Padilla (sp?) being transfered from military custody?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

sorry no link, just on CNN

No link yet, but if I heard right, he was fighting against this.

from background article

The public should remember that the British detention of Colonial Americans without explanation was a central reason for the 1776 revolution, which finds expression in the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, citizens' right to challenge executive detention in a court of law traces its origins to the Magna Carta of 1215. The public must vigilantly protect these freedoms and urge their elected representatives to secure those liberties that are a fundamental aspect of democratic government.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.padilla01jan01,1,2269887.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

[cal04]

1. Supreme Court says U.S. can move Padilla

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to let the military transfer accused "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla to Miami to face criminal charges in at least a temporary victory for the Bush administration. The justices overruled a lower court, which had attempted to block the transfer as part of a rebuke to the White House.

The high court said it would decide later whether to review Padilla's challenge to his military detention. It granted the Bush administration's request for a transfer in a one-page order.

Padilla's jailing as an enemy combatant for the past 3 1/2 years has been the subject of multiple court rulings and criticism by civil rights groups.

The former Chicago gang member was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and put in military custody, where he was held without charges and traditional legal rights.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/13549312.htm

[QuettaKid]

2. I thought he was fighting

to be transferred TO civilian court.

[cal04]

3. Court OKs Padilla's transfer to civilian custody

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_padilla

[Supersedeas]

Supreme Court embraces Forum Shopping

[priller]

4. It's not that simple

Yes, he wanted a trial in a civilian court. His lawyers were wanting to argue that before the Supremes, and were about to get their shot. The Bushies, however, fearful that their whole "enemy combatant" deck of cards would fall down before the Supreme court, quickly decided to transfer Padilla to a civilian court on a completely new set of charges.

This is all about the Bushies avoiding a showdown in the Supreme court so they can continue their illegal imprisonments.

[Burning Water]

6. I may be missing something here, and

naturally, if Bush is doing it, it's from bad motives. But putting that aside for the minute, is there any legal, moral, or logical reason why Padilla cannot have committed crimes that would need to be tried in both judicial systems? I'm not addressing whether or not the military tribunals are legal. For the sake of argument, let's just assume that they are, for the moment, and that the SC eventually so decides. Could very possibly happen. So, can any one answer my question?

[priller]

8. Well, he could have, but that's missing the point

The point is that the Bush claims he can label anyone, even an American citizen, an "enemy combatant" and detain him without charges indefinitely. That claim was about to be tested. To avoid that, the Bushies pulled a fast one and now claim he's just a civilian.

That shows the Bushies know their view is illegal. And I guess King George isn't quite ready to say he can ignore the Supreme Court if he sees fit.

Or maybe they're waiting until Alito gets there.

[Burning Water]

9. Yes, the Alito

confirmation hearings will be very important. How do you think we're doing? I've read, sorry, no link, that most of the public approves of this horrible nomination.

[Rose Siding]

13. Only about a third approve-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2019798

The more that's known about him, the less the chance he'll be confirmed

[mike_c]

14. well, starting from the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven...

...the DoJ has not presented one shred of evidence in court to support the allegations under which he was arrested and held without trial.

[Burning Water]

5. Yeah I did too n/t

[Thorandmjolnir]

7. The whole issue is whether Bush can detain an american

citizen for three years without charges.

By removing him to criminal court, that issue becomes moot.

This is what the lower court objected to. They said that the Bush administration could not transfer him to criminal court before the whole issue of Habeas Corpus had been resolved.

The Supreme Court, basically gave Bush an extension on his unlimited powers, since Padilla's case is now moot. He is not now being detained without charges.

[Inland]

12. Not necessarily moot.

The USG won't stipulate that it will not re-detain Padilla even if he gets a not-guilty verdict. He's still at risk.

Aditionally, the supreme court might hear a moot case if it is capable of repetition. Not only is it capable of repetition with Padilla, but it is capable of repetition with any US citizen, much in the same way Roe v. Wade was heard by the USSC long after Roe had her abortion.....and indeed, given the president's expansive claims, could be happening in secret right now.

[hang a left]

10. Is there a reason why Miami has the case???

What are the charges? Does anyone know?

[Inland]

11. the charges are based in Miami, some sort of conspiracy

with people already charged with something or other.

Whereas, he was put in the brig in Charleston in forum shopping to get teh fourth circuit appellate court, the most conservative court indaland. The same court the SG is now calling names for actually questioning The Great Leader's orders.

[OKNancy]

15. kick

[CornField]

16. Supreme Court Says U.S. Can Move Padilla

http://www.sierratimes.com/rss/newswire.php?article=/news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060105/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_padilla&time=1136465352&feed=us

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who was arrested shortly after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, will be released from military custody to face charges in a civilian criminal court.

The Supreme Court said it would decide later whether to consider a broader appeal by Padilla challenging President Bush's authority to order the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists.

...

He was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and put in military custody, where he was held without charges for several months and denied traditional legal rights, such as access to an attorney.

The Supreme Court had been asked to use Padilla's case to define the scope of a president's power over American citizens taken into custody on U.S. soil. The justices had been expected to agree to hear his appeal, but shortly before word was to come, the government brought criminal charges against him in Florida and then argued that the appeal was moot.

(more)

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. The only reason for BushCo to subvert the legal process

is because they know they have no evidence and can not make a case in open court.

[pinniped]

18. Just like that alleged 20th hijacker Moussaoui.

Is that dude still even on this planet?