|
09 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM (#1559887) Subject: BS: Bush Buys Another Judge From: Amos From the Washington Post: Court Rules U.S. Can Indefinitely Detain Citizens Ruling Comes in the Case of 'Enemy Combatant' Jose Padilla By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 9, 2005; 10:39 AM A federal appeals court ruled today that the president can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in the absence of criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. The government contends that Padilla trained at al Qaeda camps and was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the United States. Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. (Insert self-aggrandizing witticism.) (dfunkman) corbett (corbett) Full List of Blogs (2 links) ยป Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has been held without trial in a U.S. naval brig for more than three years, and his case triggered a legal battle with vast implications for civil liberties and the fight against terrorism. Attorneys for Padilla and a host of civil liberties organizations blasted the detention as illegal and said it could lead to the military being allowed to hold anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library. Federal prosecutors asserted that Bush not only had the authority to order Padilla's detention but that such power is essential to preventing attacks. In its ruling today, the 4th Circuit overturned a lower court and came down squarely on the government's side. A congressional resolution after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks by those who attacked the United States on Sept. 11,'' the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens.'' The decision by a three-judge panel was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who sources have said is under consideration by President Bush for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. The short, dark summary is this: the Constitutional protections of due process have been sold to the higher bidder, justiofied by fear and the clouds of war. They don't have to accuse him, try him, or sentence him. I haveno brief for Padilla, who is (if guilty) a bad actor. But the most fundamental protection of our nation is innocence until process proves guilt. Bush just bought himself a monarchy, the asshole. Dollars gets you donuts Luttig fills the current vacancy in the Roberts promotion. A A |
|
09 Sep 05 - 12:54 PM (#1559892) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Buys Another Judge From: curmudgeon Can you say "Bill of Attainder?" |
|
09 Sep 05 - 03:36 PM (#1560016) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Buys Another Judge From: Amos From TechLawJournal, a clarification of Curmudgeons erudite reference: Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." "The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965). "These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166. "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788. Thanks, curmudgeon, for contributing to my tardy education. A |
|
09 Sep 05 - 09:39 PM (#1560219) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Buys Another Judge From: Peace A bit about J Michael Luttig . . . and s'more . . . and another view. |