As Ghostdancer points out, critical parts of the constitution have just been overturned.

A federal appeals court ruled today that the president can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in the absence of criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and designated an “enemy combatant” by President Bush.
Washington Post

Padilla is accused of conspiring to blow up apartment buildings. Kind of like Putin did in Moscow (then blaming it on the Chechens, and launching a second war in the former soviet socialist republic).

Here’s my question: how the fuck do we know whether Padilla intended to bomb apartment buildings? Obviously the government doesn’t have enough evidence to win a prosecution in a court of law. If they come arrest me and accuse me of having some plan to do American’s harm, how will you know whether they are telling the truth? How will you get me out of jail?

Padilla’s case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the court agrees to hear the case, and I suspect they will, there is a chance the one of the same judges that ruled on this case will be ruling on the case again. Will he have to recuse himself? Should he have recused himself from this appeals ruling?

The decision by a three-judge panel was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who is one of a number of people under consideration by President Bush for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, how did Luttig reconcile the indefinite detention of an American citizen without charges? I mean let’s look at the constitution:

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment: 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…

Sixth Amendment:”In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Luttig argues that these important constitutional principles have been rendered inoperative by a clause in post 9/11 legislation:

A congressional resolution after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks “provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks by those who attacked the United States on Sept. 11,” the decision said. “Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, 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.”

It should be impossible to pass a resolution, bill, or anything else that violates the constitution. Furthermore, he may have entered the country to commit a crime, but he has the right to enter the country because he is a fucking citizen. And, how can the court rule that his avowed purpose was to prosecute war without giving us any evidence to back up their allegation? This is simply trampling the fifth and six amendments.

In my opinion, this ruling is totally irresponsible and the most threatening thing to happen under the Bush administration. The fact that the judge who wrote this opinion is on the short-list for a Supreme Court nomination is incredible.

0 0 votes
Article Rating