Federal court rules against arbitrary suspension of habeas corpus

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm glad to see that they're putting their foot down. Originally, I was a Bush supporter, but the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act have really undermined the Constitution and led for future abuse. If we're not careful, they're gonna be indefinitely detaining us for speeding tickets, Soviet gulag style.
 
foob said:
Er... Jose Padilla is a citizen. He also got indefinite detention until recently. The declaring of somebody as an enemy combatant has no restriction on nationality or location of arrest.

If by recently you mean 2003, then I guess so. Padilla was arrested May 8, 2002 and by December 18, 2003 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a ruling in his case - that isn't exactly a glacial response in our criminal justice system, especially when the executive was actively trying to delay the trial. By February 20, 2004, Padilla's case was before the Supreme Court who remanded on procedural grounds. For comparison, the plaintiffs in Parker filed their case in D.C. federal court on February 10, 2003 and only recently received a decision from the appellate court. The case likely will not make the Supreme Court before Summer 2008.

Declaring someone an enemy combatant may not have a restriction on nationality; but the Supreme Court has already ruled that U.S. citizens cannot be detained indefinitely without charges. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

"Justice O’Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker"
 
I was saying a citizen can also be declared an enemy combatant and locked up without trial. You were saying that it can't happen to you because you are a citizen. Well it happened to Padilla. Lawyers challenged his status, that doesn't mean he wasn't classified as an enemy combatant at the time. The government was never going to charge him until their hand was forced by the supreme court.

He could have spent one day or one year or five years in the brig, doesn't negate the fact a citizen was arrested on US soil for indefinite detention without charges.

You do know Padilla was never freed and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld never applied to him. His appeal to the supreme court was dismissed based on a technicality.

He has always been detained indefinitely without charges, until january 3rd 2006 where he was transferred to be charged. So yes 2006 is recent, not 2003 as you incorrectly state. He was never released, instead as the government continued to appeal higher and higher, he continued to be locked up with no possibility of trial. Every court continued to stay any release order pending appeal.

Lawyers have been challenging the status of those held in Guantanamao too, doesn't mean they haven't been declared enemy combatants or are not in indefinite detention.

Yes Hamdi v. Rumsfeld has reversed it. That does not prevent the executive branch from indefinitely detaining a citizen enemy combatant. If they were to do it again, the courts will hear it again and declare it illegal. But you never know, the newer supreme court may reverse the old judgement. You could again spend months or years in jail waiting for the courts to free you.
 
It is scary that our President thinks he can order the military to detain someone indefinitely.
Indeed so.

It is also frightening that the President cannot distinguish between an "enemy combatant" (which would be a member of an enemy country's armed forces, engaged in "combat") and a civilian who may (or who may not) have been engaged in criminal, even terroristic acts, but who is not acting under the authority of any country's armed forces or government.

It is even more frightening that more than one person aside from the President agrees that the President either does or should have the authority to make this illogical "determination."

If we are ever to salvage the Constitution, we must constantly remind those in power that we use words to communicate, and that words have prescribed meanings. "Combat" is not the same as "terrorism."
 
Might want to check out Volokh Conspiracy. They seem to disagree and think this will be overturned. I usually think their opinions on alot of things are spot on. And yes they are libertarians. Not everything Bush has done is like the ACLU believes. Not all things are a shredding of the Constitution just because people scream that over and over. After all if I remember right the left including Gore thinks we should fight terrorists including Al Quida as a criminal problem. Doesn't seem like the ACLU and such people want us to be able to do that very effectively. But I knew that all along. :(
 
I was saying a citizen can also be declared an enemy combatant and locked up without trial. You were saying that it can't happen to you because you are a citizen. Well it happened to Padilla.

Really? Because if Padilla never got a trial, it is tough to explain how he was standing before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals about 18 months after he was arrested (which isn't an unusual length of time for a criminal appeal) or how he was standing before the Supreme Court in less than two years.

He could have spent one day or one year or five years in the brig, doesn't negate the fact a citizen was arrested on US soil for indefinite detention without charges.

Nor does the fact that the executive branch tried to do so negate the fact that they were slapped down by the courts and in a faster time period than many criminal appeals are heard.

You do know Padilla was never freed and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld never applied to him. His appeal to the supreme court was dismissed based on a technicality.

Are we assuming he should be freed? I thought that we were arguing he should get a trial, which is what he received - and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld certainly applies to him since he is a U.S. citizen. Just because the Supreme Court didn't explicitly say so doesn't mean lower courts can say "Well, that ruling only applies to Hamdi and not Padilla"

This is one of my major gripes with this issue is that so-called "human rights" advocates keep lying about the application of this law and creating grossly distorted scenarios to imply that any American might be grabbed up off the streets and thrown into the dungeons never to be heard of again. Even when the government tried to assert that authority, it was immediately shut down and now that there are Supreme Court rulings on it, the chances haven't improved.

Anytime I see someone using hyperbole to make a point, I always have to wonder how much of a point they have if they can't make it based on the undisputed facts?

He has always been detained indefinitely without charges, until january 3rd 2006 where he was transferred to be charged. So yes 2006 is recent, not 2003 as you incorrectly state.

Which totally misses the point... you implied earlier that the government can just designate American citizens as enemy combatants and throw them in jail without so much as a "by your leave" and they would never be heard of again. That was BS even before Hamdi v. Rumsfeld... Padilla was arguing his case in court almost immediately and had made the appellate court before 18 months was out.

Lawyers have been challenging the status of those held in Guantanamao too, doesn't mean they haven't been declared enemy combatants or are not in indefinite detention.

That is because they are not American citizens. Now if that offends you that non-Americans can be put in that situation, I certainly understand that; but implying that this is some kind of precedent for Americans to be thrown into prison without any kind of due process is BS.

Yes Hamdi v. Rumsfeld has reversed it. That does not prevent the executive branch from indefinitely detaining a citizen enemy combatant.

Yes, it does.

If they were to do it again, the courts will hear it again and declare it illegal.

Which kind of suggests that you won't be able to detain citizens "indefinitely" doesn't it? Seriously, the Supreme Court wouldn't sanction the detention of an American citizen who was picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan and yet people with political agendas like to imply that we are just steps away from the government grabbing grandmother off the street and throwing her in the dungeon with no charges.

Of course when you ask for actual examples of this, the best they can come up with is Hamdi (American citizen picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan) and Padilla (convicted felon picked up in U.S. as part of bombing plot) - both of these people got access to the court system despite their "enemy combatant" designation. Both Padilla and Hamdi had their case reviewed by the Supreme Court before the Parker plaintiffs even got an appellate review in D.C.
 
and throw them in jail without so much as a "by your leave" and they would never be heard of again.

When did I say they would never be heard again? I'll wait for a quote. Please feel free to take your time. There is a big difference between labeled an enemy combatant and arrested and held without charges with the intention for it to be indefinite, versus "never be heard of again".

Really? Because if Padilla never got a trial, it is tough to explain how he was standing before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals about 18 months after he was arrested (which isn't an unusual length of time for a criminal appeal) or how he was standing before the Supreme Court in less than two years.

Wrong wrong wrong. He was never charged, he never got a trial until May 15 2007.

His lawyers appealed his detention, that is not a criminal trial. A criminal trial requires an indictment. You may want to be technical and call any hearing before a court a trial, I beg to differ.

Arrested in 2002, held in detention until 2005 when he was indicted. Yeah that was real fast... 3+ years to get indicted is NOT fast. Seriously, how do you come up with these conclusions.
On November 22, 2005, CNN's front page broke the news that Padilla had finally been indicted on charges he "conspired to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas.

Habeas Corpus is a writ to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment, it is not a criminal trial.

The courts were determining whether Habeas Corpus can be denied to him and whether the President can detain him without charges. Not actual Habeas Corpus action, not trial.

Read about him before making up stuff about what happened to Padilla. Right now you are just lying about the case of Padilla to get your point through. Talk about using hyperbole.

If you are right, then why in 2005 did the lower court disagree with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004):
On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig.
Wow a lower court refusing to follow a precedent set by the U.S. supreme court.

If the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case is clear cut, then why the need for this:
On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari, to hear Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit Court's decision that the President had the power to designate him and detain him as an "enemy combatant" without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.

3 supreme court justices dissenting from denial of certiorari. Hmm.
 
There is a big difference between labeled an enemy combatant and arrested and held without charges with the intention for it to be forever, versus "never be heard of again".

I'm sorry. Are you seriously arguing that I misconstrued your words because the difference between arresting someone with the intention of detaining them forever and "never being heard of again" is so great that my summary was unfair to your idea?

His lawyers appealed his detention, that is not a trial. A trial requires charges, he was never charged. He never stood before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals AFAIK, he never appeared in court.

He was charged, even your earlier posts acknowledged that. What was I saying about hyperbole earlier? Second, the point is that he got access to the justice system. The executive tried to detain him without charges and the judiciary said "No, you can't do that." Now let's compare that result with your initial claim:

foob said:
If you support the indefinite detention of a US resident just because the President labels him an "enemy combatant", just remember one day when they come for your firearms they can use the same excuse.

Does that claim stand up based on past court rulings? No.

The courts were determining whether Habeas Corpus can be denied to him, not actual Habeas Corpus action.

And what did they determine and how did that affect the initial claim you are disputing?
 
Originally posted by Barth:
He was charged, even your earlier posts acknowledged that. What was I saying about hyperbole earlier? Second, the point is that he got access to the justice system. The executive tried to detain him without charges and the judiciary said "No, you can't do that." Now let's compare that result with your initial claim:

Er.. he was charged in 2005 and stood trial in 2007. Your claim was he stood trial and was charged in 2003, one year after his arrest. You said that was not recent. You were mistaken. I have explained the difference in the earlier post.

The judiciary never said "no, you can't do that", refer to below. The highest court to rule on his status is the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, and they said the President has the power.

Originally posted by Barth:
Does that claim stand up based on past court rulings? No.

Yes. Refer to below.

Originally posted by Barth:
And what did they determine and how did that affect the initial claim you are disputing?

Er... in 2005, 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the President has the authority to detain Padilla without charges. Hamdi v Rumsfeld was in 2004. So how do you explain this?

If you are right, then why in 2005 did the lower court disagree with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004):
On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig.

This decision has not been overruled by the supreme court and has been left to stand. Somehow, you are implying the lower court refused to follow Supreme Court precedent (which is freaking illegal), and the supreme court let their decision stand? Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about the Padilla case.


Sadly my attitude during online discussions is pretty bad. I'll unsubscribe from this thread and leave the discussion to others. If you have a valid point to make to me, bring it to PM.
 
Er.. he was charged in 2005 and stood trial in 2007. Your claim was he stood trial and was charged in 2003, one year after his arrest. You said that was not recent. You were mistaken. I have explained the difference in the earlier post

If by "explained the difference" you mean completely disregarded his 2003 apellate habeas corpus hearing and his 2004 Supreme Court hearing, then yes, you have made it clear that these trials did not actually free him as they only addressed whether he could be held without specific charges being filed.

Er... in 2005, 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the President has the authority to detain Padilla without charges. Hamdi v Rumsfeld was in 2004. So how do you explain this?

You are discussing two different things. Do you understand the difference? The Fourth Circuit interpreted the Hamdi court as saying a U.S. citizen must receive habeas corpus hearing and have a chance to prove he is not an enemy combatant. The Fourth Circuit then said that Padilla had this chance and he could be held without charges. However, in reality this was nothing more than a delaying tactic and the Feds charged Padilla before it could go to the Supreme Court; because they knew it would be overturned.

The point being that even if the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of the Hamdi case is the "correct" one, you still get a trial in front of a U.S. federal judge and an appeals process to prove you are not an enemy combatant. You don't just get declared an enemy combatant and detained forever with no chance to prove otherwise. Even enemy aliens get the military tribunals (which have already freed some prisoners).
 
foob said:
She has voted down the partial birth ban in VA...
...which ban is within the enumerated powers...how?
Read the 9th Amendment to the COTUS.

The Article II enumerated powers in the COTUS have nothing to say WRT powers left to the states & the people of which the legislation in question was a product.
 
It is scary that our President thinks he can order the military to detain someone indefinitely.
Why? It is not unheard of for the military or other parmilitary agenices such as the CIA to do so. FDR did it, and so has every president since, and probably before that. You just hear about it now becasue there are so many Bush bashers out there these days leaking every secret they can.

That being said, I am not so sure the court is wrong in this case. I think it is a bit of a stretch to call someone a combatant unless he has actually engaged in some kind of combat activities against the US or US citizens.

I support the confinement of unlawful combatants captured in the act, until such time as they can be fairly tried and hung.
 
Why? It is not unheard of for the military or other parmilitary agenices such as the CIA to do so. FDR did it, and so has every president since, and probably before that. You just hear about it now becasue there are so many Bush bashers out there these days leaking every secret they can.
I agree that Bush hardly invented this. Lincoln long beat him to it, for example--and should have been impeached and then executed for his crimes. Perhaps, if that had been done, then FDR and every president since would have been afraid to follow his evil example. Nevertheless, it's not too late! Bush, and several previous presidents, are still alive. Each and every one who has done this should be tried and, if found guilty, executed. That won't undo the wrong done by Bush and his predecessors, but perhaps it will serve as a warning to their successors.

--Len.
 
This person is a US Citizen. He should be treated as such and subject to all the benefits of citizenship.

That said, he should be tried as a traitor. And sentenced appropriately if found guilty.

Now, I do NOT afford the same benefits to non-US citizens.
 
Here's the thing.

There should be a legal procedure for this.

I am perfectly fine with declaring someone to be an enemy combatant. As a terrorist, that gives him more rights than he'd have otherwise, actually, like the right to kill people, under some conditions, without being convicted of murder.

It's silly to define "enemy combatant" according to the rules that applied in Napoleon's time.

But it's downright frightening to change the definition to "whomever we say".

What we need are rules to govern the reality of modern conflict. This won't satisfy "libertarians" who like to pretend it's 200 years ago when soldiers lined up in colorful uniforms, or "civil libertarians" who often objectively side with terrorists and terrorism. But it can actually protect the rights of the innocent.

Civil liberties are protected by procedure, "the rule of laws, not men." Boring stuff, to most of us, and not always perfect, but that's what has worked best in the history of the world.

That's why I can't get into ranting and raving about this, but I'm glad that the courts are applying the brakes a little bit here.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that the man held is a terrorist. However, you still have the right to fair trial, even if you are evil. This is a big win for the Sixth Amendment.

And this is why we are going to lose. Giving terrorists access to our courts would give them a victory larger than any bomb or military win.

If a person is a US citizen then they should be afforded all of the rights guaranteed them under the constitution. If they aren't then all bets are off.

And just for the record, the government ISN'T snatching up people and locking them away.
The government DOESN'T have the power to detain citizens indefinately.
There is no evidence that repealing the patriot act would make us safer, or that its been abused.
 
Stage2 - You know full well the PA has been abused and there are mountains of evidence of it including numerous admissions by the DoJ and the FBI. Some of which I have even started threads in this forum on.
 
And this is why we are going to lose. Giving terrorists access to our courts would give them a victory larger than any bomb or military win.
Are you saying that God whispers in your ear who is or isn't a terrorist? NO? Then how do you know whose due process rights to take away, before they've been duly convicted of a crime?

Denying rights to "terrorists" really means denying rights to accused terrorists, including the innocent who are falsely accused. Once your rights can be taken away on the basis of an accusation, without trial, our republic is not only dead but mouldered into dust.

--Len.
 
And this is why we are going to lose. Giving terrorists access to our courts would give them a victory larger than any bomb or military win.

You are presuming that the man held is a terrorist. The only problem with that is, that there is no way to tell since he has only been charged and not convicted. And you have to grant him the right to a trail, if you want to convict him. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
 
Are you saying that God whispers in your ear who is or isn't a terrorist? NO? Then how do you know whose due process rights to take away, before they've been duly convicted of a crime?

Denying rights to "terrorists" really means denying rights to accused terrorists, including the innocent who are falsely accused. Once your rights can be taken away on the basis of an accusation, without trial, our republic is not only dead but mouldered into dust.

The issue is NOT who is a terrorist, but who is a US citizen. Every citizen should recieve due process and a fair trial. From what little of this story that I have read this man was NOT a US citizen. As such I really don't care whether he disappears to a secret prison or not.


Stage2 - You know full well the PA has been abused and there are mountains of evidence of it including numerous admissions by the DoJ and the FBI. Some of which I have even started threads in this forum on.

You haven't done very much research.
Patriot Act Abuses

As yes, wikipedia, my favorite source:rolleyes:. To this day, the patriot act hasn't enabled the government to do anything it hasn't done a million times in the past. Before the PA, warrants were improperly issued, wiretaps were improperly obtained and people were unlawfully imprisoned. Don't misunderstand me, this doesn't make it right, however to suggest that the patriot act gives the government some huge mandate to do what was previously illegal is simply wrong.

To this day, a single american hasn't come forward alleging that they personally had their rights violated by the government. Feds aren't breaking down doors in the dead of night, and citizens aren't being jailed indefinately.

The sky isn't falling.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Everyone that the constitution applies to.
 
There is no evidence that repealing the patriot act would make us safer, or that its been abused.
Right, there's no evidence at all. Certainly nothing like the FBI underreporting use of National Security Letters by an order of magnitude (source: Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General). Nor The FBI engaging in blanket requests for more than one million visitors to Vegas, nor use of the (ostensibly anti-terrorism) USA PATRIOT Act to investigate political corruption. Or maybe the FBI giving seminars on "how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases."

Seriously--a little Google goes a long way.
 
Appalling

So I guess the government doesn't even need to charge you with anything to lock you up anymore? Well we don't really have any evidence or enough for a conviction. So why give anyone a trial? Lets just lock them up and throw away the key! As much as people are willing to sacrifice freedoms to fight terrorism, don't kid yourself. Its the government that is terrorizing people. Who's to say that ten years from now they won't be able to hold you without trial for a crime of violence? This is a very dangerous and slippery slope.:cuss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top