Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Judge rules against Bush

  1. #1
    Senior Member Mark W.'s Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    101
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Judge rules against Bush

    The following are snips from Washington Post Online:

    District Court Judge Henry F. Floyd ruled yesterday that the Bush administration lacks statutory and constitutional authority to indefinitely imprison without criminal charges a U.S. citizen who was designated an "enemy combatant."

    Floyd said the indefinite detention of Jose Padilla -- who the administration has said is a terrorist supporter of al Qaeda -- is illegal and that Padilla must be released from a naval brig in Charleston, S.C., within 45 days or charged with a crime.

    In the 23-page ruling, Floyd said "to do otherwise would not only offend the rule of law and violate this country's constitutional tradition, but it would also be a betrayal of this Nation's commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and our individual liberties."

    Floyd said he was not persuaded by key arguments put forward by the administration to justify its assertion that foreigners and Americans alike who are designated "enemy combatants" by the president can be detained without trial or some other form of judicial review.
    Using a phrase often levied by conservatives to denigrate liberal judges, Floyd -- who was appointed by President Bush to the federal bench in 2003 -- accused the administration of engaging in "judicial activism" when it asserted in court pleadings that Bush has blanket authority under the Constitution to detain Americans on U.S. soil who are suspected of taking or planning actions against the country.

    Floyd said the government presented no law supporting this contention and that just because Bush and his appointees say Padilla's detention was consistent with U.S. laws and the president's war powers, that did not make it so. "Moreover, such a statement is deeply troubling. If such a position were ever adopted by the courts, it would totally eviscerate the limits placed on Presidential authority to protect the citizenry's individual liberties."

    One of Padilla's attorneys, Donna Newman, said the "court ruled that the president does not have the power to seize an American citizen on American soil and hold him indefinitely without a charge.

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Judge rules against Bush

    An appeal is already in the works ! Failing that, GWB can always ask the congress to pass a new law specifically authorizing such treatment for US citizens caught blatantly acting against their own country in time of 'war'. The criminality of such actions is not in dispute - i.e. the crime of treason has been on the books for 200+ years. The gray area lies in what to do with them between the time they are apprehended and the time they are officially charged and put on trial.

    The real issue in question is whether or not the fact that the perpetrator happens to have obtained US citizenship will force the hearing of such a case into 'open' US civilian courts, where all sorts of important and sensitive intelligence info would have to be made public during the trial, providing a vast assistance to our 'enemies' in regard to what we know about their plans and activities plus which sources such sensitive information actually came from.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Judge rules against Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    An appeal is already in the works ! Failing that, GWB can always ask the congress to pass a new law specifically authorizing such treatment for US citizens caught blatantly acting against their own country in time of 'war'. The criminality of such actions is not in dispute - i.e. the crime of treason has been on the books for 200+ years. The gray area lies in what to do with them between the time they are apprehended and the time they are officially charged and put on trial.
    Reading the actual order will be far more illuminating on the merits of this decision than a regurgitated (reported) one or simply speculation.
    http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/Padilla/Images/00000048.pdf

    The real issue in question is whether or not the fact that the perpetrator happens to have obtained US citizenship will force the hearing of such a case into 'open' US civilian courts, where all sorts of important and sensitive intelligence info would have to be made public during the trial, providing a vast assistance to our 'enemies' in regard to what we know about their plans and activities plus which sources such sensitive information actually came from.
    No.

    The real issue in question was the interpretation and application of existing laws on the books that may conflict with each other, primarily

    The Non-Detention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a),
    “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained bythe United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress"
    and the Joint Resolution for Authorization for Use of Miliary Force (AUMF),


    [i]
    [t]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    The 2nd Circuit and Supreme Court have already issued opinions in this case, ultimately remanding it on proceedural and jurisdiction grounds. Never the less, the 2nd Circuit included its own clear interpretation and opinion on the application of these laws, particularly the AUMF:




    While it may be possible to infer a power of detention from the Joint Resolution in the battlefield context where detentions are necessaryto carry out the war, there is no reason to suspect from the languageof the Joint Resolution that Congress believed it would be authorizing the detention of an American citizen already held in a federal correctional institution and not arrayed against our troops in the field of battle.
    Padilla
    , 352 F.3d at 723
    The Supremes also gave some clear repudiation of Dubya's suspension of the constitution, including this opionion from Souter:
    In declaring Padilla an enemy combatant, the President relied uponfacts that would have supported charging Padilla with a variety of offenses. The government thus had the authority to arrest, detain, interrogate, and prosecute Padilla apart from the extraordinary authority it claims here. The difference between invocation of the criminal process and the power claimed by the President here, however, is one of accountability. The criminal justice system requires that defendants and witnesses be afforded access to counsel, imposes judicial supervision over government action

    Even better (related case by issue, different defendant):

    “[A] state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.” Hamdi, 124 S.Ct. at 2650
    Regarding the issue of national security "secrecy" of evidence, the court addresses this in footnote 13 quite succinctly and clearly:


    As for concerns about national security during the judicial process, it is axiomatic that the government has a legitimate interest in the protection of the classified information that may be necessarily be used in the prosecution of an alleged terrorist such as Petitioner. This Court is of the firm opinion, however, that federal law provides robust protection of any such information.E.g. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. App. III.
    The Federal Courts at every level have spoken: Cut this shit out, Dubya. Who the FUCK do you think you are?


    Or more lady-like, in case you missed it:

    "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens" --- Sandy O'Connor
    Last edited by stant; 03-01-2005 at 05:29 AM.

  4. #4
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Judge rules against Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    ...The Federal Courts at every level have spoken: Cut this shit out, Dubya. Who the FUCK do you think you are?


    Or more lady-like, in case you missed it:

    "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens" --- Sandy O'Connor
    Thank you, Stant. This is most reassuring to hear...
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  5. #5
    God/dess VenusGoddess's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    13,598
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: Judge rules against Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    An appeal is already in the works ! Failing that, GWB can always ask the congress to pass a new law specifically authorizing such treatment for US citizens caught blatantly acting against their own country in time of 'war'. The criminality of such actions is not in dispute - i.e. the crime of treason has been on the books for 200+ years. The gray area lies in what to do with them between the time they are apprehended and the time they are officially charged and put on trial.

    The real issue in question is whether or not the fact that the perpetrator happens to have obtained US citizenship will force the hearing of such a case into 'open' US civilian courts, where all sorts of important and sensitive intelligence info would have to be made public during the trial, providing a vast assistance to our 'enemies' in regard to what we know about their plans and activities plus which sources such sensitive information actually came from.
    Even if they DID make a new law to help them detain anyone they wanted, it would not help them keep the people in prison who were put there before the law was made/put into effect. Just like you cannot arrest someone TODAY who murdered 20 people 30 years ago in a state that, at that time, did not have a death penalty.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Satara's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Judge rules against Bush

    this is the 2nd time a Fed. Judge ruled against Bush in this matter...... he cant just keep going w/ this untill he finds a sympathetic judge

    like stant said:

    The Federal Courts at every level have spoken: Cut this shit out, Dubya. Who the FUCK do you think you are?


    Or more lady-like, in case you missed it:

    "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens" --- Sandy O'Connor

  7. #7
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Judge rules against Bush

    I thought they already had a law,isnt it called the Jane Fonda Clause or something??

  8. #8
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Judge rules against Bush

    The Padilla case is a classic example of good policy badly handled.

    If Padilla is indeed who DOJ says he is, they should just prosecute his ass and send him to solitary confinement at the Supermax in Colorado. Holding him strips credibility from the government and places them in a position of public perception that is less than favorable.

    Charge him, try him and imprison him. Be done with it. Go on to the next guy.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Judge rules against Bush

    Charge him, try him and imprison him. Be done with it. Go on to the next guy.
    To be painfully honest, if the gov't could trust that court officials and employees wouldn't 'accidentally' leak classified info, and if the gov't could trust that reporters and news media would respect the extremely sensitive nature of evidence to be presented at the trial, this would probably have already happened.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-11-2011, 08:47 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 12:38 PM
  3. Judge rules against nightly quotas for S.F. dancers
    By Dirty Ernie in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-09-2007, 10:06 PM
  4. Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum
    By Madcap in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-22-2005, 08:37 AM
  5. Bush company 3 or Great Alaskan Bush in Phoenix
    By honeygirl in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2005, 05:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •