| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Le Mod Pol" |
| Date: |
20 Feb 2004 01:12:44 PM |
| Object: |
High court to mull 'enemy combatant' rule |
High court to mull 'enemy combatant' rule
By Gina Holland,
2/20/2004
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to
decide whether the Constitution forbids the Bush
administration from holding U.S. citizens indefinitely
and without access to lawyers or courts when they are
suspected of being "enemy combatants."
The justices will consider the case of Jose Padilla, an
American citizen, former Chicago gang member and
convert to Islam who was arrested in his home city
after a trip to Pakistan. The government alleges he was
part of a plot to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb"
in the United States.
The Padilla case is a companion to another terrorism
case the court was already set to hear this spring.
Together, the Yaser Esam Hamdi and Padilla cases will
allow the high court to take its most comprehensive
look so far at the constitutional and legal rights of
Americans caught up in the global war on terror.
Lawyers for both men claim their treatment is
unconstitutional. Hearing the cases together will
simultaneously address the rights of U.S. citizens
captured abroad and at home.
At issue is the president's claim of authority to
protect the nation and pursue terrorists unfettered by
many traditional legal obligations -- and outside
previous precedents for government conduct in wartime.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear both cases in
late April, with a ruling due by summer.
Separately, the court will hear a challenge this spring
from foreign-born terror suspects held in open-ended
custody at the military's prison camp at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. That case asks whether those more than 650
prisoners may challenge their detention and treatment
in U.S. courts.
Critics in the United States and abroad have grumbled
that the prolonged detentions violate basic human
rights and international agreements. A ruling in the
Guantanamo case is also expected by summer.
The Padilla and Hamdi cases hit closer to home for most Americans.
Padilla was arrested on U.S. soil, and the initial
allegations against him were aired in the civilian
criminal court system. He was later whisked to a
military prison in South Carolina, where he was
off-limits to his lawyer or other outsiders for nearly
two years.
Earlier this month, the Bush administration said
Padilla could now see his lawyers, although the
government still contends it has no legal obligation to
allow such a meeting.
The government listened in on a recent, similar meeting
between Hamdi and a defense lawyer.
Hamdi is a suspected Taliban foot soldier captured
overseas shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. He
was placed alongside Padilla in the same South Carolina
brig after U.S. authorities verified his claim that he
had been born in Louisiana of Saudi parents.
The administration claims that Padilla, Hamdi and the
Guantanamo prisoners are all "enemy combatants,"
potential al-Qa'eda terrorists or their Taliban
protectors captured since the jetliner attacks that
killed thousands in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon.
Padilla is closely associated with the al-Qa'eda
terrorist network and "represents a continuing, present
and grave danger to the national security of the United
States," while Hamdi is a "classic battlefield
detainee," Solicitor General Theodore Olson has argued
to the high court in legal papers.
A federal appeals court ruled in December that
President Bush does not have the authority to declare
Padilla an enemy combatant and hold him in open-ended
military custody.
The ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
"undermines the president's vital authority as
commander in chief to protect the United States against
attacks launched within the nation's borders," Olson
argued in asking the high court to take the case.
Unlike the Padilla case, the government has won its
argument in lower courts that Hamdi may be held
indefinitely without access to a lawyer or the U.S.
court system.
The case is Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 03-1027.
© 2004 The New York Times Company
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy.
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: High court to mull 'enemy combatant' rule |
20 Feb 2004 01:44:02 PM |
|
|
Lawyers for both men claim their treatment is
unconstitutional. Hearing the cases together will
simultaneously address the rights of U.S. citizens
captured abroad and at home.
I wonder how this is going to turn out. I think that Padilla is the more
difficult of these two cases because he was apprehended here (in the USA).
Hamdi, on the other hand, was captured on the field of battle and the enemy
combatant status fits his circumstance very well. Of these two cases, I
think the enemy combatant status for Padilla is the weaker to uphold.
I understand the position of the government, and I agree wsith what they are
saying, but I think they are weak. Frankly, it isn't the weakness that
bothers me, it is that they can make the same claim against virtually any
suspect they desire, and this can result in serious abuses later on if we
don't get a handle on the government now. The problem with Padilla is not so
much that Padilla is being abused (and I think he is not), but that if this
stands, then any suspect can be claimed as an enemy combatant and held
virtually forever. I think that if a citizen is captured in America and held
as an enemy combatant, then his case should be reviewed somehow to ensure
that he is indeed actinig as a warrior for an opposing force. If the charges
turn out to be supportable, then we should hold that person just like the
other enemy combatants, and maybe even charge the person when hostilities
are ended.
Hamdi, on the other hand, was captured on the battlle field actively engaged
in battle. He has no right to legal council until he appears in court on
charges of treason.
At issue is the president's claim of authority to
protect the nation and pursue terrorists unfettered by
many traditional legal obligations -- and outside
previous precedents for government conduct in wartime.
Bush should be holding these enemy combatants as prisoners of war. This
would fit the precedent that is already set.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
