This case has spanned many years since Jose Padilla was arrested back in 2002 for training with the Taliban and engage in acts of hostilities against the United States. It actually still continues to this day in the civilian court system as Mr. Padilla's sentencing to 17 years to prison is being re-appealed for a harsher sentencing. Originally the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York heard the case first, and back in December 2002 to uphold the Bush Administration's decision to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant. It took another year to have the case appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where in a 2 to 1 decision decided that Bush Administration overstepped their authority. The following is some of the opinions written by the justices: (2nd Circuit Decision - Original Text)
"We also conclude that Padilla’s detention was not authorized by Congress, and absent such authorization, the President does not have the power under Article II of the Constitution to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat.
But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those
responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the President is obligated, in the
circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress.
Where, as here, the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and
the domestic rule of law intersect, we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) (2000) (the“Non-Detention Act”) prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization.Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115Stat. 224 (2001) (“Joint Resolution”), passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization, and no exception to section 4001(a) otherwise exists.
In light of this express prohibition, the government must undertake to show that Padilla’s detention can nonetheless be grounded in the President’s inherent constitutional powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-38 (Jackson, J., concurring). We conclude that it Therefore, our holding effectively moots arguments raised by both parties concerning access to counsel, standard of review, and burden of proof. These details should not be read to suggest that Padilla is in fact innocent or that the government lacked substantial reasons to be suspicious of him. We include them because they has not made this showing. In reaching this conclusion, we do not address the detention of an American citizen seized within a zone of combat in Afghanistan, such as the court confronted in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003) (“Hamdi III”)."So it continued onwards towards the Supreme Court where it was turned down due to the Court held that the habeas corpus petition had been improperly filed because Padilla was being held in a brig in South Carolina, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and should have named the commander of the brig and not the Secretary of Defense (because the brig commander was Padilla's "immediate custodian"). The Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded the case for dismissal without prejudice - that is, it overruled the Court of Appeals decision and ordered the dismissal of the case, allowing Padilla to refile the petition.
Indeed it was retried again and worked it's way into the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit where the majority decision that upheld the government's position of labeling Padilla, a US citizen, as an enemy combatant and to be held without charge in the military prison. (US Fourth Circuit Decision - Original Text)
Suddenly, you'll see a wholly different opinion then the one from the 2nd Circuit:
"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States 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"The district court (of South Carolina) subsequently held that the President lacks the authority to detain Padilla, id. at 180-81, that Padilla’s detention is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, id., and that Padilla therefore must either be criminally charged or released." This uphold the 2nd circuit ruling so far. In the end, the ruling judge for the Fourth Circuit, Judge Luttig ruled against Padilla to pave a way to a Supreme Court ruling.
behalf of that 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.
We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed."
However, later that year, the Bush Administration decided to transfer Padilla out of military custody into civilian custody and thus avoided the Supreme Court ruling on habeas corpus ruling for US citizens as enemy combatants. The transfer had to go through Judge Luttig and the 4th Circuit, but the tone was definitely different this time. Folks have commented that Luttig was scolding the Bush Administration for being a chicken or he believed the Supreme Court would actually reaffirm the government's position. What we do know, Luttig wasn't happy and quit the Fourth Circuit for a job at Boeing soon afterwards. (Fourth Circuit Transfer Ruling)
"Because we believe that the transfer of Padilla and the withdrawal of our opinion at the government’s request while the Supreme Court is reviewing this court’s decision of September 9 would compound what is, in the absence of explanation, 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, even if only by denial of further
review, we deny both the motion and suggestion. If the natural progression of this significant litigation to conclusion is to be predetermined at this late date under these circumstances, we believe that decision should be made not by this court but, rather, by the Supreme
Court of the United States."
The conclusion of this case is still being dealt through the civilian system today; however, that's not the focus of the post. The thing is, the ruling of the land is the Fourth Circuit ruling to be held as an enemy combatant and be held without charge in a military brig. Unfortunately, we know that the War on Terror is an indefinite period; however, through AUMF, conclusion of hostilities in legal terms is the end of the War in Afghanistan if Mr. Padilla was still being held militarily. Afterwards, he can have some recourse to civilian court. It must be noted that while in military custody, there is due process, but it's not in as large a scope provided under the United States Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment