http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3332009.stm

The US authorities do not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on US soil as an "enemy combatant", a court has ruled.

The federal appeals court said "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla - being held by presidential decree - should be released from military custody.

But the judges added that the US Government was free to transfer him to civilian jurisdiction.

The ruling is being seen as a setback for Mr Bush's anti-terror policies.

Mr Padilla is thought to be the only US citizen since World War II to be detained on a presidential order.
Mr Padilla must now be released from military custody within 30 days. Without this ruling he could have faced a military tribunal.
I missed this on the 18th somehow. It really should be drawing a lot of attention. This is, of course, great news although it does not address the far more widespread issue of non-US citizens designated as enemy combatants.
It does however clarify that the United States, is in fact, not a dictatorship, in which people have or do not have liberties based on the whim of one individual. I realize that this has not been widely abused, but the argument that this isn't important because it was only being used against terrorists is in fact an argument that you don't need democracy if you have a good despot. Sadly, it seems a lot of people feel that way these days.

i think this hasn't been widely abused against US citizens because Padila is probably a test case.
If they get the green light to do as they please with him i think you'll see a few more starting to "disapear".
If they started herding up masses of US Citizens from the get go it will get killed before they've even thought up thier first press breifings excuses.

"It does however clarify that the United States, is in fact, not a dictatorship"

Let's check back on that on January 17th, when Fed Appeals order is effective.

"US federal prosecutors have argued that Mr Padilla should not have access to legal counsel because he poses a threat to national security"

After this much time has passed, even if he had been the Master Terrorist Whose Word Commences Doomsday, the above statement needs clarification: Padilla's testimony poses a threat to the credibility of those who hold him.

The Supreme's are going to overturn this decision anyway.

would you be glad if they did?

jps,

I missed this on the 18th somehow. It really should be drawing a lot of attention. This is, of course, great news although it does not address the far more widespread issue of non-US citizens designated as enemy combatants.

Actually, on the same day, another US Appellate Court found that the people being held by Bush at Guantanamo must be given legal rights.

It was two large blows against Bush on the same day. I'm happy to see that there is still justice in the US, even if it is delayed.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
It was two large blows against Bush on the same day. I'm happy to see that there is still justice in the US, even if it is delayed. I thought this would be bigger news here, but it is good news just the same. They are going completely overboard with the domestic "war on terror".

Padilla is a sack of shit, but denying him rights as an American citizen would undermine everything this nation stands for.

How do you know Padilla is a sack of shit? That's kinda the whole point here.

• Sarasohn, David. "A 'bad guy' in a bad time demonstrates a timeless principle." The Oregonian, December 31, 2003. See http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1072875336112080.xml
December 18, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, voting 2-1, ordered the government to either charge Padilla or release him. The majority declared, "The president, acting alone, possesses no inherent constitutional authority to detain American citizens seized within the United States, away from the zone of combat, as enemy combatants."

Sometime in 2004, the Supreme Court gets to decide whether that's true, and whether the Fifth Amendment -- the part that says U.S. citizens shall not "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" -- still applies.

Padilla, a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir -- the Chicago street gang member reportedly converted to Islam in prison -- had been traveling in the Middle East, and allegedly arrived in Chicago on a mission to detonate a radiation-heavy "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city. The government arrested Padilla at O'Hare airport, and Attorney General John Ashcroft went on national television -- by satellite from Moscow -- to declare "we have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States" that would have created "mass death and injury." Padilla was confined in a military prison in South Carolina.

But the government said it couldn't bring charges because making the information public would compromise its sources among captured Al-Qaida leaders.

And the Justice Department explained that since Padilla didn't face charges, he wasn't entitled to a lawyer -- who would also just interfere with Padilla's interrogation.

Which had apparently taken 18 months, and could go on without end.I will say this as clearly as I possibly can:

• If the Bush administration wins this campaign against the United States Constitution, it will be a stunning victory for the terrorists.

This is our Constitution.

Let me repeat that:

This is our Constitution!

Something about giving aid and comfort to our enemies? Mr. Bush swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878064.html). And now his administration seeks to wound that Constitution.

Terrorists on one side, Mr. Bush on the other? It's a holy war, by God, for God is on our side ... er ....

Face it: Americans might actually lose the War on Terror.

And yes, that would upset me greatly. And yes, I would hold Mr. Bush, Mr. Ashcroft, and the rest of his cronies responsible for losing the war.

For the want of a nail, Mr. Bush. For the want of a nail.