|
|
|
|
|
Rumsfeld V. PadillaDonald Rumsfeld v. Jos Padilla & Donna Newman is a pending case in the United States Supreme Court, brought by Donald Rumsfeld against Jos Padilla, regarding the juristictional question of Padilla's (a United States citizen) place within the US legal system, in the wake of his detainment as an "unlawful combatant." Oral arguments were heard on April 28, 2004. The issue before the Court is to determine whether the Congressional "Authorization for use of Military Force" post September 11 give to the President the powers to detain a United States citizen, solely on the claim (by whatever means substantiated) that the citizen is an "enemy combatant." If so, then this new power would preclude the Non-Detention Act. Padilla was arrested in Chicago upon his arrival from Pakistan, where the FBI claims that he was meeting with al-Qaida operatives, and was returning to carry out acts of violence against the United States. For a time he was considered a "material witness", without charges filed, and given only very limited access to legal counsel. His designation was changed to "enemy combatant," which means that he, like many non-citizen suspects in the War on Terror, could be imprisoned indefinitely, and without legal recourse or access. His representative, Donna Newman, filed a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf, to claim the right to defend Padilla, The US District Court of Southern New York ruled that Newman had standing to file the petition, but also found that the Department of Defense, under a Presidential order, had the power to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. Paul Clement represented Rumsfeld. Jennifer Martinez gave oral argument on behalf of Padilla and Newman. Excerpt - Justice Ginsburg: Suppose the Executive says 'mild torture, we think will help get this information.' It's not a soldier who does something against the code of military justice, but it's an Executive command. Some systems do that to get information...
- Mr. Clement: Well, our Executive doesn't. And I think, I mean...
- Ginsburg: What's constraining? That's the point. Is it just up to the good will of the Executive, or is there any Judicial check?
External links
|
 |
|
| Copyright 2005-2009 OnPedia.com. All Rights Reserved |
|
|