High Court rejects enemy combatant appeal

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:30 am

High Court Rejects Enemy Combatant Appeal

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Monday, June 13, 2005; 10:08 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into a dispute over President Bush's power to detain American terror suspects and deny them traditional legal rights.

It would have been unusual for the court to take the case of "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla now, because a federal appeals court has not yet ruled on the issue. Arguments are scheduled for July 19 at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

A year ago, the court ruled the Bush administration was out of line by locking up foreign terrorist suspects at the Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to lawyers and courts.

But justices declined to address a separate issue: whether American citizens arrested on U.S. soil can be designated "enemy combatants" and held without trial.

Padilla has been in custody since 2002 when he was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after returning from Pakistan. The government views him as a militant who planned attacks on the United States, including with a dirty bomb radiological device, and has said he received weapons and explosives training from members of al-Qaida.

A federal judge sided with Padilla and ruled that an endorsement of indefinite detentions would be a "betrayal of this nation's commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties."

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the lower court ruling "marks a substantial judicial intrusion into the core presidential function of determining how best to ensure the nation's security."

Padilla's lawyers had wanted to jump over the appeals court and have the Supreme Court intervene.

"Delay increases the chance that Padilla could be faced with an unconstitutionally coerced choice _ for example, whether to plead guilty to a crime or to give up other rights in order to avoid further months of detention as an enemy combatant," his lawyers told justices in a filing.

The court is already familiar with Padilla's case, which they debated last fall but then threw out on grounds that Padilla's lawsuit had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.

The latest round comes from South Carolina, where Padilla is being held in a Navy brig. Officials contend Padilla received weapons and explosives training from members of al-Qaida, and planned an attack with a "dirty bomb" radiological device.

Padilla, a New York-born convert to Islam, was one of just two U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants, a designation that allows indefinite detention without charges for al-Qaida suspects and their associates.

The other one, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was released last fall after winning a Supreme Court appeal. The justices said Hamdi, a U.S.-born suspected Taliban foot soldier captured in Afghanistan, could use American courts to argue that he was being held illegally.

The Monday case is Padilla v. Commander C.T. Hanft, 04-1342.

___

On the Net:

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:31 am

But justices declined to address a separate issue: whether American citizens arrested on U.S. soil can be designated "enemy combatants" and held without trial.

This is the part I think is wrong. We should not be able to designate US citizens enemy combatants.

Post by **Martrae** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:59 am

Yeah, they should be labelled traitors and dealt with appropriately.

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:25 am

Label them whatever you want, but the Government should never have the ability to remove due process.

Post by **Gidan** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:27 am

Well I guess the rights that go along with being a US Citizen don’t matter to Bush.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:31 am

Gidan wrote:Well I guess the rights that go along with being a US Citizen don’t matter to Bush.

If you were to be labeled an enemy combatant you aren't a US citizen anymore.

Post by **Martrae** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:32 am

lyion wrote:Label them whatever you want, but the Government should never have the ability to remove due process.

That's what I said. :P

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:11 am

Harrison wrote:
Gidan wrote:Well I guess the rights that go along with being a US Citizen don’t matter to Bush.

If you were to be labeled an enemy combatant you aren't a US citizen anymore.

Shouldn't matter if they're a US citizen or not

If you're not going to treat any prisoner properly, you've no right to whine and cry when other countries to play by the rules

Post by **Gidan** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:36 am

harrison wrote:If you were to be labeled an enemy combatant you aren't a US citizen anymore.

If I recall, it requires an act of congress to name a US citizen on US Soil outside of a combat zone an enemy combatant. The president alson doesn't ahve the power to do this, and if that is the case, they can not be "enemy comabtants" and thus bush is takign away his rights as a US Citizen at will.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am

I could be wrong, but I doubt it since the patriot act...

Post by **Gidan** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:40 am

Harrison wrote:I could be wrong, but I doubt it since the patriot act...

I dont recall the patriot act saying anything about "enemy combatants"

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:54 am

Nothing should take away US Citizens rights, be it here or abroad. By all means legislate tougher and longer stays for them, but there is no reason any US Citizen should be denied due process, ever.

There is no doubt Padilla is an enemy combatant, and he should be responsible for his actions. However as a US Citizen he should not lose any rights.

Rust · Post by **Rust** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:04 pm

Harrison wrote:
Gidan wrote:Well I guess the rights that go along with being a US Citizen don’t matter to Bush.

If you were to be labeled an enemy combatant you aren't a US citizen anymore.

Padilla is still a US citizen. Do you just make this stuff up or what?

--R.

Zanchief · Post by **Zanchief** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:09 pm

Rust wrote:
Harrison wrote:
Gidan wrote:Well I guess the rights that go along with being a US Citizen don’t matter to Bush.

If you were to be labeled an enemy combatant you aren't a US citizen anymore.

Padilla is still a US citizen. Do you just make this stuff up or what?

--R.

Yes.

kaharthemad · Post by **kaharthemad** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:53 pm

the fact of the matter is the label 'traitor' is a good point. if the person is guilty of a bombing or attempted bombing, then like the military rule book says "Hung until dead or firing squad" and dont hand me this shit about cost. Ill supply the ammo or the rope.

Rust · Post by **Rust** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:17 am

Zanchief wrote:
Rust wrote:
Harrison wrote:
Gidan wrote:Well I guess the rights that go along with being a US Citizen don’t matter to Bush.

If you were to be labeled an enemy combatant you aren't a US citizen anymore.

Padilla is still a US citizen. Do you just make this stuff up or what?

--R.

Yes.

I agree with Scalia's position on Hamdi, who was another US citizen who Bush designated as an enemy combatant - if he's guilty of treason, charge him. Otherwise, you can't just lock up US citizens forever without charges.

--R.