http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/03/scotus.p...a.ap/index.html

Court sidesteps war powers challenge
Split court rejects appeal of a former 'enemy combatant'

Monday, April 3, 2006; Posted: 10:18 a.m. EDT (14:18 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a man held until recently as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights, in effect sidestepping a challenge to Bush administration wartime detention powers.

Jose Padilla was moved in January to Miami to face criminal charges, and the government argued that the appeal over his indefinite detention was now pointless.

Three justices said the court should have agreed to take up the case anyway: Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

An appeals court panel had all but called for the court to deal with the case, saying it was troubled by the Bush administration's change in legal strategy -- after holding Padilla more than three years without charges.

Justices first considered in 2004 whether Padilla's constitutional rights were violated when he was detained as an "enemy combatant" without charges and access to a lawyer.

Justices dodged a decision on technical grounds. In a dissent Justice John Paul Stevens said then that "at stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society."

Stevens and two other court members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, explained their Monday votes not to deal with Padilla's case.

Although Padilla's claims "raise fundamental issues respecting the separation of powers, including consideration of the role and function of the courts, (the case) also counsels against addressing those claims when the course of legal proceedings has made them, at least for now, hypothetical," Kennedy wrote for the three.

Justices are reviewing a second case arising from the government pursuit of terrorists, an appeal by a foreign terrorist suspect facing a military commission on war crimes charges at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Arguments were last week.

Padilla's case was different. It asked the court to clarify how far the government can go when its hunt for terrorists leads to Americans in this country.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Supreme court won't review Bush's terrorism powers
By James Vicini

A divided Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide whether President George W. Bush has the power in the war on terrorism to order American citizens captured in the United States held in military jails without any criminal charges or a trial.

By a 6-3 vote, the court sided with the Bush administration and refused to hear an appeal by Jose Padilla, who was confined in a military brig in South Carolina for more than three years after Bush designated him an "enemy combatant."

The court's action does not amount to a ruling on the merits in the high-profile terrorism case and does not create any national precedent.

The case was affected by the Justice Department moving to bring criminal charges against Padilla in November, after his attorneys appealed to the high court. Padilla now is accused of being part of a cell that provided money and recruits for terrorists overseas and has pleaded not guilty.

He was transferred from military to civilian custody in Florida on January 5.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the enemy combatant issue should be considered moot because Padilla was charged in federal court. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Padilla's appeal.

Padilla's appeal fell one vote short of the four needed to grant an appeal.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote to explain why the appeal was rejected. He cited the changed circumstances of Padilla's custody.

Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said they would hear the appeal. Ginsburg wrote to explain why the case should be heard.

"Nothing the government has yet done purports to retract the assertion of executive power Padilla protests. Although the government has recently lodged charges against Padilla in a civilian court, nothing prevents the executive from returning to the road it earlier constructed and defended," she said.




Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

A Divided Court
SUPREME COURT REJECTS CHALLENGE TO BUSH'S WARTIME DETENTION POWERS CASE
Associated Press

A divided Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a man held until recently as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights, in effect sidestepping a challenge to Bush administration wartime detention powers.

http://public.findlaw.com/pnews/news/ap/ p/56/04-03-2006/6c8700207e0b5099.html

Read Padilla's Indictment (U.S. v. Padilla)
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism /cases/index.html#padilla

The five who voted not to hear this case are all



COWARDS!

deleted