Sour Grapes

Federal court orders Bush Administration to charge Padilla with a crime or let him go

I've been watching for news of the Jose Padilla case. I've posted on it in May 2004 and in June 2004, twice . The New York Times has latest news.

A federal district judge in South Carolina ruled Monday that President Bush had greatly overstepped his authority by detaining an American citizen as an enemy combatant for nearly three years without filing criminal charges.

The judge, Henry F. Floyd, ruled that the government must release the American, Jose Padilla, within 45 days from the military brig in Charleston, S.C., where he has been held since June 2002. That left the Bush administration time to appeal, and a Justice Department spokesman, John Nowacki, said officials immediately decided to do so.

In his opinion, Judge Floyd sharply criticized the administration's use of the enemy combatant designation in Mr. Padilla's case.

"The court finds that the president has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold petitioner as an enemy combatant," Judge Floyd wrote.... "To do otherwise would not only offend the rule of law and violate this country's constitutional tradition,... but it would also be a betrayal of this nation's commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties."

[via Capitol Hill Blue]

Original post by Namenlosen Trinker at 3/01/2005 12:39:00 PM Eastern time :: 3 comment(s) ::

3 comment(s):

yeah, i'll start a count-down. see how long it takes to over turn that ruling! :P

Comment posted by rachaelmh18 at 07 March, 2005 01:56

are you joking marjo ? I ask for information.

The ruling is obviously correct as a matter of law. The Bush administration has not even managed to come up with an argument beyond "commander in chief" to defend the totally clear violation of the 5th admendment, nor have they explained why their position on Padilla doesn't imply that Bush can lock up anyone he wants whenever he wants.

The supreme court has ruled against the Bush administration in the case of Hamdi (now a free man). Since Hamdi was captured bearing arms in a war zone, his case was vastly vastly weaker than Padilla's. They only refused to hear Padilla's appeal because he had sued in DC and not in SC as he should have. I'd bet even money that the supreme court rules unanimously for Padilla (not much money but some)

Comment posted by Robert at 10 March, 2005 05:49

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Comment posted by Anonymous at 05 November, 2007 15:39