Jose Pertierra
Bush Admin. Wants Decision on Detainment
Sun Jan 18 15:40:10 2004
64.140.158.58

Bush wants Supreme Court to allow his Administration to hold American Citizens indefinitely in prison, without charges:

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of the Bush Administration, see AP article below, the Administration will need only "allege they are protecting National Security" to cause the arrest and disappearance of U.S. Citizens. Too easily, citizens, political opponents and others can be targeted for removal; indefinite locked away without charges be filed against them. It would be an understatement to say this will chill public dissent.

Under current provisions of the USA Patriot Act, there is no clear definition what "acts" by a Citizen constitute "threatening National Security." Ordinary citizens can be charged with "supporting terrorism" or threatening National Security if their protesting, speaking out and/or writings oppose U.S. Government Policy: The current Administration need only allege that a citizen's "activities", even "lawful activities" against a U.S. Government Policy threaten National Security to have them arrested. Imagine what may follow if the U.S. Supreme Court approves the Administration's request to hold American Citizens indefinitely in prison, without charges.

Under the Patriot Act, the Administration can charge any U.S. Citizen with terrorism for undefined "physical acts" even when no person has been threatened, or could have ever been injured and/or any property damaged: The Administration can arbitrarily use the vague term "Intimidation" to charge lawful citizens and organizations with terrorism because there is no clear definition what constitutes "intimidation" under the Patriot Act:

Patriot Act: Under 18USC , the Administration can charge any lawful U.S. Citizen or organization with terrorism for being a threat to National Security simply because their proximity to a civilian population "intimidated" that population: Or charge that U.S. Citizens "used intimidation to influence the policy of a government." Note: "Intimidation" can be anything the Administration deems it to be. Political activities while legal last week can be retroactively deemed the following week by the Administration to be a crime, a threat against National Security and/or supportive of a terrorist cause.

It would be most unfortunate for American Citizens if the U.S. Supreme Court approves George Bush's request to indefinitely lock away U.S. Citizens in prison without making charges: Without allowing Americans to defend against "indefinite imprisonment."

R. Striker

____________________________

Bush Admin. Wants Decision on Detainment

By ANNE GEARAN
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is asking the Supreme Court to decide by summer whether national security justifies detention of American citizens indefinitely and without charges.



The administration filed papers Friday asking the high court to take on the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and convert to Islam arrested in May 2002 in an alleged plot to detonate a radioactive ``dirty bomb.''

Padilla is closely associated with the al-Qaida terrorist network and ``represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States,'' Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote.

The government separately asked a federal appeals court in New York to suspend a court order for Padilla's release from a military brig where he is held incommunicado and without access to his lawyer.

The Supreme Court already has agreed to hear a similar case testing the legal rights of American citizens caught overseas in the war on terrorism. The Bush administration has asked that the two cases be combined.

Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, while Padilla was arrested on U.S. soil. Lawyers for both men claim their treatment is unconstitutional. Hearing the cases together would simultaneously address the rights of U.S. citizens captured abroad and at home.

The cases raise basic legal and constitutional questions about the breadth of executive power and the rights of terror suspects to defend themselves in court. They also represent the most significant civil liberties issue to reach the high court since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that President Bush does not have the authority to declare Padilla an enemy combatant and hold him in open-ended military custody.

The Dec. 18 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave the government 30 days from the date of its final order to release Padilla or transfer him to civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges. The court's order is not final, so the clock has not yet begun to run.

If the 2nd Circuit grants a reprieve, Padilla would not be released at least until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the appeal.

The ruling ``not only overturns the president's determination that Padilla's custody by the military is necessary to protect the nation's security and prosecute the war, but also eliminates a critical aspect of the president's commander-in-chief authority,'' Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement wrote in asking the 2nd Circuit to put its order on hold.

That aspect, he said, is ``the power to order the military to capture and detain enemy combatants, including United States' citizen enemy combatants, that enter the United States determined to conduct hostile and warlike acts.''

Unlike the Padilla case, the government has won its argument in lower courts that Hamdi may be held indefinitely without access to a lawyer or the U.S. court system.

Hamdi, who grew up in Saudi Arabia, was picked up while fighting with Taliban troops in November 2001 and held with other battlefield detainees at the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Authorities later transferred him to a U.S. naval brig in South Carolina after finding he was born in Louisiana. Padilla is locked up at the same prison.

Both men are classified as enemy combatants, a term the Bush administration contends means they are ineligible for ordinary legal protections. Both men have lawyers acting on their behalf, but one has never met his client and the other has not been allowed to see him for a year and a half.

The administration says it is reluctant to allow enemy combatants access to lawyers because that could greatly inhibit efforts to obtain information from them about potential terrorist operations.

The Supreme Court separately has agreed to consider the legal rights of other battlefield prisoners held as enemy combatants at the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The case is Rumsfeld v. Padilla.



01/17/04 03:47 EST

------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of:

The Law Office of Jose Pertierra
1010 Vermont Avenue, NW #620
Washington, DC 20005
202 783 6666
JosePertierra@aol.com