This case has become interestingly peculiar, really.
A federal appeals court infringed on President Bush's authority to run the war on terror when it refused to let prosecutors take custody of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the Justice Department said yesterday, as it urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
The sharply worded Justice Department filing was the latest salvo in an increasingly contentious battle over Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and initially accused of plotting to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." Padilla was held for more than three years by the military before he was indicted last month in Miami on separate criminal terrorism charges.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit refused last week to allow prosecutors to take custody of Padilla from the military and rebuked the Bush administration for its handling of the high-profile case. The Bush administration took strong issue yesterday with the Richmond-based court's decision and appealed it to the Supreme Court.
It was another remarkable turn in Padilla's case, which has evolved into a legal spat between the executive and judicial branches of government. The dispute is especially unusual because it involves the 4th Circuit, which has been the administration's venue of choice for high-profile terrorism cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks....
This is especially weird because the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' general position on such things can be characterized as, Violating constitutional rights in the name of national security? Sure, no problem, go right ahead! Apparently, even the Constitution-unfriendly Fourth has its limits, and the government transparently shuffling Padilla and charging him for the express purpose of preventing the Supreme Court from reaching the constitutional issues is that limit.
Mind, I still expect that the Supreme Court will actually go along with the administration on this. I cannot imagine that any of the justices are particularly eager to reach this issue, given the craven and cowarly way they turfed the Padilla case the last time it reached them. If they can do anything to keep from actually dealing with the merits of this case, they're likely to do so.
Posted by iain at December 28, 2005 09:05 PM
