Padilla vs. Hanft (2005), Essay Example

Background

The case entailed a petition for a ‘writ of certiorari’ in the US Court of Appeal. The court subsequently denied the petition for the write.  As such the court upheld the right of detention of a US Citizen (Jose Padilla) in consideration of the circumstances of the case. Padilla was classified as a material witness and the President moved to designate Padilla as an enemy combatant and thereby ordered his military detention.  The existing case resulted from Padilla filing a write of habeas corpus and insisted that he should either be formally charged or released. After the writ of certiorari the President insisted that Padilla be transferred from the military to the custody of the Attorney General in order to face criminal charges.

Legal Considerations

The Government filed a petition, upon the writ of certiorari, stating that Padilla’s petition should be considered as ‘moot’.  The mootness argument being based upon the premise that Padilla has now moved from military jurisdiction and is being charged with crimes in the Civil Courts. As such this complies with the relief that he sought. (Westlaw, 2006)

The upshot of this legal decision is that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has effectively upheld the right of the Government to detain any US citizen indefinitely,  based upon any classification that the Government choses to define as a war scenario.  It is obviously more complicated but this is what it appears on face value.

The Court of Appeals has interpreted this in rather an unusual way i.e. that all of the parties had previously agreed to the decision, despite the fact that Padilla’s lawyers were emphatically denying this.  Equally, the President does not have the legal right to hold a US Citizen a prisoner without the right of a trial. The Courts gave the impression of being intimidated by the presidential orders. The Government seemed to be bent on proving that Padilla was in the USA with the specific point of carrying out an act of terrorism. It was alleged that he was engaged in a plot to explode a so called ‘dirty bomb’ in New York. This assertion was subsequently dropped.  The Fourth Circuits decision seemed less based on what was happening on the domestic terrorism front and more focused on Padilla’s track record in Afghanistan. It was the concept of detention to prevent a return to the fight or battlefield, however there was no clear evidence that a battlefield even existed. (Steinberg, M. 2005).

Despite the fact that the Government has now lodged charges in the civil courts it does not prevent them from returning this case to where it was previously originated. Spencer vs. Kemna (1998).  This whole case raises the spectre of separation of powers between the Government and the courts and the question of the role and function of the courts. There also appears to be a twilight zone that exists between the powers of the military courts / tribunals and that of the civil courts.

Conclusions

The interesting point that makes the case stand up from the Government perspective is that we are deemed to be at war with Al Qaeda and Terrorism; since the attack on 9/11. However, to be at war requires the approval of Congress and no such claim has been made that the USA is at war with terrorism. In fact a legal definition of the word terrorism may well prove difficult to define. I.e. who is the legitimate target of the war?  Congress did however give the President the authority to pursue a legitimate campaign against the perpetrators of terror. So yet again this becomes another one of those legal grey areas. The fact that Padilla is a US Citizen suggests that he is at least entitled to due process under the US legal system.

Works Cited

Steinberg, M. (2005). Padilla vs. Hanft : A very dangerous decision. mrzine, 1.

Westlaw. (2006). Padilla vs. Hanft. Daily Journal, 1-3.