Appeals Court Upholds Dirty Bomber Detention

Reuters reports a federal appeals court today ruled that President Bush has the power to detain the alleged dirty bomber wannabe, Jose Padilla. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has been held for more than three years as a suspected enemy combatant without any charges being brought against him:

"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the president of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda," appeals court Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote for the three-judge panel.

"We conclude that the president does possess such authority," said Luttig, a conservative who has been under consideration by the Bush administration for a possible Supreme Court nomination.

According to Bloomberg, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled the president's power flows from the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, allegedly met with high ranking al-Qaida members in 2001 and 2002, received explosives training in al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan and plotted with the group to bomb hotels and gas stations, and to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb," a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material, inside the United States.

Padilla was arrested in May 2002 after returning to Chicago from Pakistan. He was arrested as a material witness for the grand jury probe into the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Padilla was transferred to Department of Defense custody after President bush declared him to be an enemy combatant. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has been held in a military prison since his arrest.

The appeals court reversed a decision by a federal judge in South Carolina who ruled in February that Padilla must be released if he is not charged with a crime.

The Fourth Circuits decision is available here in PDF format.

Comments

[Matthew Shugart]

I don't see how the President's power can flow from an act of Congress, when the issue raised was one of Constitutional rights. But then I have not read the opinion, only your post and the press excerpts contained in it.