Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty

FreeDuck wrote:

Hmmm. Maybe I'm not so good at interpreting. I took that to mean 'when in service in time of public danger'. As in, military courts are different from civilian.

But assuming you are right, doesn't that then apply to everyone? And since we have been at war, with a few breaks, for the last 50 or so years, why start restricting the right to due process now?

I think the "OR Public Danger" modifies the statement.

It sure would apply to everyone. However, threshold of proving what defines PUBLIC DANGER is rather high. IMO Padilla would fit that high threshold.

I do not believe the Padilla case demonstrates the Govt "starting to restrict due process". It seems to me this life long criminal was known yet due to the unique circumstances of the times, they elected to "be safe" and get him off the streets before he actually did blow something up.

I can not recall any other case involving a US citizen similiar to Padilla since 9-11.

His attorneys will ask U.S. District Court Judge Henry Floyd on Jan. 5 to hear their case through a petition called a writ of habeas corpus, which allows them to ask a civilian judge to examine their case. Any decision will likely be appealed until it reaches the Supreme Court.

In October, Padilla's attorneys asked for him to be freed while the government decides whether to bring criminal charges. The motion claimed that the president has no authority to order anyone held indefinitely without charges, nor does any federal law allow such detentions.

Padilla's attorneys initially sued, and last year the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ordered him released unless the government charged him with a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court, without ruling on the merits of the case, decided the New York court had no jurisdiction over the brig commander. The lawsuit was refiled in Charleston.

The defense linked Padilla's case to that of Yaser Hamdi, another so-called enemy combatant held in U.S. solitary confinement for nearly three years after being captured on an Afghan battlefield.

Hamdi, who was born in Louisiana, was released in October after the Justice Department said he no longer posed a threat to the United States and no longer had any intelligence value.

Federal prosecutors in South Carolina argued last month the Hamdi case upheld President Bush's authority to detain captives as "enemy combatants" if they were members of al-Qaida, engaged in or aided terrorism or harbored terrorists.

Padilla cannot "challenge the President's authority to detain enemy combatants, including United States citizens, in the course of the ongoing conflict against al Qaeda," prosecutors wrote.

The distinction of enemy combatant is important because a military detainee is not subject to the same rights as a normal person under arrest.