March 01, 2005
Federal Court Orders Padilla Set Free Failing Criminal Charges by the Government
Oh how slowly the wheels of American justice turn, but turn they do. In a ruling yesterday afternoon U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd, sitting of South Carolina, ordered the government to charge Padilla with a crime within 45 days or let him go.
Calling the Padilla case a matter of law enforcement and not a military matter, the judge ruled that the government cannot hold the so-called "enemy combatant" without charging him with a crime. The judge future implied that the President had overstepped the authority of his office is declaring Padilla an enemy combatant stating,
Since (Padilla's) alleged terrorist plans were thwarted when he was arrested on the material witness warrant, the court finds that the president's subsequent decision to detain (him) as an enemy combatant was neither necessary nor appropriate.
Judge Floyd went on to write:
It is true that there may be times during which it is necessary to give the executive branch greater power than at other times. Such a granting of power, however, is in the province of the legislature and no one else -- not the court and not the president.
I agree, the President grossly overstepped the bounds of his office in declaring Padilla an "enemy combatant" while at the same time giving the "American Taliban" John Walker, who is white, a free pass, despite the fact that he was found on the field of battle in Afghanistan. Walker, who was never labeled an enemy combatant, was charged criminally and is now serving time; meanwhile Padilla is languishing in a military brig in South Carolina, charged with nothing. Such arbitrary distinctions clearly violate the 14th Amendment, and shout of racial bias on the part of the President.
It's a shame that a ruling of this nature had to take as long as it did. But I never lost faith in the justice system to rule in favor of Padilla however long it took. The government will of course appeal, but hopefully the 4th Circuit will rule as the District Court did, and set Mr. Padilla free…however onerous his (alleged) behavior, he is an American citizen and deserving of the Constitutional right afforded to us all.
God Bless that Judge Floyd.
It is about time that someone decided to stick up against the tyrannical policies of the Federal Government. Hopefully, he won’t be assassinated.
Thanks for pointing it out Edward. Awesome.
Racial bias? Assassination of a judge by the government? You guys can’t really believe this. It sounds more like the plot of an old 60s urban drama.
We still don’t know how to handle terrorist cases and the practice is evolving. It doesn’t fit ordinary rules. For one thing, intent is important. The 9/11 terrorists, “armed” with box cutters, would have seemed perfectly harmless. Imagine arresting an Arab man because he carried box cutters. If you were transported through time to Logan Airport ten minutes before boarding time on September 11, you would never have been able to convince the guards to stop the terrorists. That is more like a Twilight Zone plot.
Another thing is conspiracy. The Mafia is easier to penetrate than many terror cells. And secrecy, even if you manage to get information, you may not be able to reveal the source without allowing the terrorists to attack and kill again.
The purpose of the law is to protect the innocent, not make it easier for the guilty to commit their crimes. We sometimes forget that in our commitment technicalities.
We are walking a tightrope. We want to protect liberties, but we also want to protect lives. You have to know that if we cannot protect lives reasonably well, the liberties also cannot be protected. The public supports liberties to the extent they feel safe in doing so. Imagine a successful terror attack where someone we let out of prison was involved. It could well be the end of liberties, as we know them for a long time. Extremes provoke reactions.
Consider the case of Johnny Walker Lind. He was convicted very rapidly because of the post 9/11 mood. Few people rushed to his defense and the general tone of the media was that he got better than he deserved. Imagine the same sort of circumstances today. Would it be so easy to convince? Would no civil liberties groups spring to his defense? That is because we feel safer today.
“The purpose of the law is to protect the innocent, not make it easier for the guilty to commit their crimes. We sometimes forget that in our commitment technicalities.”
Sure, but the issue here is that Padilla has never been charged with any crime at all. Hardly a “technicality”, at least in my book.
Posted by: William Cohen at March 1, 2005 02:01 PMEither we are a nation of Laws or not. It can not be turned on and off as different situations arise.
Posted by: Ben at March 1, 2005 02:17 PMFunny how the one’s who support Padilla’s illegal detention are also the first one’s who scream when the 9th Circuit and others do their best to destroy the Constitution.
It’s not over though. I’m sure they can find a little technicality to hold Padilla on.
And if they can’t find one, I’m sure they can make one.
I guess it’s goodbye, you served us well:
Amendment VI
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 defense.
kctim:
“It’s not over though. I’m sure they can find a little technicality to hold Padilla on.”
You’re probably right, Tim.
But if he is let go, most likely he won’t really be free. They’ll have people watching him and following him around forever.
What I’ve never understood is exactly WHY Padilla was suspected of “plotting with al Qaeda”, or wanting to “detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” to blow up apartment buildings in the United States”. Did the man have anything in his possession when he was arrested that would support these suspicions in any tangible way? Or did he just happen to be a friend or acquaintance of the wrong people?
Does anyone here know any of the details over why they felt he needed to be held all this time?
It feels like the Bush Administration doesn’t really beleive in the nation of laws thing…The President is King…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 2, 2005 10:26 AMThe Gov has had two years to build a case.
Charge him or let him go.
Posted by: George at March 2, 2005 10:37 AMThey should torture Padilla to get his confession. A few weeks of being Gitmoed will break him. He’ll claim to be the ToothFairy or anything else after a while.
I am serious about this. Torture the guy. At least it will spare us the Hypocrisy of it all. At least the Republicans will be consistent.
Posted by: Aldous at March 2, 2005 11:14 AMFew people rushed to his defense and the general tone of the media was that he got better than he deserved.
That’s not the way I remember it, Jack. I remember the universal dire warnings that Padilla’s detention sets a dangerous precedent.
I don’t know about defending this particular guy, but the executive branch should never, ever have the ability to detain US citizens and strip them of their rights.
As for the hijackers, most of them should never have been in the country to start with. Almost four years later, we still don’t have an integrated terrorist watchlist because Bush is unwilling to step in and untangle the turf wars. It’s not a priority for him.
