Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Statement of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on the Padilla Decision

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 12:19 AM
Original message
Statement of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on the Padilla Decision
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53019

Statement of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on the Padilla Decision

9/9/2005 3:19:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, 202-514-2007 or 202-514-1888 (TDD), Web: http://www.USDOJ.gov

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on the Padilla Decision:

"The Department of Justice is pleased that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed the President's critical authority to detain enemy combatants who take up arms on behalf of al Qaeda and travel to the United States to kill innocent Americans. 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."

---

Additional background information:

Padilla Was Closely Associated with Al Qaeda and Trained and Worked Under Their Direction:

-- After his release from prison in the United States in the early 1990s, Padilla traveled to Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, taking the name Abdullah Al Muhajir.

-- Padilla met with senior al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah, on several occasions while in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001 and 2002.

-- At the direction of al Qaeda, Padilla received training from al Qaeda operatives, including how to wire explosive devices. Padilla also conducted research on construction of a uranium-enhanced explosive device at al Qaeda's safehouse in Lahore, Pakistan.

-- Padilla discussed with senior al Qaeda operatives his involvement and participation in terrorist operations targeting the United States, including a plan to detonate a "radiological dispersal device" (or "dirty bomb") within the United States as well as other operations involving the detonation of explosive devices in hotel rooms and gas stations.

-- Padilla was directed by al Qaeda members to return to the United States to explore and advance the conduct of further attacks against the United States on al Qaeda's behalf.

Multiple intelligence sources separately confirmed Padilla's involvement in planning future terrorist attacks against the United States with al Qaeda leaders. As the Supreme Court said in the unanimous Quirin decision, sustaining the constitutionality of military detention without regard to the combatants' citizenship: "(c)itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

The detainment of Padilla by authorities may have prevented the escalation of his plan for further terrorist attacks. Padilla, a.k.a. Abdullah al Muhajir, was arrested on May 8, 2002 when he flew from Pakistan to Chicago O'Hare International Airport. That arrest disrupted the exploration of potential terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

The President determined that Padilla poses a threat to Americans. On Sunday, June 9, 2002, President Bush, acting as Commander in Chief, determined that Padilla is an enemy combatant who poses a serious and continuing threat to the American people and our national security. He was subsequently transferred from the custody of the Justice Department to the control of the Defense Department.

The Court of Appeals today held that:

-- The President possesses the authority to "detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war, who took up arms on behalf of the enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war, and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets."

-- "Padilla unquestionably qualifies as an 'enemy combatant' as that term was defined for purposes of the (Supreme Court's) controlling opinion in Hamdi."

-- "Because, like Hamdi, Padilla is an enemy combatant, and because his detention is no less necessary than was Hamdi's in order to prevent his return to the battlefield, the President is authorized by the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution) to detain Padilla as a fundamental incident to the conduct of war."

-- "Because the United States remains engaged in the conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Padilla's detention has not exceeded in duration that authorized by the AUMF."

-- The Supreme Court's reasoning in Hamdi "simply does not admit of a distinction between an enemy combatant captured abroad and detained in the United States, such as Hamdi, and an enemy combatant who escaped capture abroad but was ultimately captured domestically and detained in the United States, such as Padilla."

-- "We are convinced, in any event, that the availability of criminal process cannot be determinative of the power to detain, if for no other reason than that criminal prosecution may well not achieve the very purpose for which detention is authorized in the first place -- the prevention of return to the field of battle."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. Padilla is innocent until proved guilty
And the Bushies don't want to try to prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. The Fourt Apeals Couirt, and the Bill of Rights dies in front of us
when is the next call for amicus briefs to the USSC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. Where in there does it say that he was ever going to attack the USA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. What I take from all this: Padilla is a citizen of Al Qaeda not the US now
That seems to be the argument, in terms of what it means in the real world, though they didn't ask the court to strip him of his US citizenship.. just make it meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. We're at war with al qaida???
How utterly ridiculous is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sven77 Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. gonzo
think GWB is above the law, torture to death is fine, teens can have abortion without parental consent. also in metcha, i dont think i spelled it right... ive been drinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
watrwefitinfor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 05:15 AM
Response to Original message
7. From the same trustworthy sources who told you
that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. I don't know about you, but I certainly believe everything they tell me.

Wat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nookiemonster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. "I don't know about you, but I certainly believe everything they tell me."
Oopsie, forgot the :sarcasm: tag. Can't be too careful, ya know.

LOL

BTW, Welcome to DU, Wat!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
watrwefitinfor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Good to know you've got my back, Nookie.
Thanks for the welcome. I feel right at home.
Have, since I got here.

Wat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
8. Where is the evidence?
Sounds like Orwellian gobblygook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
9. The impeachment of federal judges.
Can anyone explain the process to impeach a sitting federal judge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Baltimore Cynic Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Wikipedia does a good job....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

That does a pretty good job of explaining the whole process (Don't forget - impeachment is the process which leads to the trial of the politicians)


FYI - the Fourth Circuit is one of the most conservative judicial circuits in the country (if not the most conservative), so I'm really not surprised here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Was hearing the case in the 4th chosed due to its conservative nature
...or because it oversees Gitmo?

In any event, having it in the 4th pretty much guaranteed the decision, but I see this in the larger scope that it guarantees an appeal to SCOTUS, with the possibility of decision not to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-11-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Hi The Baltimore Cynic!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-05 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. .
Due to being moved to new forum (LBN to GDP).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-11-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
16. Has he been proven guilty by a jury of his peers
until that happens STFU it Sir
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-11-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. I will never understand why they cannot just try him
What is the problem? If there is enough evidence to detain him, there should be enough evidence to try and convict him. The Freepers are absolutely balls crazy with this: They all spout that he is obviously a danger, but at the same time seem to assent that a trial for proper charges under recognized precepts of jurisprudence will not serve to detain him. How can both of these be true?

There is only one possible explanation: Mr. Padilla is nothing other than a test case for the hijacking of the judicial function through the executive - the first step to open fascism anbd tyrrany of the executive. No other explanation makes any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC