Padilla v. Hanft on June

Padilla v. Hanft On June 10th, 2002, CNN.com reported that U.S. officials had "captured a U.S. citizen with suspected ties to al Qaeda who allegedly planned to build and explode a radioactive 'dirty bomb' in the United States." (CNN.com) This suspect was identified as Abdullah Al Muhajir, but would become known by his birth name Jose Padilla.

The next to last paragraph contained a small reference to the fact that then President George Bush had ordered Padilla be treated as an enemy combatant and taken into custody by the military (despite the fact that he was an American citizen taken into custody on American soil). This decision by Bush would set off a legal case as Padilla's attorney's argued that the President did not have the authority to order an American citizen, arrested in the United States, to be transferred into custody of the military.

The United States government alleged that Jose Padilla traveled to Afghanistan in the year 2000, and became a member of al Qaeda. After the United States invaded Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban along with their al Qaeda allies, Padilla escaped to Pakistan where he then made his way to the United States with the intention of carrying out a terrorist attack on American soil. As Padilla arrived at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, he was taken into detained by FBI agents who subsequently arrested him.

On June 9th, 2002, President George Bush "designated him an 'enemy combatant' against the United States and directed the Secretary of Defense to take him into military custody." (Padilla v. Hanft) In the subsequent legal case, the U.S. argued that the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (AUMF) gave the president the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks…" (Padilla v.

Hanft) They also pointed to the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld where the Supreme Court decided that the President did in fact have the authority to detain American citizens who qualify as "enemy combatants." Because Padilla had fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. argued, he was eligible to be taken into custody and treated as an enemy combatant, despite the fact that he was arrest in Chicago.

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 an American citizen, detained on U.S.

soil, could be transferred into the custody of the military if he was found to be an enemy combatant, as Padilla was. Next, his lawyers argued that Padilla's detention by the military was not "necessary nor appropriate' because he is amenable to criminal prosecution." (Padilla v. Hanft) They also attempted to claim the old W.W. II case stated that Padilla could not be detained without a clear statement from the Congress of the United States, which was not issued.

And finally Padilla's attorney pulled out an even older case from the American Civil War that held that non-military anti-Unionists could not be subject to military tribunals, but instead had to be tried in civilian courts. The court eventually decided that because Jose Padilla had taken up arms against the military forces of the United States in Afghanistan, he could.