Ali
09-11-2005, 03:24 AM
FT (http:// http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7e46e8ce-2168-11da-a603-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=1.html) President George W. Bush was handed a major victory on Friday in his effort to assert sweeping presidential powers in the war on terrorism as a US appeals court upheld his authority to imprison indefinitely a US citizen captured on American soil.
On the eve of the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that José Padilla, a suspected al-Qaeda operative who US officials say was planning to carry out a terrorist attack inside the US, could be detained as an “enemy combatant” without any review by US civilian courts.
The detention of Mr Padilla has been sharply criticised by US civil liberties groups, who argue the president does not have the authority in the struggle with al-Qaeda to suspend the basic right of US citizens to a court hearing before they can be imprisoned.
But the court's ruling, written by Judge Michael Luttig, who is considered a potential Supreme Court nominee, said definitively that Mr Bush had been given such powers by the congressional declaration authorising military force following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
That resolution, the court said, “provided the president all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist acts,” including the power to detain committed enemies even if they are US citizens.
In the decision, the court relied heavily on a narrow Supreme Court ruling last year, which found that another American who was captured in Afghanistan, Yaser Esam Hamdi, could legally be held as an enemy combatant, though found the government had failed to follow all proper procedures for his detention. Following the ruling, Mr Hamdi was stripped of his citizenship and sent to Saudi Arabia.
The appeals court found that the same arguments gave the president the power to imprison Mr Padilla, who has been held in a military brig in South Carolina for three years, even though he was captured on US soil.
“The appeals court correctly held that this case is legally indistinguishable from Hamdi,” said Richard Samp, chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative advocacy group. “Padilla should not be exempt from detention simply because he managed to elude capture and make his way to this country.”
But Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said the issue would certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court, where several judges have already expressed concern over Mr Padilla's detention.
“This is the ultimate issue, because it deals with a US citizen apprehended within the territorial limits of the United States,” he said. “The fact that the federal courts are open for business militates strongly against open-ended detention”.
“There will be sentiment on the Supreme Court he's got to be charged or let go.”
But the court that hears the case could be a very different one. Judge John Roberts is likely to be confirmed by the Senate this month as chief justice following the death of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In a previous ruling as an appeals court judge Mr Roberts found that the courts should show great deference to the president in the war on terrorism. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote for the plurality in the Hamdi case, is also likely to be gone before the court takes up the issue.
The Supreme Court last year dismissed the Padilla case on procedural grounds after a different appeals court, for the US 2nd Circuit, reached the opposite conclusion that the president had no inherent powers to detain US citizens in the war on terrorism and that Congress had not granted him such powers. Sisko, I'm going to call Rumsfeld and tell him that you are a tererist. I'll back it up with some 'shopped pictures of you posing next to OBL.
You'll be arrested and jailed as an 'enemy combatant'.
You'll never get a chance to defend yourself, ever.
Same goes for anybody else engaged in anti-American activies... protesting, voting for the wrong guy, etc. all enemy combatants.
On the eve of the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that José Padilla, a suspected al-Qaeda operative who US officials say was planning to carry out a terrorist attack inside the US, could be detained as an “enemy combatant” without any review by US civilian courts.
The detention of Mr Padilla has been sharply criticised by US civil liberties groups, who argue the president does not have the authority in the struggle with al-Qaeda to suspend the basic right of US citizens to a court hearing before they can be imprisoned.
But the court's ruling, written by Judge Michael Luttig, who is considered a potential Supreme Court nominee, said definitively that Mr Bush had been given such powers by the congressional declaration authorising military force following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
That resolution, the court said, “provided the president all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist acts,” including the power to detain committed enemies even if they are US citizens.
In the decision, the court relied heavily on a narrow Supreme Court ruling last year, which found that another American who was captured in Afghanistan, Yaser Esam Hamdi, could legally be held as an enemy combatant, though found the government had failed to follow all proper procedures for his detention. Following the ruling, Mr Hamdi was stripped of his citizenship and sent to Saudi Arabia.
The appeals court found that the same arguments gave the president the power to imprison Mr Padilla, who has been held in a military brig in South Carolina for three years, even though he was captured on US soil.
“The appeals court correctly held that this case is legally indistinguishable from Hamdi,” said Richard Samp, chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative advocacy group. “Padilla should not be exempt from detention simply because he managed to elude capture and make his way to this country.”
But Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said the issue would certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court, where several judges have already expressed concern over Mr Padilla's detention.
“This is the ultimate issue, because it deals with a US citizen apprehended within the territorial limits of the United States,” he said. “The fact that the federal courts are open for business militates strongly against open-ended detention”.
“There will be sentiment on the Supreme Court he's got to be charged or let go.”
But the court that hears the case could be a very different one. Judge John Roberts is likely to be confirmed by the Senate this month as chief justice following the death of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In a previous ruling as an appeals court judge Mr Roberts found that the courts should show great deference to the president in the war on terrorism. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote for the plurality in the Hamdi case, is also likely to be gone before the court takes up the issue.
The Supreme Court last year dismissed the Padilla case on procedural grounds after a different appeals court, for the US 2nd Circuit, reached the opposite conclusion that the president had no inherent powers to detain US citizens in the war on terrorism and that Congress had not granted him such powers. Sisko, I'm going to call Rumsfeld and tell him that you are a tererist. I'll back it up with some 'shopped pictures of you posing next to OBL.
You'll be arrested and jailed as an 'enemy combatant'.
You'll never get a chance to defend yourself, ever.
Same goes for anybody else engaged in anti-American activies... protesting, voting for the wrong guy, etc. all enemy combatants.