[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

"I've Never Talked To A Democrat Who Ever Wanted To Listen..."

Autonomous AI Agents Are About To Revolutionize Global Financial Infrastructure

"THAT YOUNG MAN, I FORGIVE HIM"

4um Upgrade: Update News

Elon Musk at Charlie Kirk Memorial: "Charlie Kirk was killed by the DARK.."

Netflix as Jewish Daycare for Women

Warning America About Palantir: Richie From Boston

I'm not done asking questions about the killing of Charlie Kirk.

6 reasons the stock market bubble is worse than anyone expected.

Elon Musk: Charlie Kirk was killed because his words made a difference.

Try It For 5 Days! - The Most EFFICIENT Way To LOSE FAT

Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles

Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis

Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About

BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move

Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines

The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor)

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!

Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing

The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025

LadyX

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show

1963 Chrysler Turbine

3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Justices Are Urged to Dismiss Padilla's Case
Source: NY Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/n ... ssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Published: Dec 18, 2005
Author: Linda Greenhouse
Post Date: 2005-12-17 21:19:12 by Zipporah
Keywords: Padillas, Justices, Dismiss
Views: 53
Comments: 6

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 - It would be "wholly imprudent" for the Supreme Court to hear Jose Padilla's challenge to his military detention as an enemy combatant, the Bush administration told the court in urging the justices to dismiss Mr. Padilla's case as moot now that the government plans to try him on terrorism charges in a civilian court.

In a brief filed late Friday, the administration argued that Mr. Padilla's indictment last month by a federal grand jury has given him the "very relief" he sought when he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Any Supreme Court decision now on his petition, which a federal appeals court rejected in September, "will have no practical effect" on Mr. Padilla, the brief said.

Lawyers for Mr. Padilla, a United States citizen who was arrested at O'Hare airport in Chicago in May 2002 and transferred to military custody, filed his Supreme Court appeal in October. Ordinarily, the court would have acted by now, but the justices gave the government until Friday to file its response. Mr. Padilla's lawyers will now have a chance to respond to the administration's brief before the court decides early next year whether to hear the case.

As the administration filed its Supreme Court brief, Mr. Padilla's five-member legal team filed a brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., asking that court to keep jurisdiction over Mr. Padilla's case long enough for the Supreme Court to act on it.

For its part, the administration is urging the Fourth Circuit to do just the opposite: to vacate its September decision that upheld presidential authority to keep Mr. Padilla in open-ended detention and to "recall the mandate," depriving the decision of any legal force.

Since the Fourth Circuit had handed the administration a sweeping victory in that decision, the request would seem to run counter to the administration's interests. But the request, if granted, would have the effect of ensuring that the Supreme Court would be unable to review Mr. Padilla's case because there would be no decision to review.

That amounts to "the extraordinary action of interfering with the Supreme Court's consideration of the case" while Mr. Padilla's appeal is pending, his lawyers told the Fourth Circuit. The government should not be allowed to claim the case is moot, the brief said, because the administration has not withdrawn Mr. Padilla's designation as an enemy combatant and has refused to foreclose the prospect of sending him back to military detention if he is acquitted in a civilian trial.

The lawyers told the Fourth Circuit that in its treatment of Mr. Padilla, "the government has repeatedly altered its factual allegations to suit its goals, and it has actively manipulated the federal courts to avoid accountability for its actions."

If the Supreme Court denies review, the brief continued, the appeals court should recall the mandate and vacate its decision at that point so as not to reward "the government's egregious conduct and gamesmanship in the federal courts."

The unusual dueling briefs in the Fourth Circuit on the status of the case were occasioned by the appeals court's refusal to acquiesce to the administration's request last month to transfer Mr. Padilla's custody from the military to civilian authorities.

Instead, the appeals court ordered the sides to submit briefs on what should become of the September decision "in light of the different facts that were alleged by the president to warrant Padilla's military detention and held by this court to justify that detention, on the one hand, and the alleged facts on which Padilla has now been indicted, on the other."

While administration officials initially maintained that Mr. Padilla was a Qaeda operative on a mission to detonate a "dirty bomb" and blow up apartment buildings, the indictment last month omitted mention of those accusations, instead charging him with providing "material support" to terrorists.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Zipporah (#0)

Can you give me the Cliff's Notes version for this: the one for dummies. I am really sick this evening and I am doing good to know my own name and recognize my wife and dog. I have read through this twice and it still is not making sense. Thanks for having mercy and pity on the sick tonight.

scooter  posted on  2005-12-17   23:31:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: scooter (#1)

sorry.. you're not feeling well..

Padilla, an American citizen, was held for 2 years without charge arrested at O'Hare.. a dirty bomb suspect.. his lawyers filed a writ of habeas corpus saying he was being illegally held.. but the justice dept said it was a proper use of presidental war powers..A lot of civil liberties group demanded that Padilla be charged or released.. Now when he went to trial recently the main issue re Padilla's case was dropped by the government..

Here's a link re Padilla

http://www.chargepadilla.org/

Click to see: Making a difference in Iraq

Zipporah  posted on  2005-12-18   0:19:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Zipporah (#0)

If the Fourth Circuit refuses to allow Padilla's case to be transferred to the criminal justice system, so that his trial can begin, his enemy combatant status will hardly be moot.

aristeides  posted on  2005-12-18   0:33:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: aristeides (#3)

The smudging of the lines of the definition of enemy combatant has been used by this administration I think to confuse the issue.. they claim that 'terrorists' in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have protection under the Geneva Conventions but considering these people were arrested in a combat zone does under those circumstances does not the fact they were taken in a combat zone negate that excuse?

Click to see: Making a difference in Iraq

Zipporah  posted on  2005-12-18   11:11:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Zipporah (#0)

The government should not be allowed to claim the case is moot, the brief said, because the administration has not withdrawn Mr. Padilla's designation as an enemy combatant and has refused to foreclose the prospect of sending him back to military detention if he is acquitted in a civilian trial.

The feds screwed up the Padilla case and now they want that reality to fade away into oblivion. I wish (pipe dream) someone would interview Padilla and get his version of the story out to the public.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2005-12-18   11:31:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Fred Mertz (#5)

The feds screwed up the Padilla case and now they want that reality to fade away into oblivion. I wish (pipe dream) someone would interview Padilla and get his version of the story out to the public.

They majorly screwed it up.. Consider the recent leak re the domestic spying as well as a few other issues .. are the neocons done with Bush? maybe those who have been doing the leaks etc will take the Padilla case on to strike another blow?

Click to see: Making a difference in Iraq

Zipporah  posted on  2005-12-18   11:41:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]