The Padilla Decision (NY Times cheers release of terrorist)

New York Fishwrap ^ | 12/19/03

[pabianice]

In a signal 2-to-1 ruling yesterday, a federal appeals court in Manhattan struck a blow against egregious presidential overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism. The court, ruling in the case of Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber, denied the Bush administration's sweeping claim that the president has executive authority to hold Americans indefinitely in secret without access to lawyers simply by declaring them "enemy combatants."

Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, was taken into custody in Chicago in May 2002. He is being held incommunicado at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C, where he has been denied access to counsel. Not long after his arrest, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that Mr. Padilla was part of a plot by Al Qaeda to explode a radiological "dirty bomb." But no charges have yet been brought.

While the ruling was in the particular case of Mr. Padilla, the decision's larger message — that there are constitutional limits on the president's power to deny basic civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism — is one that protects the liberty of all Americans...

[pabianice]

Perhaps the Times editors were relieved that they now can demand a lawyer when they are charged with treason...

[Always Right]

He wasn't actually released. They have 30 days to bring him up on charges.

[conejo99]

I alays think, "Do I want President Hilary Clinton to have that power?".

[lugsoul]

That's because you get it. Most here apparently do not.

[mattdono]

I think that they should let him go. I know a few of "my boys" would be interested in having a little "talk" with him.

Me, my boys, Pete Rose, and Mr. Padilla could have "a lit'l chat".

[tet68]

You know Hillery! is probably kicking herself.
"I had the power, I HAD the power, stupid, stupid, stupid!"

Ya know, Bill and Hill! just never put two and two together,
they thought they could control this country using domestic issues, the use of foreign policy to do it was beyond them.
This is why she must never be allowed to reach the Whitehouse again.

[conserv13]

Thanks. US citizens have Constitutional Rights, no matter what crime they are accused of. A lot of FReepers go on and on about the 2nd Amendment but have no problem with the government locking people up and throwing away the key without charges or access to a lawyer.

[meenie]

The Constitution has to be protected. It should be more permanent than any temporary crisis we face. People live and die. The Constitution needs to last forever.

[WoofDog123]

I alays think, "Do I want President Hilary Clinton to have that power?".""

I ask that same question with the whole 'patriot' act...amazing to read from the posters that have no problem with a u.s. citizen being locked up indefinitely with no charges, no rights, etc. This is a horrifying precedent. If they have evidence, then bring it out. Next thing you know we will be seeing secret trials.

[Wayland]

I too am surprised by many of the posters here that can accept this type of treatment for a US citizen. Although I am democrat, I still thought this would be another issue that republicans and I would agree on. It seems to me that there should be common ground on this issue.

If the case gets reversed by the full panel of the Second Circuit or the Supreme Court, I hope that posts like this will not get me labeled as an "enemy" and locked away without charges or access to due process.

[freebilly]

1. Strip him of his citizenship for conspiring with a foreign enemy.

2. Following the revocation of Padilla's citizenship keep him detained as an enemy combatant for the next 100 years....

[freebilly]

As long as you haven't conspired with a foreign enemy for the purpose of destroying American lives your freedom to dissent is guaranteed.

[BurtS188]

I agree that we have to protect the constitution and by all means a suspected criminal that is a citizen should be treated the same way no matter what the crime. I think the question becomes, however, when involved in a full blown war (which we are) and a citizen takes up arms against his country (suspected or otherwise) is he still just accused of a crime or do war crimes, Geneva convention, and treason rules and law kick in? If so what would be the difference in his treatment? I'm not being a smart guy, I'm really not sure of the answer. The only thing I am sure of is I don't want him in my town after he's let go.

[sport]

They would.

They cheered silently when the World Trade Center was attacked.

They cheer each time a Service man or woman looses their life.

They cheer each time a bomb is set off in Israel and innocent people are killed.

They cheer each time an unborn or partially born baby is murdered.

They mourned when the Nation reaaled under President Bush.

They mpurn each time a terrorists is killed.

[DugwayDuke]

"Anyone who claims to be a strict interpreter of the Constitution has to be in favor of treating Padilla no different from any other suspected criminal. The charge -- if they ever get around to deciding on one -- doesn't matter."

No different from any other suspected criminal? The government claims the man is an "illegal combatant". Where under our criminal code is that a crime? What charges do you bring in criminal court? What criminal court has jurisdiction?

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

As long as you haven't conspired with a foreign enemy for the purpose of destroying American lives your freedom to dissent is guaranteed.

So you're willing to let Padilla be held indefinitely on nothing more than the government's say-so? Or do you have some sort of special access to the evidence against him that none of us (or his lawyer, or any court of law) has?

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

The government claims the man is an "illegal combatant".

By this logic, the government can claim anyone an "illegal combatant" without ever offering a shred of proof. And then they can lock them away, indefinitely.

I'm starting to wonder if this is America or Stalinist Russia.

If he's conspired with the enemies of this nation to do great harm, then charge him with treason and carry on with the proceedings.

[freebilly]

I didn't say that. I said have a hearing to revoke him of his citizenship first. Establish legally that he conspired with a foreign enemy.

After that has been established you then revoke his citizenship. As a non-citizen who has conspired with a foreign enemy he then has no constitutionally guaranteed rights granted citizens of the US.

[DugwayDuke]

"By this logic, the government can claim anyone an "illegal combatant" without ever offering a shred of proof. And then they can lock them away, indefinitely."

Since an illegal combatant is very precisely defined your claims are groundless.

Also, it would appear from this court ruling that no one is going to be locked away "indefinitely" or "without a shred of evidence".

"If he's conspired with the enemies of this nation to do great harm, then charge him with treason and carry on with the proceedings."

Treason is a criminal charge tried in civilian courts. Illegal combatant is a military charge triable in military courts. Personally, I would prefer the military handle this.

The ruling did not stipulate which system should try this case, only that formal charges must be filed. Charges in a military court, ie, tribunal, should suffice.