U.S. Defends Conduct in Padilla Case

[stop the bleeding]

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A04

A federal appeals court infringed on President Bush's authority to run the war on terror when it refused to let prosecutors take custody of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the Justice Department said yesterday, as it urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

The sharply worded Justice Department filing was the latest salvo in an increasingly contentious battle over Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and initially accused of plotting to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." Padilla was held for more than three years by the military before he was indicted last month in Miami on separate criminal terrorism charges.

read more here:

12/29/2005 U.S. Defends Conduct in Padilla Case-Jerry Markon - washingtonpost.com

[aquart]

1. Ridiculous. It's indefensible.

[HuffleClaw]

2. what a tangled web they weave

ok, if i get this right, they are asking the supreme court to 'give' them padilla so the supreme court won't involve itself in the overall case? sounds like lunacy to me.

[chat_noir]

3. martial law

Just watched "Unconstitutional", and it has a lengthy piece on the Padilla case. One of the charges made was that this was a case of martial law being imposed.

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the Writ of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866, the Supreme Court of the United States held that martial law could not be instituted within the United States when its civilian courts are in operation. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors.


Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum: Known as the "Great Writ", the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law. A petitioner (the individual in custody) files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his custody violates the law. The writ, if granted, is addressed to the custodian (warden, jailer) of the petitioner, directing that the custodian release the petitioner. The writ applies to almost all forms of official detention, civil or criminal, and was also employed in cases of imprisonment for private debt. In many jurisdictions today the writ can also be issued against private individuals.

The right of habeas corpus -- the right to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus -- has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty". In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency.

[EST]

4. I get so angry at the sloppy, inaccurate hogwash,

masquerading as reportage. The US did not defend its conduct, this band of goons and criminals tried to defend their own nefarious behavior!
They are not the US--They are the sworn enemies of freedom, everywhere.