Supreme Court OKs transfer of Padilla
But Bush administration concedes that high court can still consider larger issue of enemy combatants.
The US Supreme Court ordered US citizen and alleged terrorist Jose Padilla to be transferred from a military brig in South Carolina to a civilian jail in Miami to stand trial there.
CNN reports the transfer came
at the request of the Bush administration. Last week, in a confrontational ruling, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had blocked the transfer, saying that it appeared the Bush administration was trying to avoid having the Supreme Court look at Padilla's case.
Padilla's lawyers were not opposed to the move, but had wanted it delayed until the justices decided if they would hear a broader appeal from Padilla, questioning whether President Bush had the constitutional authority to hold him as an enemy combatant since 2003. The Bush administration had argued that the appeal was now moot because Padilla was being charged in a criminal court. But the justices said they would announce their decision about the appeal next Friday.
"I'm glad Padilla will be able to defend himself before a jury of his peers, like every other American," attorney Jonathan Frieman said. "I'm also glad that the government has now recognized that Padilla's transfer to a civilian jail does not make the case less worthy of review by the Supreme Court."
Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki said, "We are pleased we will be able to move forward with the criminal case."
The New York Times reports on one reason the Supreme Court may have been prepared to let the transfer go ahead – on Tuesday afternoon, the government filed another brief in which it asked for the transfer again, but conceded that the case would still be
eligible for review by the high court even if Padilla were no longer in military custody.
"Granting the application will not prejudice this court's consideration of Padilla's petition," the brief said, adding, "It would, however, eliminate the anomaly of a citizen being held by the military against the wishes of both the executive and the detainee (at least in all but the short run)."
Reuters reports that in November, Padilla was
indicted in Florida for conspiracy to murder and aiding terrorists abroad. These new charges contained no reference to accusations made by government officials, such as John Ashcroft when he was attorney general, that Padilla had planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States. Nor did the criminal charges in Miami say anything about other government statements that he had plotted with Al Qaeda leaders to use natural gas to blow up apartment buildings in the US.
Meanwhile, in another issue that involves
how far presidential power can extend,
The Boston Globe reported Wednesday that when President Bush last week signed the new law that outlawed the torture of detainees, he "quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief." After giving his OK to the bill, which the White House had fought against but which was overwhelmingly approved by Congress, Bush issued a "signing statement," that basically says he believes he can waive the restrictions if he wishes.
Some legal experts say that this raises serious questions about the president's intentions to follow the law.
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.
"The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. "They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."
A senior White House official, however, told the Globe that Bush will not ignore the law. "We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."
But the Globe also reported Thursday that
three top Republican senators condemned the president's assertion that he was the right to bypass the law. Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chair of the Armed Services Committee, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona issued a statement saying that Congress had denied a request from the administration to provide a presidential waiver in the legislation, and that the "committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."
Sen Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina told the Globe he agreed with Senators Warner and McCain and would go even further.
"I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified," Graham said. "If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same." The administration did not provide any comments on the statements by the three Republican senators.
Also...
•
Guard pays members for enlisting others (Boston Globe)
•
Bush at risk of losing closest Mideast ally (Washington Post)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed
