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,...
The issue became even more complicated and contentious as the Fourth Circuit grounded its decision on Padilla's activities in Afghanistan. One of the charges leveled against Padilla was that he was in possession of an assault rifle when he was detained in Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but given the dangerous nature of the environment there, it is hardly surprising that Padilla was armed with an assault rifle (Steinberg). Padilla was eventually transferred to Miami and sentenced with seventeen years and four months of prison based on charges of criminal conspiracy against the U.S.
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
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
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