25.09.2018 Views

The Law of War

The Law of War

The Law of War

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

eight <strong>of</strong> the nine justices <strong>of</strong> the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have<br />

the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections<br />

enforceable through judicial review.<br />

On 8 May 2002, José Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, was arrested by FBI<br />

agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and held as material witness on the<br />

warrant issued in New York State about the 2001 9/11 attacks. On 9 June 2002<br />

President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy<br />

combatant". <strong>The</strong> order justified the detention by leaning on the AUMF which authorized<br />

the President to "use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or<br />

persons" and in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the administration a U.S. citizen can be an enemy<br />

combatant (this was decided by the United States Supreme Court in the case <strong>of</strong> Ex<br />

parte Quirin). Padilla is being detained in Miami and is accused <strong>of</strong> providing material<br />

support for terrorism.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<strong>The</strong> 13 November 2001, Military Order, mentioned above, exempts U.S. citizens<br />

from trial by military tribunals to determine if they are "unlawful combatants",<br />

which indicates that Padilla and Yaser Hamdi would end up in the civilian criminal<br />

justice system, as happened with John Walker Lindh.<br />

On 18 December 2003, the Second Circuit Court <strong>of</strong> Appeals declared that the<br />

Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S.<br />

soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization<br />

(per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release<br />

Padilla from military custody within thirty days. But agreed that he could be held<br />

until an appeal was heard.<br />

On 20 February 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's<br />

appeal.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Supreme Court heard the case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, in April 2004, but on 28<br />

June it was thrown out on a technicality. <strong>The</strong> court declared that New York State,<br />

where the case was originally filed, was an improper venue and that the case<br />

should have been filed in South Carolina, where Padilla was being held.<br />

<br />

<br />

On 28 February 2005, in Spartanburg, South Carolina, U.S. District Judge Henry<br />

Floyd ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him. He<br />

relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the parallel enemy combatant case <strong>of</strong><br />

Yaser Hamdi (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), in which the majority decision declared a<br />

"state <strong>of</strong> war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights <strong>of</strong><br />

the nation's citizens".<br />

On 19 July 2005, in Richmond, Virginia, the Fourth Circuit Court <strong>of</strong> Appeals<br />

began hearing the government's appeal <strong>of</strong> the lower court (the District <strong>of</strong> South<br />

Carolina, at Charleston) ruling by Henry F. Floyd, District Judge, (CA-04-2221-<br />

26AJ). <strong>The</strong>ir ruling, decided 9 September 2005, was that "the President does<br />

Page 78 <strong>of</strong> 265

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!