Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (719490)	12/22/2005 2:53:36 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Time to put Judge Luttig behind barbed wire for treason. " December 22, 2005 By NEIL A. LEWIS nytimes.com. WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - A federal appeals court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration Wednesday, refusing to allow the transfer of Jose Padilla from military custody to civilian law enforcement authorities to face terrorism charges. In denying the administration's request, the three-judge panel unanimously issued a strongly worded opinion that said the Justice Department's effort to transfer Mr. Padilla gave the appearance that the government was trying to manipulate the court system to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the case. The judges warned that the administration's behavior in the Padilla case could jeopardize its credibility before the courts in other terrorism cases. What made the action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., so startling, lawyers and others said, was that it came from a panel of judges who in September had provided the administration with a sweeping court victory, saying President Bush had the authority to detain Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, indefinitely without trial as an enemy combatant. But the judges were clearly angered when the administration suddenly shifted course on Nov. 22, saying it no longer needed that authority because it now wanted to try Mr. Padilla in a civilian court. The move came just days before the government was to file legal papers in Mr. Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court. The government said that as a result of the shift, the court no longer needed to take up the case. Many legal analysts speculated at the time that the administration's sudden change in approach was an effort to avoid Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit ruling. In the opinion on Wednesday, written by Judge J. Michael LUTTIG, the court said the panel was denying permission to transfer Mr. Padilla as well as the government's suggestion that it vacate the September decision upholding Mr. Padilla's detention for more than three years in a military brig as an enemy combatant. Judge LUTTIG, a strong conservative judicial voice who has been considered by Mr. Bush for the Supreme Court, said the panel would not agree to the government's requests because that would compound what was "at least an appearance that the government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court, and also because we believe that this case presents an issue of such especial national importance as to warrant final consideration by that court." Judge LUTTIG wrote that the timing of the government's decision to switch Mr. Padilla from military custody to a civilian criminal trial, just as the Supreme Court was considering the issue of the president's authority to detain him as an enemy combatant, had "given rise to at least an appearance that the purpose of these actions may be to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court." Prof. Carl W. Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School, who has written about the government's legal strategy in terrorist cases, said that the ruling on Wednesday was an extraordinary rebuff to the Bush administration by the judicial branch. "It's obvious that the government thought that its motion to transfer Padilla would be perfunctory," Professor Tobias said. But administration lawyers had not counted on the possibility that the appeals court judges would feel ill used in expending their institutional capital in support of Mr. Bush's action only to have the government decide that it no longer wanted the authority that it had sought so strongly. Tasia Scolinos, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said in a statement: "We are disappointed that the court has denied the unopposed motion to transfer Jose Padilla to the criminal justice system to face the terrorism charges currently pending against him. The president's authority to detain enemy combatants, which the Fourth Circuit has upheld, should not be viewed as an obstacle to an exercise of the government's undoubted authority to prosecute federal crimes, including those related to terrorism." Ms. Scolinos said the department was considering what to do in light of the court's refusal to authorize the transfer of Mr. Padilla. The likely outcome of the appeals court panel's decision, some lawyers believed, was that the Supreme Court would be obliged to consider the case. Jonathan M. Freiman, a lawyer for Mr. Padilla (pronounced puh-DILL-ah), said that the appeals court "seems to have agreed with what we asserted in our brief, that the government has been attempting to evade Supreme Court review." Mr. Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who converted to Islam and who, officials say, traveled to the Middle East and offered his services to terrorist organizations, was arrested at O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002. Government officials initially portrayed him as someone who was considering a plot to explode a radioactive "dirty bomb" in some American city and then to destroy gas lines to destroy public buildings. In the criminal indictment issued by a grand jury in Florida, the government no longer asserted either of those charges and instead charged him with fighting against American forces alongside Al Qaeda soldiers in Afghanistan. Although Judge LUTTIG was careful in his opinion to avoid flatly asserting that the government had misbehaved, his skepticism about its behavior was unmistakable. He used the word "appearance" several times in explaining why he believed the government's approach in the Padilla case raised suspicions. Judge LUTTIG said the government might not have fully considered the consequences of its approach, "not only for the public perception of the war on terror but also for the government's credibility before the courts in litigation." He said the government "must surely understand" that it has left the impression that Mr. Padilla may have been held for more than three years by mistake. Judge LUTTIG was joined by Judges M. Blane Michael and William B. Traxler Jr. * Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (719490)	12/22/2005 3:18:01 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Key House Republican Balks at Patriot Act By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago WASHINGTON - House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner threatened Thursday to block passage of legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act, Republican officials disclosed. The Senate passed a six-month extension Wednesday night, and House approval is required by Dec. 31 to keep in place the enhanced law enforcement powers first enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Sensenbrenner's spokesman declined comment. The Senate action effectively sidetracked a comprehensive House-Senate compromise that would have extended most of the existing law indefinitely, making several changes in the meantime. It was blocked by a Democrat-led filibuster in the Senate, in which critics claimed the legislation failed to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans. The maneuvering occurred as Bush left Washington believing that Congress would not let the law expire. "It appears to me that the Congress understands we got to keep the Patriot Act in place, that we're still under threat," Bush said just before boarding a helicopter headed to Camp David, Md., for a long holiday weekend with his family. The Republican officials demanded anonymity because Sensenbrenner had not revealed his intentions publicly. The Senate-passed six-month extension would pass the House only with no opposition. Any change to it would require a new Senate vote. Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., who had led the Democratic fililbuster against permanently renewing most of the law's expiring provisions, said the six-month extension "will allow more time to finally agree on a bill that protects our rights and freedoms while preserving important tools for fighting terrorism." Most of the Patriot Act — which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers — was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Making permanent the rest of the Patriot Act powers, like the roving wiretaps which allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a target might use, has been a priority of the administration and Republican lawmakers. Some civil liberties safeguards had been inserted into legislation for renewing that law but Senate Democrats and a small group of GOP senators blocked it anyway, arguing that more safeguards were needed. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he had no choice but to accept a six-month extension in the face of a successful filibuster and the Patriot Act's Dec. 31 expiration date. "I'm not going to let the Patriot Act die," Frist said. Bush indicated that he would sign the extension. "The work of Congress on the Patriot Act is not finished," Bush said. "The act will expire next summer, but the terrorist threat to America will not expire on that schedule. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act." Frist said he had not consulted with House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., yet on the six-month extension. Senior Republicans there have opposed any temporary extension of the current law, insisting that most of the expiring provisions should be renewed permanently, but it would be difficult for the House to reject a plan agreed to by the Senate and President Bush. The six-month "extension ensures that the tools provided to law enforcement in terrorist investigations in the Patriot Act remain in effect while Congress works out the few differences that remain," said Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., one of a small group of Republicans who crossed party lines to block the Patriot Act legislation. Republicans who had pushed for legislation that would make most of the expiring provisions permanent said the agreement only postpones the ongoing arguments over the Patriot Act for six months. "We'll be right back where we are right now," said a clearly frustrated Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.