posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:33 AM
The Supreme Court decided not to try the Bush Administration's use of aggressive incarceration during wartime Monday. The case, Padilla v.
, represented American Jose Padilla's mistreatment in Guantanamo as an "enemy combatant". Mr. Padilla appealed his three and a half year
imprisonment citing lack of access without legal intervention. At first, the Supreme Court appeared interested in hearing the case, but afterwards
refused after prosecutorial action last fall in Florida. With a court case pending, Mr. Padilla now can see his lawyers to fight his criminal
However, the decision to not hear the case is rife with division between the Supreme Court Justices. Newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts,
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern over Mr. Padilla's condition in prison, but refused. Justices David H.
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer called for taking the case.
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the Bush administration's wartime detention powers, rejecting an appeal from U.S.
citizen Jose Padilla who until recently had been held as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts and two others signaled concerns about the government's handling of Padilla and said they would be watching to ensure he
receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."
Three other justices wanted the court to consider immediately whether
President Bush overstepped his authority by ordering Padilla's detention.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Compellingly, this story relates the potential to have a case challenging the wartime powers of the Presidency. Does anyone think it was mighty
convenient of the government to speed up Mr. Padilla's case just when the Supreme Court reviewed the detainee's appeal? The good thing about this
story is the treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners will probably be watched more closely in a legal manner to ensure that the government does not
exceed its punishment of the incarcerated.
[edit on 4-4-2006 by ceci2006]
[edit on 6-4-2006 by asala]