home

Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention of Citizens

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:21:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The United States government is still arguing that any citizen it labels an "enemy combatant" may be detained indefinitely. The government claims that Jose Padilla (TalkLeft coverage collected here) intended to activate a "dirty bomb" and to blow up apartment buildings in the United States. The reaction of Padilla's lawyers, arguing his case before the Fourth Circuit: prove it in court.

"I may be the first lawyer to stand here and say I'm asking for my client to be indicted by a federal grand jury," Padilla's lawyer, Andrew Patel, told the three-judge appeals panel.

It's strange to think that a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil isn't entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution, but that's the claim our government, yet again, has advanced.

Judge J. Michael Luttig, who presided at the hearing, pressed Clement on whether the government was suggesting that the battlefield in the war on terror now includes the U.S. "I can say that. I can say it boldly," Clement said.

Padilla's case is making its second round through the appellate courts. Padilla prevailed in the Second Circuit, only to have the Supreme Court rule that Padilla should have sought a remedy in a different district.

Joining Luttig in hearing the case were Judges M. Blane Michael and William B. Traxler Jr. The court usually takes several weeks to rule.

< The War Against Pain Medicine | Supreme Court Nomination Expected Today >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention of Citizens | 6 comments (6 topical)
    Re: Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    its un-american un-democratic yet sooooo Bush White House

    Re: Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention (none / 0) (#2)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    So how long before we "our"..looked at as Enemies of the state who need help to understand the Kings point of view and how long before you become the enmey combatant? understand you are being watched right now. where is bin laden? why isn't saddam in court? who is doing what to whom?

    Re: Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention (none / 0) (#3)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Even if Padilla is an illegal combatant, as the administration claims (and that's shaky at best based on how and where they arrested him), he would rate a tribunal at someplace like Gitmo. To my mind, he's a citizen and deserves to be indicted or let go. But I think the administration is in error even based on the way they view him.

    Re: Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention (none / 0) (#4)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Holy cow! I think the administration is in error Can we get that framed?

    Re: Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    Thanks JR for seeing some of the facts of the case. Padilla is a citizen. That's a fact, not just a fact in your mind. The erosion of citizen rights should alarm all Americans. The enemy combatant category is just a work-around to all the challenges posed by the Bill of Rights and centuries of due process work. Still getting diverted to the classified ad screen and not spending much time here anymore partly because of that. Also just busy with lots of local events right now.

    Re: Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    Govt. argues Bill of Rights is "quaint". "We need to take your freedom to protect your freedom"

    Gov't Argues (Again) For Indefinite Detention of Citizens | 6 comments (6 topical)