Padilla Asks High Court to Intervene

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON - "Dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla has asked the Supreme Court to limit the government's power to hold him and other U.S. terror suspects indefinitely and without charges.

The case of Padilla, who has been in custody more than three years, presents a major test of the Bush administration's wartime authority. The former gang member is accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive device.

Justices refused on a 5-4 vote last year to resolve Padilla's rights, ruling that he contested his detention in the wrong court. Donna Newman of New York, one of Padilla's attorneys, said the new case, which was being processed at the court Thursday, asks when and for how long the government can jail people in military prisons.

"Their position is not only can we do it, we can do it forever. In my opinion, that's very problematic and something we should all be very concerned about," she said.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatant;_

[callady]

1. Release Jose Padilla

Jose Padilla : U.S. Citizen Imprisoned Without Trial or Charges for 3 Years and 171 Days

[Toots]

5. I won't go quite that far but will say either charge him or release him

He is an American citizen and is being denied his constitutional rights. At no time and under no circumstances is this ever acceptable.

[Richard Steele]

2. So, what evidence did they have against him?

Other than the fact that he's of the BROWNISH persuasion, that is...

I mean, we've got a Hispanic "former gang member",
and we're supposed to believe he's suddenly
working for Al-quaida, planning political bombings...
How the hell does that work?

The whole thing STINKS,
and given B*shCabal™s track record
of locking up phoney terrorists,
they should be forced to put up or shut up.

SHOW US SOME EVIDENCE IN A REAL COURT OF LAW,
OR LET THIS MAN GO!

[0007]

6. Amen!

[maximovich]

3. Poor Guy

this is not America.

[Benhurst]

4. No, this is not America. It's BushAmerica. NT

[Porcupine]

7. Their "evidence" is obviously flimsy as hell. Release him.....

and then present the "evidence" to a real grand jury before you take him back in. The standard for conviction of latino's in the US is so slim that there are people doing life in prison for powedered suger in a baggie.

If they had anything to charge him with that would stand they could get a conviction and have a happy show trial. They have nothing.

[LynnTheDem]

8. CHARGE him or release him. This is AMERICA...NOT IRAQ.

Ficking hypocrisy.

[WhiteTara]

9. Good Luck Jose!

We will get to see Roberts in action and will know what we are facing for the rest of our natural lives on this one. :scared:

[swag]

10. Padilla Takes His Case to Supreme Court

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Enemy-Combatant.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- ''Dirty bomb'' suspect Jose Padilla has asked the Supreme Court to limit the government's power to hold him and other U.S. terror suspects indefinitely and without charges.

The case of Padilla, who has been in custody more than three years, presents a major test of the Bush administration's wartime authority. The former gang member is accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive device.

Justices refused on a 5-4 vote last year to resolve Padilla's rights, ruling that he contested his detention in the wrong court. Donna Newman of New York, one of Padilla's attorneys, said the new case, which was being processed at the court Thursday, asks when and for how long the government can jail people in military prisons.

''Their position is not only can we do it, we can do it forever. In my opinion, that's very problematic and something we should all be very concerned about,'' she said.

Critics contend the government went too far, by putting hundreds of foreigners and two U.S. citizens in legal limbo following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Bush administration argues that with national security at stake, terrorist suspects are not entitled to the constitutional protections given ordinary criminal suspects.
. . .

[SammyBlue]

11. I believe the Court will not take this case up.

This isn't the Warren Court, or even the Berger Court. This is the Roberts Court and the Roberts Court will be a dumbed down, more partisan version of the Rehnquist Court (may that sack of shit burn in hell).

[Massacure]

13. Or worse:He sets a precedent that the gov can hold ppl indefinatately

[Maat]

12. This case .. well, reading about just makes my head want to explode!

I just had to right on the bar examination all about our constitutional rights, and was told my the bar-preppers to forget about this administration's crud. Basically, legal eagles think that the High Court will put a stop to their practices. But it will be too late by then. Our Constitution will be so smudged we will never get the stain out.

:grr:

[swag]

14. I'm with you. Held indefinitely and without charges.

Could anything be more antithetical to the Constitution? To the Republic?

[Carolab]

15. Write on.

I was an editor. Sorry (can't help it). I am sure you will be more careful on briefs.

[Maat]

17. Oh, yeah.

Have to be careful (HeeHee).

Sorry I made a freeper-like mistake there; it was series (HeeHee). It was hugh (HeeHee).

I was under the influence of a nine-year-old at the time.

:rofl:

[proud patriot]

16. I sure hope they uphold the Constitution

:patriot: