that knowledge, he, in himself, is a dirty bomb and must be contained and disposed of properly.
If you have a way of doing that safely, we would like to hear it.
Pretty simple: a trial just like McVeigh got and punishment to fit the crime.
Maybe I am missing something here but Padilla is a citizen with constitutional rights.
I don't like this notion that somehow it's ok to wage war and institute subterfuge if you're a citizen. I know that wasn't what you meant or implied but I've been hearing a lot about this lately. Prisoners of war (which I would consider him) are in a different category than ordinary criminal defendants. We've held prisoners of war for extended periods before.
It would be a much simpler matter if we just tried him for treason and hanged him, like we used to do. But the T word is never mentioned. Probably too draconian for these "enlightened" times.
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.