Court rejects request to transfer Padilla custody - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 9 Old 12-21-2005, 09:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
RowansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 8,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Fourth Circuit calls out Dubya Inc. on its attempt to duck Supreme Court review:

"In a sharp rebuke, a federal appeals court denied Wednesday a Bush administration request to transfer terrorism suspect Jose Padilla from military to civilian law enforcement custody.

"The three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said bringing criminal charges against Padilla in Florida after he had been held by the U.S. military for more than three years as an enemy combatant created the appearance the government may be attempting to avoid high court review of the controversial case.

"The judges also refused the administration’s request to void a September ruling that gave President Bush wide authority to detain “enemy combatants” indefinitely without charges on U.S. soil. Wiping out that ruling would have made it virtually impossible for the Supreme Court to review the case.

"The decision, written by Judge Michael Luttig, questioned why the administration used one set of facts before the court for 3½ years to justify holding Padilla without charges but used another set to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last month."

From:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562970/

Wonder if Judge Luttig is sore over not getting the Alito gig?

Btw, opinion can be found here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/p...t122105ord.pdf
RowansDad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 9 Old 12-22-2005, 01:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
RowansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 8,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've read the decision twice now and Luttig pasted Dubya's DOJ:

"Legal experts said the decision showed that a previously friendly appellate court was now casting a more skeptical eye toward the Bush administration's terrorism arguments. The Richmond-based 4th Circuit has been the administration's venue of choice for several high-profile terrorism cases. It is widely considered the nation's most conservative appellate court, and the same three-judge panel that issued yesterday's ruling had earlier strongly backed the president's authority to detain Padilla without trial. Both decisions were written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was a leading contender to be nominated to the Supreme Court earlier this year.

"Obviously, the court feels very stung by being presented with what it thought to be a serious and heartfelt argument by the administration [to hold Padilla originally], only to learn it would turn on a dime," said Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland."

More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101524_pf.html

It has been my experence that federal judges do not like to be jerked around. Looks like the 4th Circuit feels Dubya Inc. has done just that.
RowansDad is offline  
#3 of 9 Old 12-22-2005, 01:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
RowansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 8,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Some backround on recent filings from the parties that led to Dubya Inc.'s smackdown from the 4th Circuit.

From 12/17/05

Lawyers for Padilla Accuse U.S. of Toying With Courts

"Attorneys for Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen facing terrorism charges, accused the Bush administration yesterday of playing games with the nation's courts by repeatedly changing its reasons for holding the former Chicago gang member as an "enemy combatant" for 3 1/2 years.

"Though its factual allegations have changed with the prevailing winds, the government's actions have been strategically consistent," wrote the lawyers, Andrew G. Patel and Donna R. Newman. "At every turn, the government has sought to manipulate the federal courts' jurisdiction and evade judicial review."

More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601835_pf.html


From 12/9/05

US asks court ruling on Padilla to be set aside

"The U.S. government, in an unusual retreat, urged a federal appeals court on Friday to set aside its ruling that allowed the United States to hold an American citizen as an enemy combatant without being charged.

"In a filing to the U.S. Appeals Court in Richmond, Virginia, Justice Department lawyers said that since Jose Padilla -- who was held by the U.S. military for more than three years as an enemy combatant -- has been indicted by a civilian court in Florida, the case regarding his military custody was moot.

"As a result, the government said the court should go ahead and set aside its September 9 ruling that allowed Padilla to be held by the military without charge.

"That ruling had been seen as a significant victory and a legal precedent for the administration in its war on terrorism and its controversial policy of holding enemy combatants in prison for long periods without charges."

From:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...TY-PADILLA.xml
RowansDad is offline  
#4 of 9 Old 12-22-2005, 03:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
RowansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 8,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Information on why Dubya Inc. pulled a switcheroo in charging Padilla:

Shift on Suspect Is Linked to Role of Qaeda Figures

"The Bush administration decided to charge Jose Padilla with less serious crimes because it was unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of Al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning, current and former government officials said Wednesday.

"The two senior members were the main sources linking Mr. Padilla to a plot to bomb targets in the United States, the officials said.

"The Qaeda members were Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a top recruiter, who gave their accounts to American questioners in 2002 and 2003. The two continue to be held in secret prisons by the Central Intelligence Agency, whose internal reviews have raised questions about their treatment and credibility, the officials said.

"One review, completed in spring 2004 by the C.I.A. inspector general, found that Mr. Mohammed had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture, American intelligence officials said."

"Another review, completed in April 2003 by American intelligence agencies shortly after Mr. Mohammed's capture, assessed the quality of his information from initial questioning as "Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies."

More here:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...31/1018/NEWS02

It is likely that the above is one of the press reports Judge Luttig referred to in his opinion.
RowansDad is offline  
#5 of 9 Old 12-23-2005, 04:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
RowansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 8,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Terror case challenges White House strategy

"Suddenly, terror suspect Jose Padilla seems a lot more dangerous to the Bush administration.

"It has nothing to do with his suspected involvement in Al Qaeda bomb plots, analysts say. Rather, the administration worries that the US Supreme Court might agree to hear Mr. Padilla's case and decide one of the most pressing constitutional issues in the war on terrorism. And by all appearances, government lawyers think they might lose.

"The issue: Does President Bush have the power as commander in chief to order the open-ended military detention of US citizens that he deems enemy combatants?

"It is not a minor matter. The claim of broad presidential power is a cornerstone of the administration's effort to restore what it views as the proper level of executive authority after decades of erosion following the Watergate scandal. Such robust, independent presidential power is said to be critical to safeguarding the country from a repeat of the 9/11 terror attacks.

"But the White House faces a significant hurdle. It is not at all clear that a majority of Supreme Court justices agree with such an expansive view of executive power."

More here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1223/p02s01-uspo.htm
RowansDad is offline  
#6 of 9 Old 12-23-2005, 05:43 PM
 
Dragonfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: On the Brink
Posts: 6,550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowansDad
"The decision, written by Judge Michael Luttig
That's pretty surprising.
Dragonfly is offline  
#7 of 9 Old 12-29-2005, 12:00 AM - Thread Starter
 
RowansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 8,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The plot thickens....

U.S. Asks Supreme Court to Transfer Terror Suspect

"The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court today to allow for the immediate transfer of Jose Padilla from a military brig to civilian custody to stand trial on terrorism charges, challenging an appellate court ruling last week that blocked the move.

"The Justice Department, in an unusually strong criticism of a lower court that has historically been a staunch ally, said the earlier order blocking Mr. Padilla's transfer to civilian custody represented an "unwarranted attack" on presidential discretion.

"In last week's ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., refused to allow Mr. Padilla to be transferred to civilian custody to face charges in Miami that he had conspired with Al Qaeda to commit terror attacks abroad.

***

"But Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, in the administration's new filing today asking the Supreme Court to take up the custody issue, said the Fourth Circuit's decision "defies both law and logic," and he noted that Mr. Padilla himself had sought to be transferred to civilian custody.

***

"Nothing in this case surprises me anymore," Donna Newman, one of Mr. Padilla's lawyer, said after the Justice Department's filing in the case today. "This is an unusual turn of events for the Justice Department to come out against the Fourth Circuit like this, because anybody who looks at precedent would see the Fourth Circuit is a very pro-government circuit that generally finds in favor of the government."

More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/in...gewanted=print
RowansDad is offline  
#8 of 9 Old 04-03-2006, 06:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
RowansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melrose, MA
Posts: 8,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Dubya Inc.'s shell game pays off for now....

Justices, 6-3, Sidestep Ruling on Padilla Case

"A sharply split Supreme Court today rejected an appeal from the terrorism suspect Jose Padilla, leaving undecided for now deeper questions about the Bush administration's handling of detainees since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Six justices were sufficiently persuaded, at least for the time being, that Mr. Padilla's appeal is moot, since he was transferred from military custody to a civilian jail several months ago and is to go on trial. The federal government indicted him last fall on terrorism charges that could bring him a sentence of life in prison if he is convicted.

"The administration had argued that since Mr. Padilla was going to get a trial, there was no need for the Supreme Court to rule on his appeal of a lower court order upholding the administration's authority to keep him in open-ended military detention as an enemy combatant.

***

"But there were hints of an internal struggle among the justices. For one thing, several justices took the somewhat unusual step of issuing opinions related to the court's order not to take a case. More commonly, when refusing to take a case, the court simply issues an order without comment."

More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/us...gewanted=print
RowansDad is offline  
#9 of 9 Old 04-03-2006, 07:02 PM
 
Danelle78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Somewhere on Earth, for now
Posts: 3,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Justice Ginsburg said the underlying issues are "of profound importance to the nation," and that it was high time the court ruled on the executive branch's power to hold a United States citizen after declaring him an "enemy combatant." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/us...gewanted=print
Due process, what??? Good ole Ruthie.
Danelle78 is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off