Justices first considered in 2004 whether Padilla's constitutional rights were violated when he was detained as an "enemy combatant" without charges and access to a lawyer, traditional legal rights. Justices dodged a decision on technical grounds. In a dissent Justice John Paul Stevens said then that "at stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society."
Justices are reviewing a second case arising from the government pursuit of terrorists, an appeal by a foreign terrorist suspect facing a military commission on war crimes charges at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Arguments were last week.
Padilla's case was different. It asked the court to clarify how far the government can go when its hunt for terrorists leads to Americans in this country.
Based on the vote breakdown, it appears the court would have agreed to hear the appeal had Padilla not been charged.
"In light of the previous changes in his custody status and the fact that nearly four years have passed since he first was detained, Padilla, it must be acknowledged, has a continuing concern that his status might be altered again," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, Stevens and Roberts. "That concern, however, can be addressed if the necessity arises."
Supposedly, Padilla--an Islam convert--was a part of some plan to release a dirty bomb somewhere in the United State.
The Bush administration has maintained since 2002 that it had the power to detain him without charges. However, in an abrupt change in strategy, the government late last year brought criminal charges against Padilla. His appeal was pending at the Supreme Court at the time.
The charges do not match the long-standing allegations that Padilla sought to blow up apartment buildings. Instead, he was charged with being part of a North American terrorism cell that raised funds and recruited fighters to wage violent jihad outside the United States.
The strategy shift angered a panel of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which had ruled last September that Padilla's constitutional rights had not been violated by his detention.
Judge J. Michael Luttig, a conservative who was named to the bench by President Bush's father, wrote in a decision late last year that the administration's actions left the impression that Padilla had been held in military custody "by mistake."
Who knows, maybe he is being held by mistake. These days, thanks to the Patriot Act, you even so much as whisper something bad about Bush, and your ass is being investigated and even in some cases, carted off to jail.
In $oviet $tates, Bush administration owns you!
Tag: [Jose Padilla], [Bush], [Bush administration], [White House], [Supreme Court], [appeal], [Padilla being held by the government as "enemy combatant"], [dirty bomb], [Supreme Court rejects war powers challenge]
No comments:
Post a Comment