Appeals court says Padilla can be held indefinitely

JC

EOG Veteran
#1
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, ruled against Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen and a Muslim convert. The administration said he took up arms against the U.S. in Afghanistan and was recruited by al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks in the U.S. The president has the authority to detain such a person, the appeals court said, reversing a lower court's order.

``We conclude that the president does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001,'' the three-judge panel said in an order posted on its Web site today.
 

Nimue77

EOG Senior Member
#5
I have never understood how any court can reasonably conclude that what they are doing to padilla is legal under the constitution. He is an American citizen and he has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers and to be able to respond to any charges and to have a speedy trial. Not to mention allowing him to communicate with a lawyer without the government listening. This case has been and continues to be a grotesque abuse of power. The supreme court is very much to blame for allowing this happen.
 

JC

EOG Veteran
#8
There was a time when US Constitutional rights applied not just to Americans but also to those in the American judicial system.

If they have something to charge him with, then charge him. It's not like they have such a hard time winiing in federal court. What are they afraid of? Is their case that weak?
 

Nimue77

EOG Senior Member
#9
Why? Because the supreme court is the body that has the authority to make the ultimate determination of what is and is not constitutional. Oh yeah, andthey heard the case. If they had done their job he would have been charged with a crime or released as is required under our constitution.


Sam Odom said:
How and why?
 

MLM

EOG Member
#10
JC said:
There was a time when US Constitutional rights applied not just to Americans but also to those in the American judicial system.

If they have something to charge him with, then charge him. It's not like they have such a hard time winiing in federal court. What are they afraid of? Is their case that weak?
I'm sure the CIA and other intelligence sources that were used to pick this Al Queda guy up at O'Hare airport would enjoy hearing that Padilla was being tried in Federal court. At least the Soviets had to pay Robert Hanson to get the names of our CIA assets...what you are suggesting would allow Al Queda to just read the court transcripts.
 

Nimue77

EOG Senior Member
#12
What you are suggesting is that the 6th ammendment in the bill of rights is not really a right enjoyed by all americans or that it shouldn't be.


MLM said:
I'm sure the CIA and other intelligence sources that were used to pick this Al Queda guy up at O'Hare airport would enjoy hearing that Padilla was being tried in Federal court. At least the Soviets had to pay Robert Hanson to get the names of our CIA assets...what you are suggesting would allow Al Queda to just read the court transcripts.
 
Top