Appeals court denies US attempt to move Padilla case
Opinion 'strongly rebukes' Bush administration for apparently trying to avoid Supreme Court.
In a strongly worded opinion that rebuked the Bush administration, a federal appeals court has refused
a request from the Bush administration to authorize the transfer of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla into Justice Department custody to face new criminal charges.
The Washington Post reports that the three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit wrote that the government's actions have left "the impression that Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake," and that this hurts the government's "credibility before the courts."
This is the same court that had in August granted the administration
wide latitude in holding Padilla in Department of Defense custody without charges or a court appearance.
MSNBC reports that Wednesday's decision, written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was a leading contender to be nominated to the Supreme Court earlier this year, questions why the Bush administration "
used one set of facts before the court for 3-and-a-half years to justify holding Padilla without charges but used another set to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last month."
Padilla was arrested in May 2002 and is only one of two US citizens to be held as an enemy combatant. In November, Padilla was finally charged with undertaking "violent jihad" and aiding terrorist groups. A few days after the charges were laid, the Bush administration applied to get Padilla transferred from military to civilian jail, and said that the new charges meant Padilla's appeal of the 4th Court's decision in August was now moot and should be dismissed.
The
BBC reports that Judge Luttig also wrote that the Bush administration gave the appearance of doing whatever it could to prevent the Padilla case from
going before the US Supreme Court. The
Chicago Sun-Times reports that Luttig cited "anonymous government officials...quoted in news reports saying
Padilla was charged in Miami because the administration didn't want the Supreme Court to review the appeals court's September decision."
Legal experts say this shows that the 4th Court, previously very friendly towards the Bush administration's arguments about terrorism, is now casting a more skeptical eye on those positions.
The New York Times reports that Carl W. Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School who has written about the government's legal strategy in terrorist cases, said Wednesday's
ruling was extraordinary.
Tasia Scolinos, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said in a statement: "We are disappointed that the court has denied the unopposed motion to transfer Jose Padilla to the criminal justice system to face the terrorism charges currently pending against him. The president's authority to detain enemy combatants, which the Fourth Circuit has upheld, should not be viewed as an obstacle to an exercise of the government's undoubted authority to prosecute federal crimes, including those related to terrorism."
The
Associated Press reports that Padilla's attorney, Donna Newman, said the decision
provided vindication because the defense had always said the government was playing games. Ms. Newman hopes the Supreme Court will now take up the case, and the whole issue of enemy combatants in general.
Meanwhile, the Senate voted Wednesday night to extend provisions of the
Patriot Act for six months, after last week's defeat of an attempt to renew the act for four years. Democrats, along with a handful of Republican senators, had wanted a three-month extension, while the GOP majority wanted a year extension. The deal came after a day of hard negotiations.
"For a lot of reasons, it made the most sense, given that there are significant differences that remain," said Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, one of a small group of Republicans who had joined with Senate Democrats to filibuster a House-Senate compromise.
The House must now approve the Senate compromise. The White House originally said it would only accept the original extension, or it would allow the Patriot Act to expire. But the administration changed its position as the time for the act to expire grew nearer.
Also...
•
Blaming Arab media (
Counterpunch)
•
Wolfowitz says Iraq not his fault or problem (
Hearst)
•
Muslims should document being singled out by border officers, council says (
Associated Press)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed