Court of Appeals Rules OK For Detainment Of Enemy Combatant
Posted on September 10, 2005
RICHMOND, Va. - In a victory for the Bush administration, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the government can continue to hold indefinitely an American accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb.”
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to reverse a judge’s order that the government either charge or free Jose Padilla, who has been in custody for more than three years.“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-Qaida, an entity with which the United States is at war,” Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote. “We conclude that the President does possess such authority.”
A federal judge in South Carolina ruled in February that the government cannot hold Padilla indefinitely as an “enemy combatant,” a designation President Bush gave him in 2002. The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement he was pleased with the ruling.
“As the court noted today, the authority to detain enemy combatants like Jose Padilla plays an important role in protecting American citizens from the very kind of savage attack that took place almost four years ago to the day,” Gonzales said.Source
It’s a tricky one that I’m sure many will be divided on. Should the president have this kind of authority? Should the government be able to detain an American citizen as an enemy combatant without a trial? Does this lead to the slippery slope argument that it gives the president the power to do this to anyone? The ACLU thinks so.
The American Civil Liberties Union expressed dismay over the ruling.
“So long as the civilian courts are open and functioning, American citizens arrested in the United States are entitled to due process protections provided by a traditional criminal trial,” ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro said in a statement.Source
According to the Chicago Tribune in 2004:
Padilla was arrested May 8, 2002, at O’Hare International Airport as he returned to the United States and was held as a material witness. A month later, President Bush designated him an enemy combatant and ordered him detained indefinitely at a military prison, where he was denied access to legal counsel. In March, the government allowed him to confer with a lawyer and videotaped the meeting.
During interrogation, Padilla admitted that he had been asked to target buildings in New York, Washington, D.C., or Florida, although he said he never intended to carry out the plan and it was merely a ruse so he could return to the United States, according to the Justice Department document.
Other detainees interrogated about Padilla described the combination of targets as being in Chicago and Central United States, in California, or in Texas and along the Mexican border, according to the document.
Padilla and an accomplice allegedly received training from an explosives expert in Afghanistan on assembling improvised detonators and timing devices. The training also included instruction on techniques for sealing an apartment so natural gas would build up inside, Comey said.
When apprehended at O’Hare, Padilla was carrying more than $10,000 in cash allegedly provided by Al Qaeda and telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of alleged Al Qaeda operatives, Comey said.
Padilla originally approached Al Qaeda leaders with a proposal to attack a U.S. city with a nuclear bomb that Padilla claimed he had learned how to build through the Internet, Comey said. But a skeptical Al Qaeda leader reportedly suggested Padilla build a simpler “dirty bomb” that would spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion.
Al Qaeda leaders had doubts about the plots to use radioactive material and instructed Padilla to pursue the attacks against apartment buildings instead, Comey said.
Comey, who was the chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan when Padilla was transferred to military custody, said that at the time he would have been unable to convict Padilla without endangering intelligence sources.
He added that he thought it unlikely Padilla would have provided details of the alleged plot had he been allowed access to the court system.
Comey said Padilla’s statements have been “heavily corroborated” by other detainees held as enemy combatants.
Much of the summary outlining the case against Padilla mentions only his admissions. But the document cites statements from Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and several other unnamed detainees corroborating elements of the alleged plot to blow up apartment buildings.
The questioning of Padilla was done by the FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency, Comey said, adding, “I have great confidence that those folks did it the right way.”
So the question remains, and it will surely be a lively debate. The left have a new folk hero who they can scream about civil rights violations. It is a very sticky subject in legal terms, but common sense should prevail to lock this guy away and throw away the key. Should he be allowed to have his side of the story told? The ACLU argues that if the U.S. has enough evidence to convict him of a crime, then he should have his day in Court. What we have is someone who clearly admitted to conspiring with Al Qaeda, who we are at war with by the way, to attack the United States. Since he was arrested before he could attempt this, therefore preventing it, evidence of actually following through isn’t there. For some, the confession in collaboration with other detainees’ confessions is enough evidence to hold him as an enemy. Others, like the ACLU will argue it is not. For now, the Courts have decided in favor of the Bush administration, but don’t doubt the ACLU will take this all the way to the Supreme Court.
Has the government been granted too much power to the point our liberty is at stake? Or is political correctness become a stumbling block in our ability to win this war against evil? These are the questions we really must ask ourself. In this case, I think I’ve seen enough to say America is better off having this person in custody. But does it open the door in the future for an abuse of power? That totally depends on how paranoid you are, but in my opinion as long as you don’t conspire with terrorists, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. In my opinion, its just another case where the ACLU has taken sides with the enemy.
Other Bloggers on this: My Pet Jawa
Ace of Spades
Llama Butchers
Another Rovian Conspiracy
In The Bullpen
Mad Mikey
Michelle Malkin
Outside The Beltway
Junkyard Blog
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “Court of Appeals Rules OK For Detainment Of Enemy Combatant”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Jay, you ask:
“Has the government been granted too much power to the point our liberty is at stake? Or is political correctness become a stumbling block in our ability to win this war against evil?”
I clearly feel the latter is the main issue for concern. I read this ruling in the paper this am and cheered — glad you posted on it. Since 9/11, I’ve fewer concerns that big government could misuse such power than of what might happen if they did not apply it as necessary to save our homeland.
Call me naive, but I believe that checks and balances will ultimately guard against abuse. After all, there IS a war going on. AND, we’ve had many lessons (and mistakes) in our past from which to learn — e.g., the Japanese American internment camps.
In my opinion, as long as you’re not a terrorist, getting terrorist training in Afghanistan–Jay, you left out quite a bit of the proof of what he was up to in that article. You’re intentionally leaving this open when I think it’s an open-and-shut case. We shouldn’t be extending “rights” to people like John Walker Lindh who were caught red-handed. Padilla was arrested with $10,000 in his pocket. His connection with Al Qaeda and his mission making apartments into virtual bombs has been corroborated by other enemy combatants.
Much of the summary outlining the case against Padilla mentions only his admissions. But the document cites statements from Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and several other unnamed detainees corroborating elements of the alleged plot to blow up apartment buildings.
The 9/11 Commission Report calls Khalid Shaikh Mohammed “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.” The Report calls him a “terrorist entrepreneur” who ? though he had engaged in planning terrorist attacks since his first such plot in 1994 ? did not join al-Qaeda until late 1998 or early 1999. He also reportedly helped finance his nephew Ramzi Yousef’s World Trade Center bombing and conspired with him to create the foiled Operation Bojinka plot (not directly related to al-Qaeda). As an al-Qaeda member he helped in the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the murder of Daniel Pearl, and other militant attacks..
To even consider letting someone connected with a man in Al Qaeda who has delivered that much destruction and mayhem ALREADY is a breathtaking stroke of ignorance. Why would anyone think of letting Padilla go with what he’s done–someone with these kinds of connections with the hope–or the naivete of thinking that he wouldn’t do anything–is ridiculous and stupid.
Padilla and an accomplice allegedly received training from an explosives expert in Afghanistan on assembling improvised detonators and timing devices. The training also included instruction on techniques for sealing an apartment so natural gas would build up inside.
When apprehended at O?Hare, Padilla was carrying more than $10,000 in cash allegedly provided by Al Qaeda and telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of alleged Al Qaeda operatives, Comey said.
Sounds to me like the case of Scott Peterson when he was caught with $10,000 in cash and was headed for the border. You can put circumstantial evidence together in order to have a solid case–we don’t need to wait for Padilla to blow up a building to detain him. Because of the high level people he was involved with, I’m sure they’re trying to make him “sing”.
This is a military matter-he’s being held in a military navy brig–this isn’t a case of petty theft–this is serious stuff having national security implications.
I think you’ve been brainwashed, Jay. You’ve been reading too much of the ACLU’s hogwash to be reasonable. I think they’ve converted you to actually defend the non-existent rights of a traitor…who probably should be shot.
Cao, your crazy! I never defended this guy. As a matter of fact, I said I think we are safer with him detained. I think there is plenty of evidence in this case for justification. Just because I stated how the other side would argue, and mentioned it is a tricky argument, doesn’t mean I agree with it.
I’m glad these justices got it right for a change. I expect the ACLU will now mount a petition to have them impeached.
Cao,
Jay hasn’t been brainwashed, he’s trying to spark debate and be cautious. Do we want to look as though we don’t believe in due process? I originally advised him to stay clear of the issue because of the potential Constitutional violations. But as we researched the case further, it was clear that if news agencies were able to obtain information about the case in that much detail, imagine what they know and can’t release due to operational security.
Some questions that I’d like answered are things like: When the FBI arrested him at O’Hare, had he cleared customs yet? If not he never actually entered the United States prior to being apprehended. Was he held in a civilian jail in the US? Did he actually confess to the crimes? Reports say yes. If so, why is this an issue? To waste money and resources. To tie up the government and raise dissent against the President and this war on Terrorism. It is the same tactic that our POWs used against the Germans. Escape and evade to tie up the enemy in their rear area. Keeps the fighting men off the line looking for prisoners.
But the ACLU is using the tactic so that it buys them time to rally the Big Brother fearing borderline bats. And dupe them into a Communist way of thinking.
Debate is Jay’s goal. Pissing off the left is mine.
It’s not a tricky argument in my book, guys. I can have an opinion, right? We don’t have to get all wonky over this. I have strong opinions about the WOT because I don’t want to lose. I see too many examples of our bending over out of political correctness while terrorists are committing acts of terror against our citizens and our property, like in this article at Frontpage, called “Terror Denial”.
Frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of hearing all the excuses–all the PC excuses as to why these people aren’t nabbed and sitting in jail. Those examples are completely frightening! If you take a look at how big our country is–and these are islamic terrorists–and they’re preaching this stuff from their mosques and you probably have a mosque near you–this is extremely important. It’s extremely important not to watch out for political correctness–and I don’t care if it’s in vogue. The ACLU doesn’t want to go by terrorist watch lists, either, you think that makes us any safer?
I don’t know why you’re pussyfooting around something that needs to be said unequivocally. Does a murderer deserve prison or to walk? The ACLU says he deserves to walk. Pedophiles deserve prison, to die, or to walk? Well IMO they deserve to die, and they should never be allowed to reoffend. We’ve gotten so politically correct that we take them out of the general population in prisons so that their deathrow buddies can’t inflict what’s coming to them. Boy, people have bent over backwards in the compassion area…to the point where it’s hurting the rest of us.
Padilla was not picking daisies in the middle of a field with a seeing eye dog and wrongfully captured because he was innocent. He was nabbed in the airport with a large amount of cash–and there is documentation as to his training in Afghanistan, etc. The ACLU is manipulating the technicalities and trying to get him off. And it looks to me as though you defend that and I think that’s horrible.
There is a lot of dirt on the guy (which you left out) and I don’t think holding someone who can cause our nation harm is against any reasonable person’s “playbook”–unless you’re defending terrorists.
This isn’t “sticky” unless you’re playing into the hands of the ACLU people who think it is. It’s pretty cut and dry. That’s all I’m saying.
Did my comment get eaten?
Darnit. I don’t have much more wind in my sails for this right now. I want to win the WOT. I don’t want to give into the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild or other lefty/liberal/commie organizations out of political correctness.
This article shows just a little example of what’s going on in this country. Law enforcement, the FBI and the CIA are looking the other way when there are pretty obvious terror attacks.
If we continue to do this–and continue to deny what’s going on, we’ll be living under sharia law.
Islam teaches that Muslims wage war to impose Islamic law on non Muslim states. American muslim groups are engaged in a huge coverup of Islamic doctrine and history. Today’s jihad terrorists have the same motives and goals as the muslims who fought the Crusaders.
And they’re converting guys like Padilla who are American born to perpetrate crimes against his own people.
Padilla has a hunk of bad stuff–evidence–against him. He wasn’t some innocent standing in a field picking daisies with a seeing eye dog. This is a dangerous guy who was trained in Afhganistan to kill people.
Are we to wait for him to succeed and then slap ourselves that we could have stopped him? I’d rather err on the side of caution.
Law abiding citizens who aren’t flying in and out of the country with the numbers of Al Qaeda members in their pocket and $10,000 in cash, with a history of training in bomb making have nothing to worry about.
I never stop hearing about the Gvernment usurping my rights. Meanwhile it is my neighbor that steals my goods, keeps me up all night with noise, sells me defective goods, keeps me looking over my shoulder and will pork my wife and daughter if he gets half a chance. But I seem to be totally free to enjoy my neighborhood as it is and complain as loud as I like you dumbass xxxxxxx Liberals.
Now I am supposd hope I am not legally bound to tolerate the presance of those that wish me dead. We gurantee life first, then we persue happiness. And we do not have to tolerate those that wish us to live in fear. What the hell is an enemy combatant? Is he a vigilante, a soldier, a subversive, a spy, a terrorist, a religeous mercernary, a transient warmonger? Let the military handle them as they se fit as they are capturing them as well as fighting them and dying.
Who damn thinks our laws are supposed to subject us to danger or protect potential murderers. Are we to become to stupid to survive.
Gribbit, I wasn’t there. I wasn’t at O’hare when they let him in the country. There’s too much out there that is not available. But I bet you can find it if you dig. I’ve done all the digging I’m going to do on this today. As far as I’m concerned–after reading accounts of how Steve Vincent died, and the book by Thomas Hamill-”Escape in Iraq” about being held by terrorists for 3 weeks after his convoy was broken up by terrorists and a lot of his friends were killed–I’m not feeling all warm and fuzzy about guys like Padilla right now.
Hey Cao, let me just put it like this so you can settle down a bit.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU!
hehehe. You think I’m capable of settling down? hehehee
I don’t know where that link went. I thought I put it AT LEAST once.
Well here’s the gist of it.
Firefighters conducting a routine inspection in a Brooklyn supermarket found 200 automobile airbags and a room lined with posters of Osama bin Laden and beheadings in Iraq. An element in the airbags can be used to make pipe bombs. The owner of the building, according to the New York Post, ?served jail time in the late 1970s and early 1980s for arson, reckless endangerment, weapons possession and conspiracy, according to the records.?[1] But officials were definite: this has nothing to do with terrorism.
It doesn?t? What does it have to do with, then? Was this a local Rotary Club chapter that decided to sell pipe bombs as a fundraiser and thought that a few posters of Osama and Iraqi beheadings might liven things up?
Similarly, when explosions killed fifteen people and injured over 100 at an oil refinery in Texas City, Texas on March 23, 2005, the FBI quickly ruled out terrorism as a possible cause.[2] When a group calling itself Qaeda al-Jihad and another Islamic group both claimed responsibility, the FBI was still dismissive.[3] But then it came to light that investigators did not even visit the blast site until eight days after the explosions ? and eight days after they ruled out terrorism as a possibility. One more independent-minded investigator asked, ?How do you rule out one possibility when you don’t have any idea what the cause is??[4] Still later came the revelation that initial reports of a single blast were inaccurate: there were as many as five different explosions at the refinery.[5]
It may still be possible that these blasts were accidental, and that five distinct things went wrong at the refinery to cause five separate explosions at around the same time. And maybe there was no terrorist involvement. But how did the FBI know that before even investigating?
These are just two examples of a consistent pattern. Last Thursday, federal authorities revealed the revealed the existence of a three-state scam that enabled over two thousand illegal immigrants to get driver?s licenses. Michael Garcia, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, explained: ?With a valid driver?s license, you establish an identity. There?s no way to identify whether that identity is valid ? that you?re not on a terrorist watch list, that you?re not a criminal. It gives you a bona fide.? However, although he did not explain how he could be sure that no jihad terrorists obtained any of the fake licenses, he assured reporters that this case had no connection to terrorism.
Daniel Pipes has recently pointed out that denial and obfuscation of obvious terror-related cases has been going on for years.[6] He enumerates a number of telling examples, including these: when a Muslim named El Sayyid Nosair murdered Israeli political activist Meir Kahane in New York City on November 5, 1990, authorities ascribed the killing not to jihad but to Nosair?s depression.[7] On March 1, 1994 on the Brooklyn Bridge, a Muslim named Rashid Baz started shooting at a van filled with Hasidic boys, murdering one of them.[8] The FBI ascribed the shooting to ?road rage.?[9] On July 4, 2002, at the Los Angeles International Airport counter of El Al, the Israeli national airline, a Muslim named Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet started shooting at people. He killed two. The FBI initially said that ?there?s nothing to indicate terrorism.? However, after it came to light that Hadayet may have been involved with Al-Qaeda and was known for his hatred for Israel, the FBI finally did classify this as a terrorist act.[10]
[1] Murray Weiss and Rich Calder, ?Stash ?Bagged? at Market,? New York Post, April 27, 2005.
[2] Pam Easton, ?Terrorism Ruled Out in Oil Refinery Blast,? Associated Press, March 25, 2005.
[3] SITE Institute, ?Qaeda al-Jihad in the United States Claims Responsibility For Texas Refinery Bombing,? March 25, 2005; ?Terror cover-up in Texas City?,? WorldNetDaily.com, April 5, 2005.
[4] ?Terror cover-up in Texas City?,? WorldNetDaily.com, April 5, 2005.
[5] ?Multiple blasts struck refinery,? Associated Press, April 29, 2005.
[6] Daniel Pipes, ?Denying Terrorism,? New York Sun, February 8, 2005.
[7] Pipes, ?Denying Terrorism.?
[8] Uriel Heilman, ?Murder on the Brooklyn Bridge,? Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2001.
[9] Pipes, ?Denying Terrorism.?
[10] Daniel Pipes, ?Terror & Denial,? New York Post, July 9, 2002.
wow I think it ate another comment. Ok I’m going to quit trying today.
Though there are many points to make in response to this post, I’m focusing on this statement:
“But does it open the door in the future for an abuse of power? That totally depends on how paranoid you are, but in my opinion as long as you don’t conspire with terrorists, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about.”
First, our representative republic is based on paranoia. Power attracts the tyrannical. It is our system of checks and balances that distributes power and then incentivises the group to make sure no one among them gets more power than the others. Any effort to consolidate power should be met with paranoia for the history of tyrannts is far longer than the history of free societies.
Second, I take issue with your logic that if you don’t conspire with terrorists then you don’t have anything to worry about. This type of argument poisons the well in that you have taken the position that anyone who disagrees with the government’s position must be conspiring with terrorists. Perhaps this is not what you meant but it is the logic of your argument.
Beyond that, your argument falsely assumes two points. First, similar to poisoning the well, your argument implies that only those intending to break a law have a valid worry about the law’s text. This logic serves you well in arguing that Padilla case has, so far, been decided correctly. But what about when the law falls short and doesn’t meet your expectations? Since, according to your logic, only those intending to break a law have a stake in arguing about a law, then you’ve not only eliminated yourself from these discussions (assuming you don’t intend to break the law in question), but you’ve essentially argued in favor of putting the fox in charge of building the hen house.
Lastly, your argument implies that laws are inherently good and, therefore, the more we have the better off we are. Afterall, if only bad guys are affected by laws then how can laws be bad. Your position on this point, I presume, is more an argument of convenience rather than something you actually intend to carry to its ultimate conclusion. At least, I hope that’s the case.