Court Rules U.S. Can Indefinitely Detain Citizens

[Bob Hubbard]

Court Rules U.S. Can Indefinitely Detain Citizens

Author: Jerry Markon Source: Washington Post

Title: COURT RULES U.S. CAN INDEFINITELY DETAIN CITIZENS

A federal appeals court ruled today that the president can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in the absence of criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

[Jose] Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has been held without trial in a U.S. naval brig for more than three years, and his case triggered a legal battle with vast implications for civil liberties and the fight against terrorism.

Attorneys for Padilla and a host of civil liberties organizations blasted the detention as illegal and said it could lead to the military being allowed to hold anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library. Options: [Read Full Story]
From Witches Voice

 

[Rich Parsons]

Hmmm, more Bill of Rights infringement?

 

[michaeledward]

The Bush administration has attempted to move Mr. Padilla's case from the Defense Department Court System to a Civilian Court System.

The Forth Circut Court of Appeals has issued a ruling against the Federal Government. The legal rulings, and the arguments about Padilla in general, are a bit combersome to understand ... but as near as I can figure out from the reports I have heard.

Michael Luttig (The conservative judge that was on the short list for the Supreme Court) was part of a three judge panel that said "You can't change the rules in the middle of the game."

The Padilla Case (can the government indefinately detain a US Citizen, without access to councel, in times of war) is on track for presentation before the United States Supreme Court. The Forth Circuit ruled that the government can not seek to change venues to the civilian court system after three years in the DOD court system, before the events playout before the Supreme Court.

I may be mis-stating what is going on ... it is confusing ... but it seems the 4th circuit just put a spanking on the Bush Adminstration justice department.

 

[KenpoEMT]

:xtrmshock Ghastly!:xtrmshock

 

[terryl965]

That is just plain and simple ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!
Terry

 

[sgtmac_46]

The right thing to do is charge Padilla if there is evidence. Then, if he's guilty, convict the scum bag.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/

"Padilla was charged with three counts -- conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and providing material support to terrorists."

I think it's very likely that Padilla was the threat to national security that they claimed. It's good to see, however, that he might get his day in court.....maybe.

 

[arnisador]

The right thing to do is charge Padilla if there is evidence.

That seems like the best course of action to me.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That seems like the best course of action to me.

It seems so simple a thing, doesn't it. I have no much evidence exists, but I have to wonder what took so long.

 

[sgtmac_46]

In actuality, I'm pretty sure I know what took so long....not that this is a justification, but it's likely the reason. The evidence against Padilla was probably founded on some pretty sensitive intelligence information, which, should it be revealed in discovery, would damage or destroy ongoing investigations.
So, the US government, in it's infinite wisdom, decided to hang on to Padilla until it had pursued those other intelligence threads and had worn out any usefulness in that direction toward other groups.
Then, three years later, they decide to FINALLY charge Padilla.

Again, not excusing it, just pointing out that is likely what occurred.

Makes more sense than the 'it's just a conspiracy against the constitution' argument. There are motives, and they aren't all 'evil' motives, even if they start to become abusive in practice. Things, however, are a little more complicated than 'Bush, baaad'. Some people are making some tough decisions.

Whether they are all right, or some of them are wrong, they are difficult when it's your job to make them and get results. Again, that's not a defense, just pointing out the reality.

 

[michaeledward]

Some people are making some tough decisions.

Whether they are all right, or some of them are wrong, they are difficult when it's your job to make them and get results. Again, that's not a defense, just pointing out the reality.

Actually, that is a defense. And it is a defense that says "It is OK to trade away the rights of American Citizens for the expediency of appearing more secure."

Fortunately, there are courts sitting outside of those decision making processes. Hopefully, they are going to enact some of the 'inefficiencies' in our government and correct the wrongs that have been made.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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 all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.