9th circuit upholds the 4th Amendment.

Padilla case didnt invole indefinite confinement without trial or assasination without a trial. Was just a question of whether he gets a military trial or a civilian trial.

The Bush Administration designated him an unlawful combatant and asserted the authority to hold him indefinitely without charge. That they decided to formally charge him doesn't change that.
 
The Bush Administration designated him an unlawful combatant and asserted the authority to hold him indefinitely without charge. That they decided to formally charge him doesn't change that.

Youre making the shit up as you go along. The Bush Administration designated him an unlawful combatant and asserted the authority to try him in a military tribunal

He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)
 
Youre making the shit up as you go along. The Bush Administration designated him an unlawful combatant and asserted the authority to try him in a military tribunal
and you're pulling the shit out of your ass as you go along.

Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court. if you think bush was EVER going to put him in front of any kind of judge or jury, i've got a bridge in cali to sell you.
 
and you're pulling the shit out of your ass as you go along.

Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court. if you think bush was EVER going to put him in front of any kind of judge or jury, i've got a bridge in cali to sell you.

Thats because Padilla challenged in court his detention by the military. Cant put on a military trial of a person who challenges their detention. AND the courts determined that they could have both held and prosecuted him in a military tribunal.

And an "enemy combatant" isnt a "charge" it is a person. In warfare you can deain enemy combatants, to prevent them from engaging in any further combat. Has nothing to do with prosecutions for crimes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top