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...
Whether he was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or at an airport in Chicago, even though Jose Padilla was an American citizen, he was also an enemy combatant. The court decided that the AUMF was a constitutional law and the President was legally exercising his authority, and therefore it was perfectly legal for Jose Padilla to be held in military detention.
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.
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
The court pointed out that the reason next friend status is observed to occur almost exclusively among prisoner's relatives is because a family member typically decides to step in when the competence of the prisoner is in question. The Court also argued that this case was easily distinguished from Hamdi (2002) because Newman already had a preexisting relationship with Padilla. The government also argued that the District Court of the
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now