It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jose Padilla and The Death of Liberty
"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." Judge Antonin Scalia
By Mike Whitney
09/10/05 "ICH" -- -- I had to sit down when I heard the Padilla case had been settled. I literally felt sick to my stomach, like I was gasping for air. The case of Jose Padilla is quite simply the most important case in the history of the American judicial system. Hanging in the balance are all the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence including habeas corpus, due process and "the presumption of innocence". All of those basic concepts were summarily revoked by the 3 judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court. The Court ruled in favor of the Bush administration which claimed that it had the right to indefinitely imprison an American citizen without charging him with a crime. The resulting verdict confers absolute authority on the President to incarcerate American citizens without charge and without any legal means for the accused to challenge the terms of his detention. It is the end of "inalienable rights", the end of The Bill of Rights, and the end of any meaningful notion of personal liberty.
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; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets. We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed.
parties have stipulated to the facts as set forth by the
Padilla met with al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, received explosives training in an al Qaedaaffiliated camp, and served as an armed guard at what he understood to be a Taliban outpost.[...]Padilla was, on the facts with which we are presented, “armed and present in a combat zone during armed conflict between al Qaeda/Taliban forces and the
armed forces of the United States.”[...]Padilla eventually escaped to Pakistan, armed with an assault rifle. Id. at 20-21. Once in Pakistan, Padilla met with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, a senior al Qaeda operations planner, who directed Padilla to travel to the United States for the purpose of blowing up apartment buildings, in continued prosecution of al Qaeda’s war of terror against the United States.
It is only on these facts that we
consider whether the President has the authority to detain Padilla.
The “narrow question,” id. at 2639, addressed by the Court in Hamdi was “whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as ‘enemy combatants,’” id., defined for purposes of that case as “individual[s] who . . . [were] ‘“part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners”’ in Afghanistan and who ‘“engaged in an armed conflict against the United States”’ there,” id. The controlling plurality of the Court answered that narrow question in the affirmative,[...]“[because] [t]he capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by ‘universal agreement and practice,’ are ‘important incident[s] of war,’” id. at 2640
(quoting Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 28 (1942)). The rationale for this law-of-war principle, Justice O’Connor explained for the plurality, is that “detention to prevent a combatant’s return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war.”
As the AUMF authorized Hamdi’s detention by the President, so also does it authorize Padilla’s detention. Under the facts as presented here, Padilla unquestionably qualifies as an “enemy combatant” as that term was defined for purposes of the controlling opinion in Hamdi. Indeed, under the definition of “enemy combatant” employed in Hamdi, we can discern no difference in principle between Hamdi and Padilla.
In Quirin, the Court held that Congress had authorized the military trial of Haupt, a United States citizen who entered the country with orders from the Nazis to blow up domestic war facilities but was captured before he could execute those orders. Id. at 20-21, 28, 46. The Court reasoned that Haupt’s citizenship was no bar to his military trial as an unlawful enemy belligerent, concluding that “[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of . . . the law of war.” Id. at 37-38. Like Haupt, Padilla associated with the military arm of the enemy, and with its aid, guidance, and direction entered this country bent on committing hostile acts on American soil.
The Court almost immediately thereafter observed, however, that the “fact that the Act” at issue was “silent on detention [did] not of course mean that any power to detain [was] lacking,”
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The bottom line is this: If the government deems YOU a "terrorist" or claims you have been dealing with them... You're toast.
Originally posted by Full Metal
Bush is a progressive Liberal?
"You voting for democrat? Terrorist! Throw them in jail. No lawyer, no outside contact, no way to expose us until after the election."
Originally posted by Bout Time
this in line with a Citizens inalienable rights NOT being violated, several assumptions have to be made,
the chief one among them is that our civilian courts ability to process under sealed records is insufficient
As to the fact that Padilla can be prosecuted, the availability of criminal process does not distinguish him from Hamdi. If the mere availability of criminal prosecution rendered detention unnecessary within the meaning of the AUMF, then Hamdi’s detention would have been unnecessary and therefore unauthorized, since he too was detained in the United States and amenable to criminal prosecution. We are convinced, in any event, that the availability of criminal process cannot be determinative of the power to detain, if for no other reason than that criminal prosecution may well not achieve the very purpose for which detention is authorized in the first place -- the prevention of return to the field of battle. Equally important, in many instances criminal prosecution would impede the Executive in its efforts to gather intelligence from the detainee and to restrict the detainee’s communication with confederates so as to ensure that the detainee does not pose a continuing threat to national security even as he is confined
had a "blueprint" to make a bomb( never adequately proven), AND had access to radioactive materials
met some far removed under lieutenants in "Al Qeda" - trained in munitions
[in text citations removed and emphasis added in both quotes]
Padilla argues that, even if his detention is authorized by the AUMF, it is unlawful under Ex parte Milligan, (1866). In Milligan, the Supreme Court held that a United States citizen associated with an anti-Union secret society but unaffiliated with the Confederate army could not be tried by a military tribunal while access to civilian courts was open and unobstructed. Milligan purported to restrict the power of Congress as well as the power of the President. (“[N]o usage of war could sanction a military trial . . . for any offence whatever of a citizen in civil life, in nowise connected with the military service. Congress could grant no such power . . .”). Quirin, however, confirmed that Milligan does not extend to enemy combatants.
Padilla was the fall guy of post 9/11, because the fact that the government has nobody else.
So we should be scare and afraid, because they are powerful they are in charge and the are coming for you if. . .if you behave bad
Originally posted by Nygdan
Lets just start with the issue of this ruling being noting new, and being largely based on a nearly identical decision to try as an enemy Citizen Haupt. Were you talking about the destruction of the Constitution when that was going on?
We are convinced, in any event, that the availability of criminal process cannot be determinative of the power to detain, if for no other reason than that criminal prosecution may well not achieve the very purpose for which detention is authorized in the first place -- the prevention of return to the field of battle.
So long as he was armed in a battlefield and part of al-Qaeda he's can sufficiently be said to be a threat.
Originally posted by Bout Time
the US is not at war.
The whole lawful combatant vs. enemy combatant definitions are predicated on that.
A US citizen was arrested in a US city. No battlefield collection of Padilla.
The recon mission that Padilla is charged with being on is all predicated on intent that is defined by spurious definition
the very low rank of anything that Padilla could have been involved with being bridged to critical national security & prevention of future events is painfully false.
from communicating "critical" data? What could he have possibly had access to?
That's rendered moot by his port of arrest
and that he was not a member, but a sympathizer - an "unmade" man trying to be a made man.
I think so much of this position that you're presenting is germane to John Walker Lind.
Am I misunderstanding this statement? Does this not say that Padilla has admitted that these facts are true?
If this is so, then Padilla should be detained as long as we continue to fight the war on terror, at least al Qaeda in Afghanistan
Originally posted by Bout Time
arguing the status we're in now, relative to a formal declaration of war.
With Padilla, his membership status is relevant to the holding/punishment phase.
He amounts to a sympathizer looking for a contribution to the cause - the criminality is not in question, but the holding/punishment phases are.
The minimal capabilities/knowledge of Padilla as a terrorist have only been blown to epic proportions
I do not feel that the case is made to deny a citizen their rights in this Padilla case
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The Constitution is no longer worth the paper it was written on. American citizens are no longer free. Thanks to the court's ruling in the Jose Padilla case, American citizens can now be apprehended and locked up indefinitely with NO recourse, on the word of one man: the president.
Somebody wake me up from this manufactured nightmare.