According to The New York Times, "A three-judge federal appeals court panel ruled unanimously on Friday that President Bush had the authority to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen who fought United States forces on foreign soil.
The panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., threw out a ruling by a trial judge in South Carolina that Mr. Bush had overstepped his bounds by detaining Jose Padilla, a Chicago native, for three years.
The military has asserted that Mr. Padilla (pronounced pa-DILL-uh) was an operative of Al Qaeda who fought in Afghanistan, was trained by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, and was considering various terrorist plots in the United States. Law enforcement authorities have also identified Mr. Padilla as a former gang member in Chicago who converted to Islam.
In an opinion written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who has been considered by President Bush for a nomination to the Supreme Court (funny, considering Roberts was nominated right after he participated in a similar ruling), the panel said Mr. Bush had the right to detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant under the powers granted the president by Congress after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
"'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 Luttig wrote. 'We conclude that the president does possess such authority,' citing the Congressional authorization."
Make no mistake, this means that if labeled an "enemy combatant" by the President, even if one is an American citizen, you can lose your constitutional rights to a fair trial in an court of law and may be tried in a military tribunal or be detained indefinitely and without criminal charge.
If we've been fighting for freedom and the American ideal, we've already lost.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is an odd decision. I know I could use an explainer from someone like Lithwick over at Slate, about the details of the case. I say it's odd because this seems to conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in 2003 regarding Yassir Hamdi. Hamdi, as you'll remember, was also an American citizen, detained indefinitely by the administration for his participation in Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the Court clearly ruled that though the administration could hold him, and classify him as an "enemy combatent", he was entitlted to fact finding of his classification before a fair-tribunal(though not necessarily in a court.) In other words he could not be detained indefinitely, without some sort of due process. I would think this would apply clearly to Padilla's case as well. But all the news report says of the decision is that the government is entitled to hold him...so, are they saying simply that he can be held at the President's authorization, and not even speaking to the question of his due process rights as a detainee? I'd really like to know more about this decision. In all liklihood this will go to the Supreme Court, however limited the holding of the Court of Appeals is.
Post a Comment