It ain’t all that bad . . . the ruling can still be appealed to the full 4th Circuit – and, given the constitutional importance of the issues, it would not be inappropriate to appeal an adverse ruling to the Supreme . . . oh, shit.
What really gets me is that Judge Luttig (mentioned in the second story linked about as being on Bush’s short list for Supreme Court appointments :eek: :eek: :eek: ) wrote an opinion:
Assuming that Padilla is closely linked with al-Qaeda, a matter that has yet to be proven in any court of law (and might never be, if this ruling sticks); and
Characterizing al-Qaeda as “an entity with which the United States is at war.” What the fuck? When did Congress ever declare war on al-Qaeda? And how, legally speaking, could the U.S. be “at war” with a non-state entity?
Anyway, issues for debate:
How does this ruling square with the right of habeas corpus under the U.S. Constitution?
How does this ruling square with the “due process of law” requirement of the Fifth Amendment?
Should a person’s status as a U.S. citizen or non-citizen make any difference WRT to the above?
WRT to the above, should it make a difference whether a person is arrested and/or held on U.S. soil or elsewhere?
What does this ruling mean WRT civil liberties, generally, in the U.S.? Does the government now have the authority to classify and detain anyone as an “enemy combatant” without judicial review?
This will have to get reversed. We are not at war with al Qaeda. The whole basis for the decision is false. This is right wing judicial activism, pure and simple.
The problem I am having is understanding how the AUMF enacted on 9/18/01 is to be interpreted. Can the Congress invoke the war powers act, as they have, and effectively suspend the writ of habeas corpus? I find that hard to believe…
And yet the Constiution does say that Congress can do so:
It violates it. John Mace’s post defines the circumstances in which Habeus Corpus may be suspended - rebellion and invasion. So while Habeus Corpus may be suspended in the presense of military forces, it cannot be legally suspended because of the threat of military forces. If that were true, then the right would be meaningless; it’s impossible to imagine a situation where there is no possible threat of attack, so the right could be susupended at any time.
Violates it. The Constitution says “nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. This decision says a citizen can be held indefinitely without due process.
Or maybe AG Alberto Gonzalez. At any rate, we know they want Judge Roberts as Chief Justice. Now, how is a Supreme Court composed of one Ford appointee, three Reagan appointees, two Bush I appointees, two Clinton appointees, and two Bush II appointees likely to rule on this issue?
It seems to me that Bush is trying an end-around by labeling a US citizen as an “enemy combatant”. He be better off politically and legally by having them arrested as traitors and finding two people to testify as to the same overt act.
As a word, “Traitor” is more loaded than “enemy combatant”. No one likes a traitor. Start comparing Padilla to Benedict Arnold and see his support taper off.
I’ve heard of no one who “supports” Padilla. The guy is a sub-human waste of genetic material. However, some of us support the Constitution, which seems to be on of the more horrible victims of the President’s war on terror. Don’t confuse supporting American ideals and supporting Jose Padilla.
