OT - Federal Judge Orders Padilla Charged or Released

[NoMyths]

Link: Federal Judge Orders 'Enemy Combatant' Jose Padilla Charged Or Released

Best Quote, being as how I hatehatehate the attempt to introduce the phrase "activist judge" into the lexicon to mean "anyone who doesn't rule in the administration's favor": "For the court to find for [the U.S. government] would also be to engage in judicial activism. This court sits to interpret the law as it is and not as the court might wish it to be. Pursuant to its interpretation, the court finds that the President has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold [Padilla] as an enemy combatant," Floyd wrote."

Preceded by: "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote."

Also, in an effort to head off expected comments: Yes, Padilla needs to be charged. No, he does not need to be released. The Constitution needs to be respected.

Full Text:
Federal Judge Orders 'Enemy Combatant' Jose Padilla Charged Or Released
A federal judge in Spartanburg has ordered that an American citizen held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig in Charleston should be released.

U.S. District Judge Henry F. Floyd ruled Monday that the president of the United States does not have the authority to order Jose Padilla to be held.

"If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote.

In the ruling, Floyd said that three court cases that the government used to make its claim did not sufficiently apply to Padilla's case.

Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization."

Floyd wrote that because the government had not provided any proof that the president has the power to hold Padilla, he must reject the government's claim of authority.

"To do otherwise would not only offend the rule of law and violate this countrys constitutional tradition, but it would also be a betrayal of this nations commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties," he wrote.

"For the court to find for [the U.S. government] would also be to engage in judicial activism. This court sits to interpret the law as it is and not as the court might wish it to be. Pursuant to its interpretation, the court finds that the President has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold [Padilla] as an enemy combatant," Floyd wrote.

As a result, Floyd ordered that Padilla be charged with a crime or released within 45 days.

The government is expected to appeal the decision.

[Glengoyne]

This is a good thing.

Mr. Gonzalez; Your move please.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

And I say that while fully believing it might be a good idea that we "disappear" this guy once he gets out.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Dola,

And I say that while fully believing it might be a good idea that we "disappear" this guy once he gets out.

They should have done that to begin with like the others.

[amdaily]

I wish the story about terrorists being released from Guantanamo only to be recaptured in Afghanistan 3 months later would be hyped by the media more. How many US servicemen are being put in harms way, or worse, because of the courts insistance on extending constitutional rights to terrorists?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct21.html

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by amdaily

I wish the story about terrorists being released from Guantanamo only to be recaptured in Afghanistan 3 months later would be hyped by the media more. How many US servicemen are being put in harms way, or worse, because of the courts insistance on extending constitutional rights to terrorists?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct21.html

I'm pretty sure if the US released them, they found no evidence of terrorism... but I'm sure if you were held in a Saudi containtment camp for a couple of years in shitty condidtions, you wouldn't try to bust some Arab ass for payback. Of course, seeing as how Padilla is a US citizen, any connections you're trying to make are incorrect... since the Constitution does apply for US citizens.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by amdaily

I wish the story about terrorists being released from Guantanamo only to be recaptured in Afghanistan 3 months later would be hyped by the media more. How many US servicemen are being put in harms way, or worse, because of the courts insistance on extending constitutional rights to terrorists?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct21.html

difference = US citizen entitled to due process and a life in prison.

[SlapBone]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

They should have done that to begin with like the others.

What others?

[Desnudo]

During times of war, the president has suspended habeas corpus; Abraham Lincoln most notably. I wonder why they haven't tried to do that. I also believe that during WWII a lot of suspect people were either put in the loony bin or somewhere else out of the way for the duration without benefit of trial.

I'm not saying it's right, just that it shouldn't be looked at as a one-of type case.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

During times of war, the president has suspended habeas corpus; Abraham Lincoln most notably. I wonder why they haven't tried to do that. I also believe that during WWII a lot of suspect people were either put in the loony bin or somewhere else out of the way for the duration without benefit of trial.

I'm not saying it's right, just that it shouldn't be looked at as a one-of type case.

Because we're not at war. I doubt the President has the Constitutional right to suspend habeas corpus when Congress has not declared war.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by amdaily

How many US servicemen are being put in harms way, or worse, because of the courts insistance on extending constitutional rights to terrorists?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct21.html

If you beleive that a country (the United States) has the right to indefinitely detain a non-citizen (the terrorists) without official trial or charge simply based on the unproven assertion that the person is a danger, then it seems that you would have no problem with a country (Iran) detaining a non-citizen (you) forever without official charge or trial simply based on the unproven assertion that that person is a danger.

For me, it's not that I do not beleive that this administration, personally, is acting badly. I don't really consider that issue relevant. The power is too easily abused, be it now by us, or a generation from now, or halfway around the world. I did not subordinate my God-gifted soverignity to a government so that it could start acting like some bad Orwellian rip-off.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by amdaily

...to terrorists?

It's also a lot easier to defend your position when you assume the outcome you desire. This guy (an American citizen, as noted) has yet to even be charged with anything, let alone convicted of anything. But if his accusers slap him with the terrorist label, then everyone supports lynching him right now.

Glad I'm not the only one who has a huge problem with this mentality.