U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules

[Q]

U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules
By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 10, 2005; A01

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former gang member and U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and a month later designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. The government contends that Padilla trained at al Qaeda camps and was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the United States. Padilla has been held without trial in a U.S. naval brig for more than three years, and his case has ignited a fierce battle over the balance between civil liberties and the government's power to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A host of civil liberties groups and former attorney general Janet Reno weighed in on Padilla's behalf, calling his detention illegal and arguing that the president does not have unchecked power to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely.

Federal prosecutors asserted that Bush not only had the authority to detain Padilla but also that such power is essential to preventing terrorist strikes. In its ruling yesterday, the three-judge panel overturned a lower court.

A congressional resolution passed after Sept. 11 "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks," the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda . . . who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens."

Legal experts were closely watching the Padilla case because of a key difference between the two: Hamdi was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan with forces loyal to that country's former Taliban rulers, and Padilla was arrested in the United States. The ruling limits the president's power to detain Padilla to the duration of hostilities against al Qaeda, but the Bush administration has said that war could go on indefinitely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html?nav=rss_print/asection

[sarcasmo]

1. I didn't know this was wartime? I thought we were in Iraq

Liberating. Kiss your rights goodbye, welcome to the new AMERIKA.

[SammyBlue]

2. As Rammstien puts it

"We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika"

[madrchsod]

3. bush is now above the law

http://www.magnacharta.com/articles/article04.htm
Magna Charta and American Law

[Q]

4. "...the Bush administration has said that war could go on indefinitely.

This means that the US (Bush) can 'incarcerate' (and torture?) anyone he pleases for as long as the 'war on terrorism' lasts. Bush says the war will last forever.

Translated: The Bill of Rights is dead.

[unlawflcombatnt]

5. Disgusting Ruling

Especially concerning is the quote from the chief counsel Richard Semp, of the Right-Wing Washington Legal Foundation. Semp states "You can't treat every terrorist as though they are just another criminal defendant." So I guess that means they can treat detainees even worse than known mass murderers, even if they have NO evidence of any wrongdoing. Which means they could detain anyone, by simply claiming they were a terrorist, without any evidence whatsoever. This sounds exactly like what Hitler and Stalin did. I wonder when they'll start detaining Democrats?

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[orpupilofnature57]

6. That has exsisted since 9\11 and probably before.

[aion]

13. Which begs an ex post facto sort of question.

If this gross governmental power has existed since 9/11, and has just recently been confirmed as legit, then 'ex post facto' will not save you if you have spoken against the Führer since 9/11. If we all ask him nicely to go stand-down in the corner, maybe he will listen?

[orpupilofnature57]

14. The day after Elections last year scads of us identified ourselves by our

Legal names just to document,for something like this! And now this reply is!There is nothing subversive thinking Shrub an idiot, and Poppy a scoundrel, just like Prescott! America has freedom of speech still! Oh ya Nov. 22 1963 See I'm still here.

[Zhade]

7. Time to either get out or go underground...

NT!

[tsuki]

8. Activist judge. How long before they rule in favor of internment

camps for Americans deemed "not of Bush's base?"

[aion]

9. Paves the path for the all-too-subjective "Giving Aid and Comfort"

He's trying to learn (sic) the lefties to be obedient...then the round-up, then the lice outbreak, and then the Cyclon' B.

It's just amazing how methodical those busy bees can be.

[Q]

10. Sounds like "New" America isn't much different from...

...the old USSR...a Banana Republic...or a fascist dictatorship.

Seems like the Founders wasted their time with the Bill of Rights if it can be arbitrarily overturned during a 'war' declared by one man...the 'president'.

This 'time of war' rationale is simply bullshit. Bush doesn't have the authority to declare a 'war on terrorism'...especially a perpetual one that gives him essentially the 'divine right of kings'.

This could easily lead to the imprisonment of political opponents and dissenters.

[tritsofme]

11. Decision written by Michael Luttig, the next SCOTUS nominee

mark my words...

very scary...

[killbotfactory]

12. That is awesome!

I feel so much safer now!

[ulysses]

15. 'those who would trade liberty for safety'

etc, etc. Completely disgusting.

[orpupilofnature57]

16. Excuse me " Deserve Neither" Ben Franklin?

[ulysses]

18. right. n/t

[bee]

19. "and will lose both" Ben Franklin n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

20. Thanks

[NVMojo]

17. time to vomit ....

[Q]

21. I'm surprised that more people aren't concerned about this...

...now that the courts have given it legitimacy.

We're now a country that can arrest anyone for any reason and torture them for information they may or may not have.

Innocent until proven guilty?

Not in Bush's America.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Scariest news headline of the day

Note that Padilla is being treated like a one-man Iraq.

The excuses for detaining him keep changing.

Good-bye, Bill of Rights.

[rhett o rick]

23. One giant step toward fascism. nt

[rhett o rick]

24. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist and actually killed 168, and got a trial

but then again, he is white and we weren't under the control of the current fascist Bush Admin

[rhett o rick]

25. Beware Michal Moore, you could be next. nt

[Bushknew]

26. Frightening nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. amazing how many people are missing what this

means

[Q]

28. Yeah...it's all coming together...

...for the Bush fascists.

Does anyone still think that America hasn't turned fascist?

[LiberalFighter]

29. Judges are...

Judge J. Michael Luttig Bio Wikipedia dkosopedia
Judge M. Blane Michael Bio
Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. Bio

[RallyInDC]

30. That better not hold for all citizens....

I think the judge would only allow it to happen if it was with someone proven to be al-quaeda, or part of al-quaeda.

We all know bush and cronies would want to label anyone opposing them as al-quaeda, but I don't think the judge is allowing that.

[ProudDad]

32. It does

All you have to be is accused in bush's fascist amerika...

[ProudDad]

31. If I don't post at least once a week

tell them all I've been picked up.

Hey, bush/cheney, go fuck yourself. And when you're finished, sit on a live grenade...



Damn, I hate them. Time to leave before the jackboots hit the streets.