| |
Search results for Padilla: 20 matches
2007-06-08 JUDGE DENIES ACCESS TO TAPES IN PADILLA TRIAL.
A judge overseeing the trial of Jose Padilla has refused media organizations' request to gain access to recordings of Padilla on the same day they are heard by the jury. U.S. District Judge Marcia Cook in Miami said the media's request would burden prosecutors and instead ordered the recordings to be made available the day after they are played in court. Media organizations, including The Associated Press, CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times, say the ruling will make it difficult for reporters on deadline and are considering an appeal.
|
2007-03-23 CIA WITNESS IN PADILLA TRIAL MAY TESTIFY IN DISGUISE.
The U.S. government wants a covert CIA operative to wear a wig, eyeglasses and facial hair to disguise his identity when he testifies about a critical piece of evidence against terror defendant Jose Padilla at his federal trial in Miami.
|
|
2004-06-28 SUPREME COURT ISSUES THREE MAJOR TERRORISM DECISIONS
The Supreme Court today handed down opinions in three cases concerning the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism. The Associated Press has this early report on the cases, which largely rejected the administration's arguments.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, only one of the nine justices (Thomas) fully accepted the Bush administration's position that the President has authority to order the indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen captured abroad on the basis of the President's assertion that the detainee is an enemy combatant. There was no opinion of the court, but a four-justice plurality said the detainee, Yaser Esam Hamdi, must at least be given a hearing, while two others would have gone farther and declared his detention improper. Interestingly, perhaps the strongest opinion for Hamdi was by Justice Scalia, who, joined by Justice Stevens, argued that, absent suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Hamdi must either be charged in federal court or released.
In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, which involves an American citizen captured in the U.S. and held as an enemy combatant, the Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds by a 5-4 vote. The citizen, Jose Padilla, must refile his case against a different defendant.
In Rasul v. Bush, the Court ruled 6-3 that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad and held in secret detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That holding directly repudiates the Bush administration's position.
|
2004-06-07 PADILLA\'S LAWYER CAN\'T DISCUSS HIM IN PUBLIC.
Attorney Donna R. Newman's options are extremely limited when it comes to defending her client Jose Padilla's interests in news stories. The government alleged last week that her high-profile client trained at al Qaeda terror camps in Afghanistan and came to the United States to blow up apartment buildings in New York and elsewhere, and perhaps set off a radioactive "dirty bomb." Under ordinary circumstances, prosecutors would be legally required to file an indictment detailing these accusations. Newman pondered her legal options for responding - and concluded they hovered between few and none.
"I listened to [the prosecutor] and thought: 'Okay, that's his opening statement,' " Newman told The Washington Post. "Now when do I get to speak up? Everything my client says to me is classified. I can't offer any defense. . . All I know is we've come a long way since the Magna Carta."
|
2004-06-07 PROFESSOR QUESTIONS GOVERNMENTS MOTIVES IN RELEASING PADILLA INFORMATION.
In a commentary in the Los Angeles Times, George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley criticizes the Justice Department's actions last week in finally detailing the case against Jose Padilla. "After insisting for two years that details of the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen accused of being an "enemy combatant," had to be kept secret even from the federal courts, the Justice Department suddenly released detailed information on his interrogations and their results," Turley wrote. "What made this press conference particularly notable was its intended audience: the U.S. Supreme Court."
|
2004-06-04 A FREE SHOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN PADILLA CASE.
An editorial in The Washington Post criticizes the government for delivering a "broadside smear against which no defense is possible" in the Jose Padilla case. Earlier this week, the Justice Department released a summary of allegations about Padilla's alleged plotting of terrorist acts. But the allegations were not contained in an indictment or any other document subject to legal challenge, the Post notes. Indeed, Padilla and his attorney - who reportedly has had only two conversations with him - are barred from commenting at all, leaving the government free to level serious charges against a U.S. citizen in public, without the possibility of a response.
|
2004-06-02 GOVERNMENT RELEASES INFORMATION ON PADILLA.
Under pressure to explain its indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen, the government yesterday released some details of its allegations against Jose Padilla. The declassified documents, approved for release Friday by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, are available here. The Washington Post reports that the release of information is unlikely to have much impact on the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Padilla's appeal, which has probably been voted on and assigned already. Instead, the move seems to be aimed at satisfying the concerns of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who had asked the Bush administration for information about the case, as well as influencing the court of public opinion, the Post says.
|
2004-04-29 HIGH COURT HEARS ARGUMENT ON MILITARY DETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENS.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in the cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, American citizens who are being held indefinitely in secret military detention on the basis of the Bush administration's assertion that they are "enemy combatants." Complete audio of both arguments is available here. Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times reports that a majority of the justices expressed some concern about the administration's position - which, if accepted, would give the President almost unlimited power to detain citizens secretly, indefinitely, and without charges - but that "it was far from clear" by the end of the hearing that the Court would intervene to stop the practice. Charles Lane of The Washington Post and David Savage of the Los Angeles Times also found the Court hard to read. For a more irreverent take, see Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, who points out the remarkable claim of Bush lawyer Paul Clement, during the Hamdi argument, that the military interrogation process itself provides a detainee with adequate due process.
|
2004-04-27 EDITORIAL URGES COURT TO FIND \"ENEMY COMBATANT\" DETENTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In an editorial today, The New York Times urges the Supreme Court to find unconstitutional the detentions of American citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, whose cases will be heard by the Court tomorrow morning. The Times argues that the government has set a "frighteningly low standard for itself, saying it needs only 'some evidence' that a citizen has 'associated' with a terrorist organization 'bent on hostile acts' to hold him indefinitely." The cases present the issue of whether the President has the authority, as part of his constitutional war-making powers, to order the secret, indefinite detention in military custody of U.S. citizens, without charges, on the basis of an assertion that they are "enemy combatants."
|
2004-02-20 SUPREME COURT TAKES PADILLA APPEAL
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to hear the case of Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago and held indefinitely and, until recently, without access to counsel, as an "enemy combatant." The court is likely to hear argument in late April in Padilla's case as well as that of Yaser Esam Hamdi, the other U.S. citizen known to have been detained as an enemy combatant. Padilla's attorney, Andrew Patel, told the Associated Press, "Because the president said 'I think you're a bad man,' he's been in jail for two years. He hasn't had a chance to defend himself. That's not the way we do things in this country, when we're at war or when we're at peace."
|
2004-02-12 PADILLA GIVEN ACCESS TO A LAWYER
The Defense Department announced yesterday that "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who has been held in a navy brig without charges for 18 months, will finally be permitted to meet with his lawyers. As Reuters observes, the announcement came just an hour before the government filed a Supreme Court brief in Padilla's case. Solicitor General Ted Olson took the opportunity to assert in a footnote that the development renders moot Padilla's arguments over access to counsel. Padilla's meetings will be subject to undefined "appropriate security restrictions," which could include eavesdropping by military officials.
|
2004-01-09 SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR "ENEMY COMBATANT" CASE
The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to decide whether a U.S. citizen detained abroad in the war on terrorism has the usual legal and constitutional rights due U.S. citizens, the Associated Press reports. The high court accepted review of the appeal of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S.-born man who was captured during the fighting in Afghanistan. The Court did not address whether it will consolidate the case with that of alleged enemy combatant Jose Padilla, as Solicitor General Theodore Olsen has urged. The administration has not yet filed its petition for review in the Padilla case.
|
2003-12-18 PRESIDENT CANNOT HOLD PADILLA AS ENEMY COMBATANT, COURT SAYS.
A federal court of appeals in New York City (2d Cir.) ruled today, by a 2-1 vote, that President Bush lacks the authority, under Article II of the Constitution, to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen "seized on American soil outside a zone of combat." The court's 53-page decision means that Jose Padilla, an American citizen whom the government has accused of plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb" dispersing radioactive materials, must be released from military custody within 30 days, at which point he may be transferred to civilian authorities or held as a material witness. The government had argued that the President has the authority to designate any person as an "enemy combatant" and to detain that person indefinitely without access to civilian courts. Early press accounts, such as this report from the Associated Press, do not indicate whether the government has said it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though an appeal seems likely.
|
2003-11-21 EDITORIAL CALLS ADMINISTRATION'S ENEMY COMBATANT POLICY "A MOCKERY."
A New York Times editorial this week criticizes the Bush administration's position that it can hold American citizens in secret as long as it wants, without access to lawyers, simply by calling them "enemy combatants." A New York federal appeals court heard a challenge to that policy this week by the so-called dirty bomber, Jose Padilla. "The administration's position makes a mockery of the Constitution and puts every American's liberty at risk. It is important that the court strike it down, and give Mr. Padilla the rights he has been denied," The Times said.
|
2003-11-17 FEDERAL APPEALS COURT HEARS "ENEMY COMBATANT" CASE TODAY
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City (2nd Cir.) today heard arguments in the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen who has been detained without charges and without any contact with the news media in a naval brig in South Carolina since June 2002. Mark Hamblett offers a detailed analysis of the appeal in the New York Law Journal. As he points out, the government, led by Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement, is taking the broad position that the President has nearly absolute authority to detain anyone that he regards as an "enemy combatant" -- even an American citizen -- and to deny the person most of the protections of American law. The government has appealed U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey's order that lawyers for Padilla must, at a minimum, be permitted to meet with him.
|
2003-07-30 DETAINEE VANISHES INTO A "BLACK HOLE."
New York attorney Donna Newman serves on a panel of private practice attorneys who occasionally take on indigent clients facing federal charges. She accepts new cases two days a year. In May 2002, instead of taking on someone accused of fraud or drug trafficking, she was assigned Jose Padilla.
Padilla, arrested by the FBI at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, had been flown east to appear before a grand jury as a material witness. The subject he supposedly had knowledge of - an al Qaeda plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States - sounded scarier than most. Still, for Newman, the procedures seemed largely routine - until June 9, 2002, when President Bush declared her client an enemy combatant and Padilla was hauled off to a brig in South Carolina and disappeared into a "black hole." The pivotal question, the Washington Post reports, is: Can an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, be held incommunicado in a military prison indefinitely -- without being charged with a crime, without access to a lawyer?
|
|
2003-06-12 COURT AGREES TO EXPEDITE PADILLA HEARING.
CNN reports that the federal court of appeals in New York (2nd Cir.) has agreed to expedite the appeal of Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber" held as an enemy combatant for over a year now in a Navy brig without a trial. The appeals hearing, however, still will not take place until at least October, the network reported. Padilla is challenging the government's decision that he doesn't have the right to meet with lawyers because he is not in the criminal justice system.
Defense attorney Donna Newman complained about the lack of access to her client. "There is the criminal justice system. There is a military justice system. He is in neither," she said. "A citizen is still being held incommunicado without charges being filed, based on the government's assertion that they can do it." A federal judge had ruled that Padilla should be able to meet with lawyers to contest the "enemy combatant" designation, and the government appealed.
|
2003-05-12 THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND CIVIL LIBERTIES EXAMINED.
A recent Time magazine article looks at recent Justice Department initiatives on civil liberites and the war on terror. The piece examines John Ashcroft's recent incarceration of Haitian refugees, the ongoing legal battles over the rights of Guantanamo prisioners and severe restrictions placed on accused terrorist Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen. In a related story, Time reports that librarians are strongly opposing recent provisions enacted in the U.S.A. Patriot Act which makes it easier for federal agents to search library records. Claiming that this infringes on their patrons' personal privacy, libiraries have begun destroying certain records to in an effort to ensure that the government will not gain access to them.
|
2003-03-26 APPEAL IN PADILLA DETENTION.
The government will appeal a ruling by a federal district judge permitting Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber," to consult an attorney while in military custody. Padilla has been detained for nine months as an enemy combatant.
|
2003-03-12 TERRORISM ACCESS ISSUES TO THE FOREFRONT.
This is shaping up to be quite a week for terrorism access issues. The detainees at Guantanamo Bay lost their bid to get into court to challenge their detentions after the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., decided it couldn't hear the case. (See coverage in the New York Times (editorial) and Boston Globe; the opinion is also online.) But the decision in the case of Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber," drew more attention due to the judge's sharply worded criticism of how the case has been handled. "Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel, and it is certainly not an invitation to conduct a further 'dialogue' about whether he will be permitted to do so," the judge wrote. "It is a ruling -- a determination -- that he will be permitted to do so." (See the Washington Post editorial; coverage in The New York Times and the New York Law Journal; and read the court's opinion.) And from Florida comes a report in the Miami Daily Business Review about a sealed civil case involving a post-September 11 detainee that has disappeared from the court docket entirely. After a calendar reference was removed, the newspaper reports, "the appellate court's computer records were altered to remove from public view any information about the case, No. 02-11060. In between, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit closed its courtroom March 5 to the public and the press to hear arguments in the sealed case. . . . Also unusual: The public docket for the Southern District of Florida, where the case apparently originated, is devoid of any mention of either Bellahouel or his case."
|
Search string:
Padilla
Searches:
1: (Array hits)
Matches:
Array items
|
