[Fidelista]

A news item, and I would be very interested in how folks here feel about this.
Do we have faith in our American system--Ideals ---justice--- the historical ones sold -- or not?. >f
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in South Carolina ruled yesterday that the Bush
administration lacks statutory and constitutional authority to indefinitely
imprison without criminal charges a U.S. citizen who was designated an
"enemy combatant."

Rejecting a series of arguments put forward by the government, District
Court Judge Henry Floyd said that the indefinite detention of Jose Padilla —
who the administration has said is a terrorist supporter of the al-Qaida
terrorist network — is illegal and that Padilla must be released from a Navy
brig in Charleston, S.C., within 45 days or be charged with a crime.

In a strongly worded ruling, Floyd said, "To do otherwise would not only
offend the rule of law and violate this country's constitutional tradition,
but it would also be a betrayal of this nation's commitment to the
separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and our
individual liberties."

Floyd said he was not persuaded by arguments put forward by the
administration to justify its assertion that Americans designated "enemy
combatants" by the president can be detained without trial.

Using a phrase often used by conservatives to denigrate liberal judges,
Floyd — who was appointed by President Bush in 2003 — accused the
administration of engaging in "judicial activism" by asserting it has
blanket authority under the Constitution to detain Americans on U.S. soil
who are suspected of taking or planning actions against the country.

Floyd said that the government presented no law supporting this contention
and that just because the administration says Padilla's detention was
consistent with U.S. laws and the president's war powers, that did not make
it so.

"Moreover, such a statement is deeply troubling," Floyd's ruling said. "If
such a position were ever adopted by the courts, it would totally eviscerate
the limits placed on presidential authority to protect the citizenry's
individual liberties."

This is the second time the government's handling of Padilla has been
repudiated in federal court. In December 2003, a federal appeals court in
New York also held that Bush lacked authority to hold Padilla in a military
brig and ordered him released. But the Justice Department appealed the
decision, and the Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that Padilla's petition
for release should have been processed in federal court in South Carolina,
not New York.

The government has vowed to appeal. One of Padilla's attorneys, Donna
Newman, said the "court ruled that the president does not have the power to
seize an American citizen on American soil and hold him indefinitely without
a charge. That shouldn't be big news, but it is. ... It confirms our belief
that the Constitution is alive and well and kicking. The system works."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...padilla01.html

[Big-K]

Hol-eee crap. Thats all I have to say.