Appeals court unlawfully rules against UC constitution

Fifth amendment, no grand jury hearing.

Sixth amendment, no speedy public trail by jury. No arraignment of criminal charges. Not tried in the location where the crime was not committed. No witnesses presented for cross examination.

Eight amendment, no bail.

The guy lived and was arrested in Chicago. Now he is rotting in a Naval military brig in South Carolina and has case was reviewed by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which does not have jurisdiction over Chicago. I would think that the US supreme court will overturn the ruling simply because the Appeals court did not have the jurisdiction to make the ruling!


4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov

Bush Administration Wins Appeal on Padilla

RICHMOND, Va. - In a victory for the Bush administration, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that the government can continue to hold indefinitely an American accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb."

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to reverse a judge's order that the government either charge or free Jose Padilla, who has been in custody for more than three years.

"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al-Qaida, an entity with which the United States is at war," Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote. "We conclude that the President does possess such authority."

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled in February that the government cannot hold Padilla indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," a designation

President Bush gave him in 2002. The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States. . . .

"It's a matter of how paranoid you are," Andrew Patel said. "What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail — without a hearing (or) a trial."

The administration has said Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, sought to blow up hotels and apartment buildings in the United States and planned an attack with a "dirty bomb" radiological device.

Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002 after returning from Pakistan. The federal government has said he was trained in weapons and explosives by members of al-Qaida.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050909/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

__________________
Classic American liberal

While I think the grounds you cite are technical at best, I continue to be troubled by this whole "enemy combatant" issue. It should not be that easy to be stripped of citizenship protections.

Why more people aren't troubled by this is beyond me.

That said, I think the Supreme Court may actually knock down the administration on this one. Last year they ruled that foreign terror suspects at Guantanamo must have access to lawyers and the courts. I can't imagine them not requiring the same for American citizens arrested on U.S. soil.

It'll be interesting to see, though. The previous vote was 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist dissenting. That *should* mean at least a 5-4 majority would rule against the government, even if O'Connor is replaced. But who knows?

__________________
Man up.

No wonder I missed this particular thread and began another one. It's the "misleading" title. Here's the less-biased story:

Court: Padilla Can Be Held Without Charges Friday, September 09, 2005

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court Friday sided with the Bush administration and reversed a judge's order that the government either charge or free "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla (search).

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search) ruled unanimously that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with Al Qaeda.

"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war," Judge Michael Luttig wrote. "We conclude that the President does possess such authority."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168902,00.html

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Ben, I edited the thread title to make it more clear what you're talking about.

__________________
Man up.

after he tried the same thing with traitors from the south.

and FDR has been correctly raked over the coals for doing it to Americans who happened to have Japanese ancestry.

Wonder why lawyers didn't bring these issues up?

The neocons are wrapped up in Junior's legacy but it won't be a good one.

"The federal government has said he was trained in weapons and explosives by members of al-Qaida. "

we are guilty of the same thing with our "war" college.

makes one wonder why they don't just charge him with something...

Kal, that's a cheap shot. *I* was trained in weapons (not explosives so much) by our government, too. That's beside the point.

When a terrorist organization trains an American citizen and then sends him back to America to do harm, we want to stop him. Receiving training isn't a crime; it's merely evidence of his intentions.

I want Padilla to be tried for conspiracy to detonate a dirty bomb, and then locked away if found guilty. But he deserves access to a lawyer and the courts. Not because I'm a softy, but because if his rights can be stripped from him, so can mine. Or yours. Or JP5's.

__________________
Man up.

I wasn't talking about our military - I'm talking about the place where other governments send their "soldiers" - the name of the place escapes me right now.

BTW, do you see similarities to Lincoln and Roosevelt?

School of the Americas or something like that. It wasn't a bad idea -- train the officers of Latin American militaries so they look fondly on us and perhaps inculcate their troops with American values -- but too many graduates went on to be bad guys. So they shut it down.

Regardless, I still think it's beside the point. We weren't sending those officers back with instructions to be terrorists or overthrow their government. We were helping to train the military leaders of friendly governments. Some of them were dictatorships, true -- and for that we should be ashamed.

Frankly I think that puts Bush in far too lofty company. Lincoln and Roosevelt were fighting real traditional wars, of limited duration. Abuses during a limited time of national crisis are sometimes excusable, or at least understandable, and the long-term damage is minimal.

Bush is trying to do the same thing as part of an open-ended "global struggle against terrorism", one that is likely to last for a decade at least. Far more dangerous.

__________________
Man up.

the actions were proven wrong.

at any rate, it throws the "personal freedoms" and "constitutional" aspects of the Republican party for a loop.