ShareThis Page
News

Padilla ruling further tangles legal issues in holding terror suspects

| Thursday, Dec. 1, 2005

Jose Padilla's transfer from a military brig to a civilian jail was unexpectedly delayed Wednesday by a federal appeals court, the latest twist in the legal fight over the Bush administration's policy on U.S. terror suspects.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel from the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., demanded more information from lawyers on both sides before approving the transfer to the Justice Department.

The move indicates the three judges could reconsider their unanimous September ruling backing the Bush administration's contention that American citizens like Padilla may be denied access to courts and held indefinitely as "enemy combatants" if the government believes they are terror threats.

Padilla has appealed the ruling, saying the Bush administration has violated his rights to due process.

The administration charged Padilla last week in what many legal scholars saw as an attempt to avoid an uphill battle at the high court.

The appeals court judges said they want the government and Padilla's lawyers to explain whether their earlier ruling should be withdrawn following Padilla's indictment last week by a federal grand jury in Miami. Padilla's imminent transfer from a Navy brig in South Carolina to a federal jail in Miami was expected by both sides, but he probably will remain in military custody at least until Dec. 16, the last deadline for legal filings under the order.

The latest action by the judges complicates an already delicate legal situation for the administration, which wants to keep Padilla's case out of the Supreme Court, yet keep in place the strong appellate ruling justifying his more than three years in detention without charges.

"The question is, can they have their cake and eat it too?" said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

A decision by the Richmond court to withdraw its order would make it much harder for Padilla to pursue his appeal, but would also remove judicial backing for the detentions, Tobias and other law professors said.

Donna Newman, one of Padilla's lawyers, said Padilla wants the high court to rule on the indefinite intentions.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos would not comment on the order yesterday, other than to say the government would comply with it.

Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush administration will ask the Supreme Court to refuse even to hear Padilla's appeal because there no longer is an issue for the justices to resolve. Padilla had asked that the court either order the government to charge him with a crime or set him free.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me