4th Circuit Shoots down Bush on Padilla

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Mariner, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    From today's New York Times, an interesting turn of events:

    December 22, 2005
    Court Refuses U.S. Bid to Shift Terror Suspect

    By NEIL A. LEWIS
    WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - A federal appeals court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration Wednesday, refusing to allow the transfer of Jose Padilla from military custody to civilian law enforcement authorities to face terrorism charges.

    In denying the administration's request, the three-judge panel unanimously issued a strongly worded opinion that said the Justice Department's effort to transfer Mr. Padilla gave the appearance that the government was trying to manipulate the court system to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the case. The judges warned that the administration's behavior in the Padilla case could jeopardize its credibility before the courts in other terrorism cases.

    What made the action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., so startling, lawyers and others said, was that it came from a panel of judges who in September had provided the administration with a sweeping court victory, saying President Bush had the authority to detain Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, indefinitely without trial as an enemy combatant.

    But the judges were clearly angered when the administration suddenly shifted course on Nov. 22, saying it no longer needed that authority because it now wanted to try Mr. Padilla in a civilian court. The move came just days before the government was to file legal papers in Mr. Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court. The government said that as a result of the shift, the court no longer needed to take up the case. Many legal analysts speculated at the time that the administration's sudden change in approach was an effort to avoid Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit ruling.

    In the opinion on Wednesday, written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, the court said the panel was denying permission to transfer Mr. Padilla as well as the government's suggestion that it vacate the September decision upholding Mr. Padilla's detention for more than three years in a military brig as an enemy combatant.

    Judge Luttig, a strong conservative judicial voice who has been considered by Mr. Bush for the Supreme Court, said the panel would not agree to the government's requests because that would compound what was "at least an appearance that the government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court, and also because we believe that this case presents an issue of such especial national importance as to warrant final consideration by that court."
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    From today's New York Times, an interesting turn of events:

    Mariner, you must use the quote marks for the article, not your comments. You must also provide a link:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/p...&en=7ed4b2aca45de4b5&ei=5094&partner=homepage
     
  3. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Lemme get this straight - One government agency wanted to move a prisoner from Military to Civilian jail...A court did not allow it, now it's The courst vs The BUSH administration?

    WHY THE HELL is it everytime a story may be against ANY government agency, it's ALWAYS 'The Bush Administration' - yet any story that's PRO a specific government agency it's "The FBI" or 'FEMA' or 'CIA'?
     
  4. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    this story closely, you know that it's very much Bush and his close circle who have pushed for imperial presidential powers that seem to many of us to violate basic checks and balances provisions in the constitution, international treaties (which the Constitution says have the force of law in the U.S.), and common human decency. Picking people up and holding them without charges for years, denying prisoners lawyers or legal recourse, violating the Geneva convention when it suits us--these are all things Cheney and Gonzalez have fought for. I can't think of anything which seems to be closer to the President's heart than this issue, so I think it's fair for the article to refer to it as a rebuke to Bush personally.

    The administration sought to turn Padilla over to the civilian courts to avoid having their extreme policies scrutinized, and potentially rejected, by the Supreme Court. What agency did you have in mind that should take the blame instead of Bush?

    Kathianne--thank you for reformatting and adding the link. I will do that from now on. Some NYT articles, however, can only be accessed if one has an online subscription. In those cases, I cannot provide a link that will work.

    Mariner.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    No problem. If it's from their paid site, which this wasn't, you can only post a very small; like headline and one sentence, then add, "Paid site of NYTimes-with the link to the paid subsciption sign up site."
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    The contempt liberal judges feel for Bush is palpable, isn't it?

    These libs have lost their minds.

    Twisting civil rights arguments to effect a loss for the united states. How noble and bound to the people these cretins are, not.
     
  7. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Frankly, Bush has been wrong on the Padilla case from day 1. Padilla, terrorist jerk-off that he is, is a US citizen, and regardless of his crime, must enjoy the rights of a US citizen, to include habeus corpus, the right to a speedy trial, etc.
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Actually I agree. I had to vent some spleen and felt like going off!
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    How do we all feel about the tapping of phone calls going outside the u.s.? I'm ok with it in this context. They should add a line that only crimes related to national security can be prosecuted with information gained in this way. If you are being monitored and you buy weed but don't make terrorist plans you should not prosecutable.
     
  10. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    Oh yea, and you notice who started the thread? One who claims to not hate Christians, or Bush and claims to be mr HINDU, mr neutral, just wants to know the truth,,,but every time he starts a thread its anti Christian or anti Repub(BUsh) and never, to my knowledge, posts things that show the evilness of the terrorists or Dems.
     

Share This Page