Padilla V Hanft the Case

Padilla V Hanft The case of Padilla v. Hanft, 423 F.3d. 386 (4th Cir.2005). Jose Padilla is a United States citizen who was detained at O'Hare International Airport by FBI agents in 2002. Padilla was later transferred to New York where he was held on the charges of having connections to the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. In June of the same year, President George W. Bush issued an order designating Padilla an "enemy combatant" and Padilla then was transferred to the custody of the Department of Defense.

The Defense Department transferred him to a high security military big in South Carolina. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the government did not file any charges against Padilla, held him incommunicado, and did not allow any visits from his attorney for three and a half years (ACLU, 2006). Padilla's appointed counsel filed a habeas corpus petition on Padilla's behalf, but when the case reached the Supreme Court, it was decided that Padilla had petitioned his habeas corpus in the wrong court.

Padilla's counsel filed another habeas corpus petition in 2004, but this time to the U.S. District Court for South Carolina. The District Court ruled the detention of Padilla to be unlawful since it had not been authorized by the U.S. Congress. The Court's ruling was grounded on the Constitutional principle that the civilian authority held supremacy over military authority.

Members of the Bush Administration then appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which on September 2005, reversed the District Court's decision on the grounds that the Authorization of Use of Military Force passed by Congress in the wake of September 11 attacks had authorized the President to detain enemy combatants.

The Circuit Judge Luttig, in concurrence with Judge Michael and Judge Traxler, ruled that the President had the authority to detain Padilla because Padilla "had taken up arms against United States forces in Afghanistan and had thereafter entered into this country for the purpose of blowing up buildings in American cities, in continued prosecution of al Qaeda's war of terrorism against the United States" (Padilla v. Hanft, 2005, p. 3).

The contentious question in this case was whether the President had an authority to detain militarily a citizen of the United States indefinitely. Judges Luttig, Michael, and Traxler agreed that the President did possess such an authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

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. Padilla's lawyers did not contest the charges the government had leveled against Padilla.

Instead, the lawyers argued that even if everything the government said about Padilla was true, the U.S. President did not possess the authority to detain a U.S. citizen without trial. The Fourth Circuit interpreted the position of the lawyers as if the lawyers agreed that the charges leveled against Padilla were true. The lawyers rejected this interpretation. The Government allegations against Padilla were contested by independent observers, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

Initially, the Government alleged that Padilla had plotted to explode a "dirty bomb" but then abandoned that charge, contending that Padilla had actually plotted to start a gas.