Supreme Court Rejects Enemy Combatant Appeal

[NNN0LHI]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBEH34SW9E.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into a dispute over President Bush's power to detain American terror suspects and deny them traditional legal rights.

It would have been unusual for the court to take the case of "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla now, because a federal appeals court has not yet ruled on the issue. Arguments are scheduled for July 19 at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

A year ago, the court ruled the Bush administration was out of line by locking up foreign terrorist suspects at the Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to lawyers and courts.

But justices declined to address a separate issue: whether American citizens arrested on U.S. soil can be designated "enemy combatants" and held without trial.

[wakeme2008]

1. This is good

the courts are going against Bush on this.

[rodeodance]

2. grand news thanks

[rodeodance]

3. bush and company have to follow the law te he

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Now the question is, 'Will Bush & CO. obey the judge?" My money

is that they will ignore the court's ruling.

[Internut]

9. You must have misunderstood.

The federal judge decided something. Bush administration appealed the ruling. Padilla's lawyers wanted to push the case to Supreme Court, skipping the appeals court. The Supreme Court said no, cannot do it.

[Desertrose]

5. good- hope they continue to hang strong on this

"betrayal of this nation's commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties."

Indeed.

[Mandate My Ass]

6. This is why the fights over the courts are so heated

We need the Dems to stand up to radical RW judicial nominations by whatever means possible. It's the only branch which isn't totally taken over by the borg yet.

[AlGore-08.com]

7. Court rejects terrorism suspect Padilla's appeal ("Enemy combatant" case)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=8773919

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court rejected on Monday a request by Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for three years as a suspected enemy combatant, for an immediate decision on his detention instead of waiting for a federal appeals court to rule.

His attorneys asked the justices to decide whether President Bush has the power to seize U.S. citizens in civilian settings on American soil and subject them to indefinite military detention without criminal charges or a trial.

(snip)

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled in February that Bush has no authority to have Padilla held as an enemy combatant. The judge said Padilla must be released if he is not charged with a crime.

The Bush administration appealed to a U.S. appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia. The appeals court has scheduled arguments in the case on July 19.

Padilla's lawyers asked the high court to bypass the appeals court and take the case directly from the judge's ruling. The Supreme Court rarely grants such requests.

(More... )

[Ready4Change]

8. Do I have this understood correctly?

A S.C. federal judge ruled for Padilla, against the Bush administration.

The Bush administration appealed that decision to the US appeals court, which will look into it on July 19th.

In the meantime, Padillas lawyers asked the Supreme Court to take the case, and THAT is what the Supreme Court has rejected?

If I'm clear about that, what now?

When the US Appeals Court makes its decision, can the "losing" side then attempt to advance this to the Supreme Court again?

[Internut]

10. Yes, n/t

[Ready4Change]

11. Thanks.

Frustrating to me, as what has been done to Padilla seems, to me, to be so clearly un-constitutional, and that it is also clear this case will be heading to the Supreme Court no matter what. He's been held for 3 years already. Why delay the inevitable?

[Internut]

12. The Constitutional clause that applies in Padilla case is

the "due process" one. This is from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

"The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution is descended from a similar clause of the Magna Carta in which the King of England agreed (in the year 1215 A.D.) that "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land." Thus, the core historical meaning of the Due Process Clause is that the government cannot deprive anyone if the Law of the Land forbids it. In other words, neither the King nor an American President may take away your life, liberty, or property if the law denies him that power."

AFAIU the current (very slow, unfortunately) process of going to courts to force the government to either try Padilla or release him, and appealing court's decisions etc. is, in fact, covered under "due process".

The bottom line is that the government has way too much power over citizens, to the point of imprisoning someone without trial for 3 years, and the laws/procedures allow them to do it.