It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Appeals Court Reverses Padilla Ruling

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision and ruled today that the President has the right to detain Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen affiliated with al Qaeda, indefinitely without charges as an enemy combatant. The lower court had said that the government must charge Padilla in the civilian courts, while the government maintained that although he was a U.S. citizen, he had allied himself with an entity that the U.S. was at war with and could be held by the military. Padilla's defense is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 



www.foxnews.com
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court Friday sided with the Bush administration and reversed a judge's order that the government either charge or free "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with Al Qaeda.

"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 Michael Luttig wrote. "We conclude that the President does possess such authority."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think anyone who allies themselves with a declared enemy of the United States is a traitor and has lost their civil rights. I agree with the Appeals court decision.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. No matter what you've done, as a US citizen, you are GUARANTEED constitutional rights. NO MATTER WHAT!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
But is it really right that somebody should have constitutional rights if they're fighting the nation of that particular constitution?

That and I'm pretty sure once you're a prisoner you can legally lose quite a few of your rights. However I'm not too sure on exceptions to the constitutions so don't quote me on that.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
You guys are missing something here......

This guy is on the short list for SC nominees.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Please excuse my ignorance FredT, but could you do me a huge favor and explain exactly what that means?

But to add to what I've said earlier, I don't think this person deserves constitutional rights if they're guilty. Simply put, you try killing US citizens (thats infringing on the rights of others I believe) you deserve to lose your rights.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Please excuse my ignorance FredT, but could you do me a huge favor and explain exactly what that means?.


One of the appeals judges in on the short list the President is making to replace Rhenquist. What better way to show loyalty. Its a perplexing decision and the US. SC will no doubt overturn it as it has done in a similar case.

My problem with this one is that I am troubled that no matter what he has done or intended to do, that he can be help forever without any charges whatsoever. The court are not saying he is innocent, just that you need to charge him with something, anything, to keep him locked up.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
One of the appeals judges in on the short list the President is making to replace Rhenquist. What better way to show loyalty. Its a perplexing decision and the US. SC will no doubt overturn it as it has done in a similar case.

My problem with this one is that I am troubled that no matter what he has done or intended to do, that he can be help forever without any charges whatsoever. The court are not saying he is innocent, just that you need to charge him with something, anything, to keep him locked up.


Rehnquist is now being replaced by Roberts, the O'Connor position is open again.

If you vow allegiance to a foreign power, especially one that has declared war against the United States (as al Qaeda has) you lose your rights, plain and simple. It would be like an American taking a vow to Nazi Germany in WWII then being captured by the U.S. government.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Rehnquist is now being replaced by Roberts, the O'Connor position is open again.

If you vow allegiance to a foreign power, especially one that has declared war against the United States (as al Qaeda has) you lose your rights,


Okay the O'Connor position


Yes, i would not argue with that. Like I said, my problem lie with not charging him with anything and the fact that he can remain so for the rest of his life without a single charge.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Once his lawyers know what the charges are they will have some idea in which direction this matter should go.

Yet it appears they are staunch in their belief that the constitution does apply.

"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 Michael Luttig wrote. "We conclude that the President does possess such authority."

From reading this, it appears the test before the court was not whether the incarceration was legal, but whether the President has the power to order such incarceration. Certainly the verdict answers this to be true. As Commander-in-Chief the President has final say.

If I were trying this case, the exceedingly important question would be twofold.

First, how much of the information cited in the verdict was agreed to?

And second, if being closely associated with an enemy is cause for incarceration, perhaps the court should consider the assiciations of the Bush's and the bin Laden's?

Or is that being too overt?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
What if America begins to declare more wars on other Nation's like Iraq?

Say for example, Iran, North Korea, Syria, any of the above.

This case will be used as a "bench mark" on the ability to hold people who disagree with wars. It's not that far a step. [In legal terms only minor.]

If the guy is guilty of a crime, place him on trial otherwise let him go.

It is "Innocent till proven guilty" not the other way around. It is for the Government to proove that he is guilty not for him to proove he is innocent.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Anyone who so deliberately attacks the constitution the way these judges have makes the enemies and traitors. The constitution is the foundation of our country. If these judges can't handle it maybe they should go to a country where there isn't a constitution to uphold. The constitution grants specific rights... period!



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
In essence, does this ruling mean the president can declare war on say Democrats? or any other group he so pleases and virtually have them all locked up void of their rights?


BTW...not saying he would ever do this but this sets dangerous precedent.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
But to add to what I've said earlier, I don't think this person deserves constitutional rights if they're guilty. Simply put, you try killing US citizens (thats infringing on the rights of others I believe) you deserve to lose your rights.


Now, there you said exactly what is important.

If the person is found guilty of these crimes, his rights can be revoked.

But then you have to think, how can someone be found guilty of a crime if there is no trial? Do the President, the Military and Intelligence community have the right to claim someone guilty without a trial of any kind?

Do you really want anyone to have to right to rule someone guilty of a crime without that person having a fair trial?



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Yes, i would not argue with that. Like I said, my problem lie with not charging him with anything and the fact that he can remain so for the rest of his life without a single charge.



Fred,

Since the case was based on the precedent set by the US Court wouldn't they have to follow the same guidelines set in the Yaser Hamdi case? He as I understand it only can be held as long as the conflict continues at which time they would have to set him free.

The only real differance as I see it is where the two were arrested; one out of the country and one in the country.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The only real differance as I see it is where the two were arrested; one out of the country and one in the country.


Padilla was arrested at an international airport before being admitted into the country, so technically he wasn't arrested in the country.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Padilla was arrested at an international airport before being admitted into the country, so technically he wasn't arrested in the country.


Fine, I was not aware of that.

If true that would be even more reason to use the same time frame set in the Yaser Hamdi case



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join