There goes the 5th Amendment...

[carrrnuttt]

U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 10, 2005; Page A01

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former gang member and U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and a month later designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. The government contends that Padilla trained at al Qaeda camps and was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the United States. Padilla has been held without trial in a U.S. naval brig for more than three years, and his case has ignited a fierce battle over the balance between civil liberties and the government's power to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A host of civil liberties groups and former attorney general Janet Reno weighed in on Padilla's behalf, calling his detention illegal and arguing that the president does not have unchecked power to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely.

Federal prosecutors asserted that Bush not only had the authority to detain Padilla but also that such power is essential to preventing terrorist strikes. In its ruling yesterday, the three-judge panel overturned a lower court.

A congressional resolution passed after Sept. 11 "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks," the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda . . . who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens."

Padilla is one of two U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The other, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was released and flown to Saudi Arabia last year after the Supreme Court upheld the government's power to detain him but said he could challenge that detention in U.S. courts.

Legal experts were closely watching the Padilla case because of a key difference between the two: Hamdi was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan with forces loyal to that country's former Taliban rulers, and Padilla was arrested in the United States.

Legal experts said the debate is likely to reach the Supreme Court. Andrew Patel, an attorney for Padilla, said he might appeal directly to the Supreme Court or first ask the entire 4th Circuit to review the decision. "We're very disappointed," he said.

The ruling limits the president's power to detain Padilla to the duration of hostilities against al Qaeda, but the Bush administration has said that war could go on indefinitely.

The decision reignited the passions triggered by Padilla's arrest at O'Hare International Airport in May 2002.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales hailed the ruling as reaffirming "the president's critical authority to detain enemy combatants who take up arms on behalf of al Qaeda."

Richard A. Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm, said the court "gave the government needed flexibility in dealing with the war on terrorism. You can't treat every terrorist as though they are just another criminal defendant."

But Avidan Cover, a senior associate at Human Rights First, said the ruling "really flies in the face of our understanding of what rights American citizens are entitled to." Opponents have warned that if not constrained by the courts, Padilla's detention could lead to the military being allowed to hold anyone who, for example, checks out what the government considers the wrong kind of reading materials from the library.

The 4th Circuit decision could also play a role in the debate over who President Bush will nominate to the Supreme Court seat to be vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The decision was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, a favorite of conservative groups who is considered to be among the leading candidates for the nomination. He was joined in the ruling by judges William B. Traxler Jr. and M. Blane Michael, both Clinton administration appointees.

Sean Rushton, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, which was formed to support Bush's judicial nominees, said he doubted that Luttig's ruling would affect his chances. He pointed out that Luttig has issued strongly pro-government decisions in other terrorism cases since Sept. 11, including in the prosecution of convicted conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

"I'm not sure that we really knew anything new about Michael Luttig from this case," Rushton said.

But Cover said groups opposed to a potential Luttig nomination will carefully review the decision. "This gives our group and I think many others very serious concerns about his views on civil liberties and presidential powers," Cover said.

The government originally described Padilla as plotting with al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" but has since focused on allegations that he planned to blow up apartment buildings by filling them with natural gas. Prosecutors told the 4th Circuit that he worked with such senior al Qaeda leaders as former operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed on that plan.

Not that I disagree that the fuck should rot in hell, if he did do what he did, but he is still a US citizen, being held on suspicion - indefinitely. That's a sickening series of words. If the government has all this evidence to hold him, why not charge his ass, so he can fry? If he is found to be innocent of charges, what compensation does he get?

[Rally Sport]

Dude thats fucked up..

[AlmostStock]

I not only agree this is very wrong but I also see no distinction between holding citizens or non citizens without charges or access to legal defense. All humans deserve equal rights in my book, I don't care what country they're from.

The US is only skirting the Geneva conventions and international law with this "We can do anything we want because we now call them enemy combatants" Bull Shit.

Is it any wonder some wackos want to kill us, and old allies are being driven away?

[KustmAce]

HEIL HITL...i mean BUSH!

Pretty soon all criminals are going to be charged as terrorists and will *disappear*

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Not that I disagree that the fuck should rot in hell, if he did do what he did, but he is still a US citizen, being held on suspicion - indefinitely. That's a sickening series of words. If the government has all this evidence to hold him, why not charge his ass, so he can fry? If he is found to be innocent of charges, what compensation does he get?

He/she has the US legal system to sue for damages if found not guilty. Otherwise, f*ck 'em is too mild...

Bottom line is US citizens lose certain rights when they ally themselves with enemies of the state and choose to plan/attack US-Constitution-Law-abiding-US citizens. Non-US citizens do not have as much to lose because they do not have those rights in the first place.

Interesting how liberals scream about and against this 5th Amendment issue but wholeheartedly support repealing the 2nd Amendment. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Franko914

Bottom line is US citizens lose certain rights when they ally themselves with enemies of the state and choose to plan/attack US-Constitution-Law-abiding-US citizens.

You say that, and I say this:

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

If the government has all this evidence to hold him, why not charge his ass, so he can fry?

Also:

Originally Posted by Franko914

Non-US citizens do not have as much to lose because they do not have those rights in the first place.

There is such as a thing as Human Rights. Don't tell me how it works, as being a former State Corrections Officer, the bleeding hearts were affecting my job in that area aggressively, and we were none too happy about it.

But for the sake of what's right, I won't send my son to his room if I didn't have a good reason to tell him why I did so.

If the reason was good enough, why not charge his ass, and leave the bleeding hearts no room to complain? Why, if they are indeed justified, do they have to be so shady about it, and ask for unilateral power to "hold" someone with no charges?

How the fuck did the 2nd Amendment get into this discussion?

With that being said, to flip it, you will rant and rave about how the 2nd Amendment is being twisted by Gun Laws, yet the above ruling, that obviously, absolutely RAPES the 5th Amendment, and you find a way to defend it, because the backer is the party/politician of your choice?

Let me remind you:

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

Just so you know, I too, am a gun-owner, but damn, man - what's more important to you, the right to carry a gun, or the right to be free, unless you are proven to be a lawbreaker?

[ct91rs]

Originally Posted by Franko914

Bottom line is US citizens lose certain rights when they ally themselves with enemies of the state and choose to plan/attack US-Constitution-Law-abiding-US citizens.

So how does one seperate those who supposedly "ally themselves with enemies of the state", from those who are wrongly accused?

If you got in a wrong place-wrong time situation, or had communication or an interaction with one of these enemies, (who you may indeed not know were planning to harm the US), I doubt you would feel the gov. had the right to hold you indefinitely without being charged with a crime.

Let me as you a different question: Why is there a double-jeopardy law? How can you take the chance of getting an innocent conviction due to lack of evidence, then be provided with conclusive evidence and let a killer walk?

A free society must be willing to take risks, and those risks may include being more vulnerable than a totalitarian state to the hatred of others, but alas we have freedom, and it's worth the risk.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by Franko914

He/she has the US legal system to sue for damages if found not guilty.

Even if he could sue (civil) the case will be thrown out by some Federal judge and upheld on appeal. The US Government will assert sovereign immunity.

A Federal "Bivens" claim which is the same as a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against a state entity or official is impossible to prevail on thanks to the Rehnquist Supreme Court. May he Rip.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

You say that, and I say this:Also:There is such as a thing as Human Rights. Don't tell me how it works, as being a former State Corrections Officer, the bleeding hearts were affecting my job in that area aggressively, and we were none too happy about it.
<snip>
If the reason was good enough, why not charge his ass, and leave the bleeding hearts no room to complain? Why, if they are indeed justified, do they have to be so shady about it, and ask for unilateral power to "hold" someone with no charges?

In time, they will charge his/her sorry ass. Not at the enemy combatant's leisure but at the government's sweet time.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

How the fuck did the 2nd Amendment get into this discussion?

I find it f*cking incredible how liberals rant and rave about the forsaken rights (human rights my *ss if they're hell-bent on harming US citizens) of a few f*cking hate-filled moronic citizens/non-citizens in comparison to how liberals rant and rave about removing the right given to MILLIONS of US citizens by the 2nd Amendment. That's how the f*ck I brought the 2nd into this discussion. Don't like it? Tough sh*t 'coz it's true.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

With that being said, to flip it, you will rant and rave about how the 2nd Amendment is being twisted by Gun Laws, yet the above ruling, that obviously, absolutely RAPES the 5th Amendment, and you find a way to defend it, because the backer is the party/politician of your choice?

Let me remind you that it was a Federal court that made this ruling, not any politician or political party. Anyway, I really don't give a flying f*ck who's in the White House as long as these enemy combatants and their ilk get what's due to them. So you choose to give these terrorists the benefit of the doubt? We were doing exactly that and got three thousand civilians killed in the process four years ago to the day. I choose to say "F*ck 'em and let them rot in jail." Doing that to a handful of more-than-suspected-terrorists is a CHEAP price to pay and in no means RAPES the 5th. Exaggeration like this is what isolates liberals and their idealistic fervor to the fringes of society's daily realities.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Let me remind you:<snip>

Anybody with half a brain can cut-n-paste. Let me remind you that once you and your family are dead or dying from the effects of radiation or chemical poisoning, the 5th or any of the other amendments ain't gonna do you sh*t.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Just so you know, I too, am a gun-owner, but damn, man - what's more important to you, the right to carry a gun, or the right to be free, unless you are proven to be a lawbreaker?

With my gun, I can enjoy my freedom and defend it if needed. With my freedom, I get to keep my gun. They're both just as important to me. What about you?

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by ct91rs

So how does one seperate those who supposedly "ally themselves with enemies of the state", from those who are wrongly accused?

If you got in a wrong place-wrong time situation, or had communication or an interaction with one of these enemies, (who you may indeed not know were planning to harm the US), I doubt you would feel the gov. had the right to hold you indefinitely without being charged with a crime.

Let me as you a different question: Why is there a double-jeopardy law? How can you take the chance of getting an innocent conviction due to lack of evidence, then be provided with conclusive evidence and let a killer walk?

A free society must be willing to take risks, and those risks may include being more vulnerable than a totalitarian state to the hatred of others, but alas we have freedom, and it's worth the risk.

Ask the federal court that handed down the ruling. Obviously you think these questions and considerations were not discussed at all.

A free society doesn't come free. Attempted attacks on the freedoms afforded to US citizens come at a price to the attackers, but, alas, also to the defenders. In this case, it's pure idealism that suffers.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

Even if he could sue (civil) the case will be thrown out by some Federal judge and upheld on appeal. The US Government will assert sovereign immunity.

...my bleeding heart... That's just tough sh*t then, eh? So let him/her file a Federal Human Rights Violation suit.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Franko914

In time, they will charge his/her sorry ass. Not at the enemy combatant's leisure but at the government's sweet time.

So, if the government, for some dumb bad luck (maybe your name is exactly the same, or has been used by a known terrorist), identifies you as some collaborator against it, you are okay if they held you, without proof, indefinitely?

You do understand, in your narrow-mind, that when there are no charges, there is no need to prove anything, so some knee-jerk Agent, who doesn't like your face, can have you detained?

Originally Posted by Franko914

So you choose to give these terrorists the benefit of the doubt?

You ARE slow. I really don't know how to spell this out to you:

ONE: We do not know whether or not he is a terrorist or not. We have the word of our government to go by on. If you are willing to take everything the government says at face value, especially in respect to unilateral power over its citizens, then get rid of your guns, as you lost the point of an armed militia, and armed citizens a while ago.

TWO: If what the government says is correct, and provable, then why can't they not charge the man? You do know that treason is punishable by death, or at the very least life in prison, right? He isn't going anywhere if he gets what's coming to him.

How is any of the above giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt? I just prefer that people we call terrorists actually ARE terrorists, and I'd gladly watch them fry.

I'm not even giving the person in prison the benefit of the doubt. I am saying if he is guilty, get his ass charged, and get it over with, so he can go to prison permanently, safe from the support of liberals you are so fond of.

All the government is doing is making a martyr out of this man, and a rallying-point for bleeding-heart causes. He might be guilty as sin, but because the US isn't using the same due-process that its Founding Fathers thought up, he isn't being made out to be the villain that he should be.

Lord only help us, if it turns out that the government has no proof of anything after all, just their suspicions.

[AlmostStock]

Originally Posted by Franko914

Interesting how liberals scream about and against this 5th Amendment issue but wholeheartedly support repealing the 2nd Amendment. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I don't know anyone who's for repealing the 2nd amendment. But I do know a lot of NRA members (and others) who are against ANY gun laws (even ones prohibiting the sale of armor piercing cyanide tip assault weapons/ammo at gun shows without background checks) because they think it "threatens" their favorite amendment. Yet these same people somehow have no problem accepting that holding "suspects" indefinitely without charge does not threaten the 5th. Why is it ok to unconditionally defend one amendment and trash another?

[ct91rs]

Almost seems a bit hypocritical...

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

So, if the government, for some dumb bad luck (maybe your name is exactly the same, or has been used by a known terrorist), identifies you as some collaborator against it, you are okay if they held you, without proof, indefinitely?

(Sigh...) The "if" you talk about and others like it are just examples of exaggerations that you start to believe is actually happening which gets you riled up even more. The 5th ain't getting raped, no, not a bit.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

You do understand, in your narrow-mind, that when there are no charges, there is no need to prove anything, so some knee-jerk Agent, who doesn't like your face, can have you detained?You ARE slow. I really don't know how to spell this out to you:

ONE: We do not know whether or not he is a terrorist or not. We have the word of our government to go by on. If you are willing to take everything the government says at face value, especially in respect to unilateral power over its citizens, then get rid of your guns, as you lost the point of an armed militia, and armed citizens a while ago.

TWO: If what the government says is correct, and provable, then why can't they not charge the man? You do know that treason is punishable by death, or at the very least life in prison, right? He isn't going anywhere if he gets what's coming to him.

You don't seem to understand, in YOUR narrow mind, that self-preservation and the need to defend one's self (and family) when threatened with danger is the most basic instinct for man and many other members of the animal kingdom. This basest of instincts supersedes all "human rights" regardless of what is written or said by idealistic zealots.

The government is doing the work for me and my family. People do not get snatched from their homes or off the streets on mere suspicion -- surveillance and evidence gathering, you know, sneaky stuff, is well underway before you are spirited away.

As for me "willing to take everything the government says at face value, especially in respect to unilateral power over its citizens, then get rid of your guns, as you lost the point of an armed militia, and armed citizens a while ago," well, here again is another example of exaggeration and emotional blabbering.

Treason is punishable by death in war time (as declared by Congress). In time the government will make its case and prove or fail to prove the enemy combatant's guilt -- gotta extract as much information as possible first, right? You know, torture and more human rights abuse.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

How is any of the above giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt? I just prefer that people we call terrorists actually ARE terrorists, and I'd gladly watch them fry.

I'm not even giving the person in prison the benefit of the doubt. I am saying if he is guilty, get his ass charged, and get it over with, so he can go to prison permanently, safe from the support of liberals you are so fond of.

Call it, "an ounce of prevention" or "preventative maintenance of our freedom and way of life."

Why should the government follow YOUR timetable? What do YOU know about the case, the details, etc.? Oh, just saying things in general? How obviously liberal and irresponsible.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

All the government is doing is making a martyr out of this man, and a rallying-point for bleeding-heart causes. He might be guilty as sin, but because the US isn't using the same due-process that its Founding Fathers thought up, he isn't being made out to be the villain that he should be.

The Founding Fathers did make room for situations like this. Try reading the Constitution and the OTHER Amendments. For the slow in uptake, this isn't only about the 5th Amendment -- it's about preserving the Constitution by DEFENDING the Constitution and the United States against ALL enemies. For the really slow in uptake, "better be sure than sorry." Look at the overall picture, you know, "reality", rather than preseverating on one item.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Lord only help us, if it turns out that the government has no proof of anything after all, just their suspicions.

Read above "surveillance and evidence gathering."