EDITORIAL
The Padilla Case and Enemy Combatants
While the nation has been transfixed in the last two weeks by news of President Bush's secret domestic spying program, there remains other serious, unfinished business on the civil-liberties front in the fight against terrorism.
The Bush administration continues to claim a virtually unchecked power to detain citizens without charge whenever the President designates them as "enemy combatants."
It's troubling enough to have overseas calls and e-mail to family and friends tapped, but imagine the outrage of being an American citizen tossed in jail and held for years incommunicado without charge.
That's an awesome power for any president to claim - one that must be given a thorough review by the Supreme Court, and soon.
As of yet, the Bush administration has avoided a full-blown legal showdown on this issue. Now Justice Department lawyers are seeking to put off once again a high court ruling in the most notorious case - that of alleged "dirty bomber" and al-Qaeda foot soldier Jose Padilla.
Since his 2002 arrest, Padilla has been held in a U.S. Navy brig on allegations that morphed three times. First, he was alleged to have plotted with al-Qaeda to set off a radioactive bomb. Then he was credited with planning to blow up apartment buildings. Finally, in late November, a federal grand jury in Miami charged Padilla with planning overseas killings and aiding terrorists abroad.
The criminal charges were timed curiously: just as Padilla's lawyers sought a full Supreme Court review.
Whether or not the Bush administration hoped to scuttle a definitive ruling on the President's "enemy combatant" powers, a federal appeals court did the right thing two weeks ago.
The three-judge panel in Richmond refused to transfer Padilla to the criminal justice system. Instead, the Fourth U.S. Court of Appeals urged the highest court to take the case.
Amen to that.
The government's changing rationale for holding Padilla cast serious doubt on the case for the former gang member's detention. But the wider concern is the need for clear legal direction on behalf of all Americans, whose protection from unwarranted detention supposedly is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
(More ...Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/04/2006 | Editorial | Set limits on wartime powers)
