| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| US Court Orders Release of Dirty Bomber Padilla in 30 Days |
| 2003-12-18 |
| (Somewhat EFL) President Bush can’t hold an American citizen seized on U.S. soil and suspected of being part of a "dirty bomb" plot as an enemy combatant, a I’m almost speechless. Is our judicial system now compromised by fifth columnists? |
| Posted by:Scooter McGruder |
| #13 I'm heading for NYC tomorrow for the weekend. I believe that's in the "zone of combat". With idiot judges like this and the court jesters of the 9th, the terrorists won't have to do much. These dickheads will do it for them. God help us all. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-12-18 10:18:46 PM |
| #12 well obviously we need a legislative fix here and it shouldn't be too hard to write a short amendment to the patriot act that gives some but not full constitutional rights to American citizens conspiring to commit terrorism. If it is even moderately logical, it should pass both houses easily. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-12-18 8:48:10 PM |
| #11 I got no problem with a civil trial on a capital case of treason. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2003-12-18 8:43:22 PM |
| #10 Bah. I agree with the dissent opinion that as the US is Al Qaida's declared target, Padilla was in "the zone of combat." And as #8 someone clearly notes, this moves Padillo 2 decisions away from freedom -- a step in the wrong direction. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2003-12-18 6:57:41 PM |
| #9 He's still an American citizen with all the rights afforded to us all. The gov't just needs to arrest and charge him like the Lackawana 6 (sp) |
| Posted by: Bill 2003-12-18 5:36:09 PM |
| #8 Two more appeals before he might actually go free (2d Circuit en banc and SCOTUS). |
| Posted by: someone 2003-12-18 2:19:08 PM |
| #7 Yep, the only thing I'd add to what Glenn Reynolds said is that reasonable people can disagree as to whether Padilla was actually inside or outside the "zone of combat," since Padilla's buddies were the ones who made American soil a combat zone in the first place. I saw a quote from an ACLU lawyer, jeepers those people sure are dunces. He called it a "repudiation of Bush's attempt to deny access to fed courts" for these folks, or something like that. This ruling came out of a Federal Appeals Court. Duh! And of course the three judge panel's ruling doesn't have to be the last word on the subject, if the gov't doesn't want it to be. Let him stay where he is, get a trial in a civilian court, or be held as a material witness. It really doesn't matter to me, as long as he remains in custody and is unable to be a terrorist, doing the things that terrorists will do. I hope Mr. ACLU feels the same way, but sadly I'm not so sure he does. |
| Posted by: mva30 2003-12-18 1:50:44 PM |
| #6 ahhh...I'm OVERRULED! It occurs to me, however, how convenient it is that the decision comes today, AFTER the Iraqi resistance is being rolled up like a red carpet. Any intel Padilla had is surely far less significant now than it was a week ago. Wonder if the judges took their time looking at it - and then after a wink and a nodd gave the correct decision. I guess we'll never know. |
| Posted by: B 2003-12-18 1:50:27 PM |
| #5 They have 30 days to release him? They will find another charge to keep him under lock and key. I don't think 'Jose Mahammed Atta El Heffe' is going anywhere but to another prison cell. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-12-18 1:48:57 PM |
| #4 Glenn Renyolds is all over this story: Okay, I've skimmed the opinion very quickly. Based on both Constitutional analysis (the Third Amendment is even cited, a rarity) and on statute (the Non-Detention Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 4001(a)), the President lacks inherent authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants when seized on American soil outside a zone of actual combat. For those of you studying for Con. Law exams, the President is placed thoroughly in Jackson Category Three. The Quirin case, involving Nazi saboteurs, is distinguished. This seems right to me, based on my rather quick read of the opinion. I think that the real danger in Presidential authority to detain terrorists comes when it's applied to American citizens in America, since that's where the risk of politically motivated abuse is highest. Whether Congress has the power to authorize such detention isn't addressed in the opinion, but I would incline toward the position that it does not. And, by the way, they don't have to let Padilla go -- just release him from military custody. They can transfer him to civilian custody for further prosecution, and the majority, in the conclusion to the opinion also notes that he can be held as a material witness in connection with other civilian prosecutions. Got to agree with him here. If they had picked him up in Afghanistan, the enemy combatant status would be ok. Because he was picked up in the US, he gets a civilian federal court. Still can try him for supporting terrorism, just not in a military court. We just move him from one jail to another. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-12-18 1:32:40 PM |
| #3 As the saying goes, be careful what you ask for. No matter how significant this ruling is, or is not, in terms of civil rights, this will play well for the GOP - even when Padilla claims torture...which of course he will. Normal people are sick of our security being put at risk so that pompous elites can talk down through their upturned noses about how vividly they can see utopia from their ivory towers. |
| Posted by: B 2003-12-18 1:22:17 PM |
| #2 it could be worse, the civilian court could order Padilla held indefinitely as a material witness |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-12-18 1:13:52 PM |
| #1 Are this and that 9th Circuit Court ruling on the anti-terriorism law being appealed to the SCOTUS? If not, why not. |
| Posted by: rabidfox 2003-12-18 12:57:29 PM |