I wouldn't be putting money on them hearing this (non)case.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/28/scotus.padilla/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorneys for terror suspect Jose Padilla have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether his detention as an "enemy combatant" is constitutional.
The Justice Department previously asked the high court not to hear the case, arguing that since he has been charged with a crime -- as his lawyers had sought -- "the case is moot."
Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in May 2002 and later designated by the president as an enemy combatant.
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted Padilla last month on charges of conspiracy to murder and maim people as well as material support for terrorism.
The charges were brought days before a deadline for the government to file its brief on whether the Supreme Court should hear the case.
The appeals court questioned why the government alleged facts in the indictment that differed from the allegations it cited to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant.
The entire time Padilla has been held militarily, Bush administration officials have contended he was an associate of al Qaeda who had plotted in the United States either to detonate a "dirty bomb" or blow up apartment buildings with natural gas.
The indictment in Florida includes no mention of such allegations, though the terrorism conspiracy charges are serious enough that they could bring a life sentence.
"Far from making the case less worthy of review, the government's actions highlight the need for this court to grant certiorari to preserve the vital checks and balances that the Framers intended," Padilla's attorneys argued in a brief filed Tuesday.
Part of the defense argument centers on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its September ruling that sided with the Bush administration and found Padilla's detention constitutional. He is being held in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina.
Last week, however, the same court refused to turn aside its ruling as the government had urged -- since Padilla now was facing criminal charges -- and also denied a request to transfer him from military custody.
The appeals court judges seemed to indicate the Padilla case was one that the Supreme Court should hear.
In their legal papers, Padilla's attorneys argued "the plain purpose" of bringing the indictment against him "is to deter this court from scrutinizing the legal basis for Padilla's detention."
Government officials have denied that the timing of the charges was an attempt to avoid Supreme Court review.
Padilla's attorneys argue that the indictment does not lessen the need for the Supreme Court to determine the legality of the detention, and they point out he could be transferred back to military custody at any time.
The attorneys also refer in their brief to the ongoing controversy about President Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on communications inside the United States so long as the end of the communication is overseas.
They asked the Supreme Court to address Padilla's detention since it involves fundamental constitutional questions of how much authority was granted to the president in a post-September 11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force to retaliate.
Government lawyers have used that resolution as legal justification for the detention of enemy combatants and the NSA program.
"The government continues to defend this sweeping view of the president's power to substitute military rule for the rule of law," the attorneys wrote, "and seeks now to expand it further, arguing the very authorities that it says justify the indefinite detention without charge of citizens also justify widespread spying on citizens without judicial warrant or congressional notification."
The justices are expected to decide next month whether to take the Padilla case.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/28/scotus.padilla/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorneys for terror suspect Jose Padilla have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether his detention as an "enemy combatant" is constitutional.
The Justice Department previously asked the high court not to hear the case, arguing that since he has been charged with a crime -- as his lawyers had sought -- "the case is moot."
Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in May 2002 and later designated by the president as an enemy combatant.
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted Padilla last month on charges of conspiracy to murder and maim people as well as material support for terrorism.
The charges were brought days before a deadline for the government to file its brief on whether the Supreme Court should hear the case.
The appeals court questioned why the government alleged facts in the indictment that differed from the allegations it cited to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant.
The entire time Padilla has been held militarily, Bush administration officials have contended he was an associate of al Qaeda who had plotted in the United States either to detonate a "dirty bomb" or blow up apartment buildings with natural gas.
The indictment in Florida includes no mention of such allegations, though the terrorism conspiracy charges are serious enough that they could bring a life sentence.
"Far from making the case less worthy of review, the government's actions highlight the need for this court to grant certiorari to preserve the vital checks and balances that the Framers intended," Padilla's attorneys argued in a brief filed Tuesday.
Part of the defense argument centers on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its September ruling that sided with the Bush administration and found Padilla's detention constitutional. He is being held in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina.
Last week, however, the same court refused to turn aside its ruling as the government had urged -- since Padilla now was facing criminal charges -- and also denied a request to transfer him from military custody.
The appeals court judges seemed to indicate the Padilla case was one that the Supreme Court should hear.
In their legal papers, Padilla's attorneys argued "the plain purpose" of bringing the indictment against him "is to deter this court from scrutinizing the legal basis for Padilla's detention."
Government officials have denied that the timing of the charges was an attempt to avoid Supreme Court review.
Padilla's attorneys argue that the indictment does not lessen the need for the Supreme Court to determine the legality of the detention, and they point out he could be transferred back to military custody at any time.
The attorneys also refer in their brief to the ongoing controversy about President Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on communications inside the United States so long as the end of the communication is overseas.
They asked the Supreme Court to address Padilla's detention since it involves fundamental constitutional questions of how much authority was granted to the president in a post-September 11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force to retaliate.
Government lawyers have used that resolution as legal justification for the detention of enemy combatants and the NSA program.
"The government continues to defend this sweeping view of the president's power to substitute military rule for the rule of law," the attorneys wrote, "and seeks now to expand it further, arguing the very authorities that it says justify the indefinite detention without charge of citizens also justify widespread spying on citizens without judicial warrant or congressional notification."
The justices are expected to decide next month whether to take the Padilla case.
