Mickey Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 As near as I can figure it, the Padilla case involves the legitimacy of the President's power to declare and detain without trial a person declared to be an "enemy combatant". In September of this year, the Fourth Circ. Ct. of Appeals held that in fact the President has that power. The case has, since then, been headed for review by the Supreme Court. Apparently, the administration doesn't want the case reviewed by the Supreme Court at this time. Why? Who knows, maybe becuase they would rather wait until Alito is confirmed to enhance their chances of winning? I can only speculate. The problem of course was how do they keep the Padilla case out of the Supreme Court? Their solution was to decide that Padilla was no longer so dangerous that he needed to be detained in military custody by moving the court to withdraw their prior opinion that the President did have the power to detain people he has designated to be "enemy combatants" and release Padilla to civilian custody to be handled just like any other criminal defendant. Thus, there would be no justiciable controversey left for the Supreme's to decide. That would delay the issue ever getting to the Supreme Court any time soon allowing time for Alito to be confirmed. The Fourth Circuit didn't cooperate in the scheme with Judge Michael Luttig, a verrrry conservative Judge who was on the conservative short dream list of Superme Court nominees before Alito was selected wrote the opinion. Luttig stated that there was: "...an appearance that the government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court..." The court decided not to withdraw its decision and to deny the the request to transfer Padilla to civilian custody stating: "If the natural progression of this significant litigation to conclusion is to be pretermitted at this late date under these circumstances, we believe that decision should be made not by this court but, rather, by the Supreme Court of the United States." The government had held Padilla for 3 1/2 years, all along steadfastly claiming that "...it was imperative...[to]... the interest of national security that he be so held." Not long after the Court made its decision that the government could continue to detain Padilla, the government suddenly decided that he wasn't such a danger after all. It announced that he was going to be released to state authorities in Florida and the indictment issued was for far less dangerous crimes than those the government had alleged when it wanted to keep him in custody. In fact, the indictment made no mention of the acts which had served as the basis for the government's 3 + year detention of Padilla. The announcement that he was being moved to civilian custody was only two days before the government's brief in response to Padilla's petition for review by the Supreme Court was due. It instantly created a new argument it could use for denying the petition, that there was no longer a justiciable controversey. The court found that nothing in the government's arguments would "... justify the intentional mooting of the appeal of our decision to the Supreme Court after three and a half years of prosecuting this litigation and on the eve of final consideration of the issue by that court." Here is a link to the entire opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 The government had held Padilla for 3 1/2 years, all along steadfastly claiming that "...it was imperative...[to]... the interest of national security that he be so held." Not long after the Court made its decision that the government could continue to detain Padilla, the government suddenly decided that he wasn't such a danger after all. As you already explained in some detail in the opening paragraphs, the change in his status was meant to avoid the risk of losing at the SC level, not because he is suddenly 'less dangerous'. So if this is meant as a "DHS can't make up its mind" critique, I think you are being disingenuous. The bigger question is what we do with a guy like this if the people in the know are sure he is a risk? I don't like the government having unlimited power to hold US citizens either, but I sure as hell don't want guys who are active in terror cells running free because they haven't committed any crime (yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 As you already explained in some detail in the opening paragraphs, the change in his status was meant to avoid the risk of losing at the SC level, not because he is suddenly 'less dangerous'. So if this is meant as a "DHS can't make up its mind" critique, I think you are being disingenuous. The bigger question is what we do with a guy like this if the people in the know are sure he is a risk? I don't like the government having unlimited power to hold US citizens either, but I sure as hell don't want guys who are active in terror cells running free because they haven't committed any crime (yet). 540115[/snapback] I was simply pointing out that the government couldn't have its cake and eat it by denying that they are trying to avoid review. Either the guy never should have been held oustside of normal channels in the first place or they are lying about not trying to manipulate their way in to a post-Alito confirmation court. If he is as dangerous as they have strenuously maintained over the years then he should still be in custody. If he wasn't, then he should have been processed in civilian criminal courts. It seems that whether or not he is a danger to the nation is a secondary one to their desire to get to a friendly court. The court was particularly concerned with the government having sworn up and down to certain facts over the last 3+ years and yet none of those allegations are appearing in the indictment. Where did those facts go? They have a process for holding those kinds of people, that is what the President declaring them to be "enemy combatants" is all about and in fact, this court approved that power. Sooner or later it was going to go before the Supreme Court and what is going on now is that they are trying to manipulate the situation so as to get the issue before a post-Alito confirmation court. The Supremes will decide the issue and we will just have to go on from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 The court was particularly concerned with the government having sworn up and down to certain facts over the last 3+ years and yet none of those allegations are appearing in the indictment. Where did those facts go? 540199[/snapback] Mickey, might it be possible that they didn't want to put those allegations in a civil court indictment to keep Padilla's "friends" from being able to get their hands on information about how information about Padilla was determined in the 1st place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 Mickey, might it be possible that they didn't want to put those allegations in a civil court indictment to keep Padilla's "friends" from being able to get their hands on information about how information about Padilla was determined in the 1st place? 540223[/snapback] Luttig and the other Judges had access to all the info on Padilla, what was alleged when they were arguing he was an enemy combatant and what was alleged in the indictment. They were stumped as to why things changed so much and they wouldn't have been if there was an obvious reason for it such as the explanation you offer. I think its a stretch. You and I are speculating, the court wasn't, they had all the information right in front of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts