Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
391).
Padilla's counsel subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was again denied in April of 2006. Meantime, Padilla had been transferred to civilian custody, essentially rendering the petition for a writ of certiorari in the highest court in the land a moot point.
The question before the Court of Appeals was whether the President of the United States had the constitutional authority to detain a United States citizen who was allegedly associated with al Qaeda, a known terrorist organization that the United States was at war with.
The Judge who ultimately penned the Court of Appeals' opinion, Luttig, was joined by Judges Michael and Traxler (2005) and wrote:
The detention of petitioner being fully authorized by Act of Congress, the judgment of the district court that the detention of petitioner by the President of the United States is without support in law is hereby reversed. (p.397).
In essence, the Fourth Circuit...
Bush was acting within his constitutional powers in holding Padilla without charges indefinitely as a so-called "enemy combatant."
References
American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. (2006). Padilla v. Hanft.
Retrieved from http://www.acluva.org/docket/padilla.html.
Judge Luttig, and Judges Michael and Traxler. (2005). Padilla v. Hanft, 423 F. 3d 386 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit. Google Scholar. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4248615015622681524&q=Padilla+v.+Hanft,+423+F.3d&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&scilh=0
Rumsfeld v Padilla. (2004). Rehnquist, William, C.J., Sandra Day O' Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Google Scholar. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15130484144621962379&q=Rumsfeld+v.+Padilla,+542+U.S.+426+(2004)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44.
Since Padilla had joined the terrorist organization al Qaeda and engaged in warlike actions against the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan, the Judges said in concurrence with the Government, the President possessed an authority to designate Padilla an "enemy combatant." The issue sparked a controversy and intense debate among lawyers and other observers. One of the complications of the case was the position taken by Padilla's lawyers.
On the other hand Padilla's attorneys argued that the fact that he was arrested on American soil gave his the rights and protections guaranteed American citizens under the Constitution, mainly a civilian trial. Padilla's lawyers argued that in the case of Hamdi, he was captured on foreign soil, not in America and therefore there was a difference. However, the U.S. countered that an old W.W. II case found that even