Terror suspect (Padilla) challenges US president's 'unchecked' power

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Lawyers for an American 'war on terror' detainee said they had petitioned the Supreme Court to examine the US president's powers, citing "the danger of an unchecked Executive Branch".
....
Referring to a series of "strategic maneuvers" to keep Padilla's case from being heard in court, the petition said the government's actions "highlight the danger of an unchecked Executive Branch."

Padilla's detention "raises questions of profound constitutional importance about the government's military power over citizens in the homeland," the petition said.
....
On Wednesday government lawyers challenged the newest petition as a "mischaracterization of events and an unwarranted attack on the exercise of Executive discretion."

It attacked the Virginia court's denial of permission to transfer Padilla as exercising "an unidentified and unprecedented judicial authority to disregard a presidential directive to transfer an enemy combatant out of military custody."

yahoo link

defending themselves and that might be bad! Just hold them indefinitely with no access to legal councel.

committed by the US.

This case deserves the closest scrutiny. AFAIC, it was FUBAR from the word go.

I've suffered over this one from the get go, even while not following it all that closely. But then, that's not required. The highlights are quite terrifying enough. There's only one key fact, really: Padilla is an American citizen.

It would be one thing if he were arrested in Afghanistan or Iraq but he was arrested in Chicago which is not the battlegrounds.....This is far far more scary than NSA spying on people....Also a much more blatant violation of the US Constitution...

<snip>

On Wednesday government lawyers challenged the newest petition as a "mischaracterization of events and an unwarranted attack on the exercise of Executive discretion."

<end snip>

Executive discretion? I've heard of Executive Order, Executive privilege, etc., but discretion? Someone get me a thesaurus...

And, aside, I appreciate the AFP use of quotes when citing the American "war on terror". One small step for reality.

The article is also a good brief synopsis on why this case is being presented to the Supreme Court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051228/ts_alt_afp/usattacksjustice;_ylt=AjaAOHGd41WV4S64330.3DxMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

...him having been on bush's short list, and all.

:shrug:

He was brutal. (at least her reader represented it as some of the ruling):

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003348.html

"For, as the government surely must understand, although the various facts it has asserted are not necessarily inconsistent or without basis, its actions have left not only the impression that

Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake –- an impression we would have thought the government could ill afford to leave extant.

They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that

the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror –- an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant.

And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the

government’s credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today.

While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be."



(italic passages are my highlight.)

even a petty thug holds moral high ground over the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and can lecture him on ethics.

it is a challenge to the Bush Regime regarding a US citizen's rights under The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Based on how little * knows about constitutional law, I'm willing to bet he could not pass the standard citizenship test required to become naturalized.

Nobody knows less about our laws and system of government than the shrub.

Not even Jose Padilla.

...unless we draw the line where the U. S. Constitution states that it must be drawn.

Yes, every U. S. citizen occupies the SAME moral high ground as any U. S. president. The problem here is that the guy that currently occupies the White House has done so illegally since December 13, 2000. Additionally, he demands that we acknowledge that he has the ultimate decision-making authority on every issue, which is NOT in a U. S. president's job description.

But no, not every U. S. citizen occupies the SAME moral high ground as any U. S. president. If that were so, there would be no such thing as crime.

We are all equal under the law. That means that we are all judged by the same rules. It does not mean we are all judged equally Innocent or guilty.

Jose Padilla is a thug. That is a fact that predates the government's lame accusations of terrorism, and is based on Padilla's long prior criminal record.

My remarks are meant to stress how far the shrub has strayed from what is moral and ethical that, even this petty thug seems righteous by comparison.

... of something, and I don't care. I can't stand the way he's being treated.

I guess it's my favorite part about how I feel about it all. :)

...guy is what's been fed to the MSM.

Trust us!

snip>
A federal appeals court infringed on President Bush's authority to run the war on terror when it refused to let prosecutors take custody of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the Justice Department said yesterday, as it urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

The sharply worded Justice Department filing was the latest salvo in an increasingly contentious battle over Padilla....

...prosecutors denied any attempt to avoid the Supreme Court and said they had narrowed the charges against Padilla because elaborating on the original allegations would compromise intelligence "sources or methods."

"There is nothing remotely sinister about the government's effort to pursue criminal charges that minimize evidentiary complications," the brief said, adding that "there is no basis for questioning the good faith of the government in moving forward with the indictment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801463.html

We KNOW that's why the charges were narrowed! The methods were illegal. NO BASIS for questioning their good faith? How about bush's admission on national TV!

Monday, June 10, 2002

(Special Department of Justice press conference on the arrest of Abdullah al Mujahir, also known as Jose Padilla. Hosted by Larry Thompson, deputy attorney general. Also participating was Robert Mueller, director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.)

Thompson: Good morning. I'm pleased to be here with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and FBI Director Bob Mueller.

By now all of you have heard the attorney general's statement regarding the arrest of Abdullah al Mujahir and his transfer to military control. Secretary Wolfowitz has a few brief remarks, and then all three of us will be available for a few questions regarding the attorney general's announcement.

I'll turn it over to Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz: Thanks, Larry. Yesterday, at the direction of the president, the Department of Justice transferred control of Jose Padilla, who is a U.S. citizen, to the Department of Defense. As of today, he will be held at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.

Based on information available to our government, Padilla met with senior al Qaeda members to discuss plans for exploding a radioactive device, a radioactive dispersal device, or what is commonly called a "dirty bomb," in the United States. He researched nuclear weapons and received training in wiring explosives while in Pakistan, and he was instructed to return to the United States to conduct reconnaissance operations for al Qaeda.

Under the laws of war, Padilla's activities and his association with al Qaeda make him an enemy combatant. For this reason, Jose Padilla has been turned over to the Department of Defense.

Our number one priority is to defend the American people from future attacks. To do that, we must root out those who are planning such attacks. We must find them, and we must stop them. And when we have them in our control, we must be able to question them about plans for future attacks.

The FBI's initial detention of Padilla is one important step in this process.

It demonstrates the successful sharing of information and close cooperation among U.S. government agencies that will be key to winning the war against terrorism.

I would like to commend all of those who worked to bring about this result that makes the American people safer.

Q: Mr. Thompson or Secretary Wolfowitz, what is his status then? I thought the administration's rules on military tribunals said they would be only for non-American citizens. Is the whole point of holding him as a military combatant to be able to question him without using the conventional criminal process?

Thompson: His status, as the attorney general said in his statement, is as an enemy combatant. He is being attained under the laws of war as an enemy combatant. There's clear Supreme Court and circuit court authority for such a detention.

Q: What is the Supreme Court precedent?

Thompson: It's a 1942 case ex parte Quirin. And there's a 9th Circuit case, and I forgot the name of it -- it's in re Territo; it's a 1946 case.

Beverly?

Q: Does he have legal representation at the moment?

Thompson: He was being held under the authority of a federal judge, and he had legal representation in connection with that. Yes?

Q: Does he now? Does he now?

NOTE: THIS QUESTION WAS NOT ANSWERED


Q: Larry, how far did they get? How far did they get? Did they have -- had they assembled any parts of the weapon in the United States? Or try to acquire any parts of the weapon?

Thompson: I'll defer to the director on that question.

Mueller: Let me just start off by saying that we have worked closely with the CIA for many months now. And the detention of this individual was a result of the close cooperative work of FBI agents and CIA agents, not only overseas, but also here in the United States. And I would like to thank our counterparts at the CIA for their work on this particular case. As we've emphasized -- and by we, I mean, I think, the intelligence agencies, as well as Department of Defense -- our principal priority is preventing future terrorist attacks. And this instance is an example of prevention.

Now, with regard to the specific question as to the extent of the planning, as it states, I think, in the attorney general's statement, there were discussions about this possible plan, and it was in the discussion stage.

And it had not gone, as far as we know, much past the discussion stage, but there were substantial discussions undertaken.

Q: Director Mueller, how long has the government been tracking this guy? And can you tell us what the origin of that was? Was it based on information from Zubaidah or prior to that?

Mueller: Well, let me just say, I cannot get into much of the background of the case because there are sources and methods that would be -- that would be disclosed if we got into much detail at this particular point in time.

Q: (Off mike) -- confirm that the attack was planned against the Washington, D.C., area? And also, what's happened to him if he's been arrested? He was detained March 8th. What happened to him in all that time?

Thompson: I'll defer to where he might be by Secretary Wolfowitz -- where he --

Q: If that were --

Wolfowitz: We don't know. I mean, as Director Mueller said, this was still in the initial planning stages. It certainly wasn't at the point of having a specific target. He had indicated some knowledge of the Washington, D.C., area, but I want to emphasize again, there was not an actual plan. We stopped this man in the initial planing stages. But it does underscore, I think, the continuing importance of focusing particularly on those people who may be pursuing chemical or biological or radiological or nuclear weapons. This is but one such individual.

Q: (Off mike) -- but he's been -- the second part of the question?

Staff: Yes, sir. Over -- yes, sir.

Q: Thank you, sir.

Over several years, there've been a number of interrupted attempts on the black market by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to buy uranium and other materials to be used for a dirty bomb. And the government said repeatedly that there is a clear evidence that they're trying to buy it. Do we now say that because they were here for a reconnaissance mission, it is our assumption that they have it?

Thompson: I would not want to get into the specific details of that question. It may involve sources and methods. This obviously -- and that's very important from a prevention standpoint, to protect our sources and methods. And beyond that, unless Director Mueller has anything to add --

Q: But -- I guess -- from truly --

Q: Yes. Mr. Thompson or Mr. Mueller, you can't talk about this case in detail, but can you tell us about the individual? In prior cases, apparently he was well known to at least local if not federal law enforcement authorities in the Chicago area and had served time. What can you tell us as much as you can about his background and other trouble that he's been in or anything else you can tell us about the individual?

Thompson: I don't think we can tell you anymore than what was in the confines of the attorney general's statement. He had some previous experience with law enforcement.

But I think beyond that, it would be --

Staff: Last question, folks.

Q: Do you believe he has any co-conspirators in the United States or outside the United States, and have you identified them? I assume if you have, you're looking for them. Can you say anything about that?

Thompson: We're not going to comment -- we're not going to comment on that.

Staff: Thank you.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/06/dod061002.html