José Padilla (alleged terrorist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is a U.S. citizen accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first three years of his detention he was held without charge; he is now charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas."

Press accounts uniformly refer to him as José Padilla rather than as al-Muhajir.

The U.S. administration has in the past described him as an illegal enemy combatant, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of US law, nor protection under the Geneva Convention.

Contents

[edit] Life before imprisonment

Padilla's parents moved to the United States from Puerto Rico. He was born in Brooklyn, New York and became a member of the Latin Kings street gang after moving to Chicago, Illinois, and being arrested several times. During his gang years, he maintained several aliases, such as José Rivera, José Alicea, José Hernandez, and José Ortiz. He was convicted of aggravated assault.[1] After serving his last jail sentence, he converted to Islam and professed a nonviolent philosophy. He went to the Masjid Al-Iman mosque in Fort Lauderdale, Florida with Adham Amin Hassoun, who at that time was the registered agent for Benevolence International Foundation, a charitable trust which U.S. investigators have accused of funding terrorist activities. Padilla and Hassoun became friends. U.S. authorities accuse Hassoun of consorting with radical Islamic fundamentalists, including Al-Qaeda. Hassoun was arrested in 2002 for overstaying his visa. [1]

[edit] Arrest

Padilla traveled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. On his return, he was arrested by federal agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002, and held as a material witness on a warrant issued in the state of New York stemming from the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant," and Padilla was transferred to a military brig in South Carolina without any notice to his attorney or family. The order legally justified the detention using AUMF[2], which authorized the President to "use all necessary force against . . . such nations, organizations, or persons" and by opining that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified an enemy combatant. (This opinion is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of ex parte Quirin, a case involving the detention of a group of German-Americans working for Nazi Germany).[3]

According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, President Bush's order for Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" was for these reasons:

  1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization with which the United States is at war";
  2. He had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
  3. He had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
  4. He was a continuing threat to American security.

[edit] The Legal Battle over Habeas Corpus

Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that 1) Padilla's lawyer was not a proper "Next Friend" to sign and file the petition on Padilla's behalf, 2) Commander Marr of the South Carolina brig, and not U.S. Secretary Rumsfeld, should have been named as the respondent to the petition, and 3) the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over the named respondent Secretary Rumsfeld who resides in Virginia. The New York District Court disagreed with the government's arguments and dismissed its motion. However, the court further declared that President Bush had constitutional and statutory authority to designate and detain American citizens as "enemy combatants" and that Padilla was entitled to challenge his "enemy combatant" designation and detention in the course of his habeas corpus petition. Since the New York District Court had in some way disappointed all sides of this legal battle, both Padilla and the government made an interlocutory appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On December 18, 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that:

  1. Padilla's lawyer is a proper "Next Friend" to sign and file the habeas corpus petition on Padilla's behalf because she, as a member of the bar, had a professional duty to defend her client's interests. Further, she had a significant attorney-client relationship with Padilla and far from being some zealous "intruder" or "uninvited meddler".
  2. Secretary Rumsfeld can be named as the respondent to Padilla's habeas corpus petition, even though it is South Carolina's Commander Marr who had immediate physical custody of Padilla, because there have been past cases where national-level officials have been named as respondents to such petitions.
  3. The New York District Court had personal jurisdiction over Secretary Rumsfeld even though Rumsfeld resides in Virginia and not New York because New York's "long arm statute" is applicable to Secretary Rumsfeld, who was responsible for Padilla's physical transfer from New York to South Carolina.
  4. Despite the legal precedent set by ex parte Quirin, "the President lacked inherent constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to detain American citizens on American soil outside a zone of combat". The 2nd Circuit Court relied on the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579), where the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that President Truman, during the Korean War years, could not use his position and power as Commander-in-Chief, created under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, to seize the nation's steel mills on the eve of a nation-wide steelworkers' strike. The extraordinary government power to curb civil rights and liberties during crisis periods, such as times of war, lies with Congress and not the President. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the President, with the power to suspend the right of habeas corpus during a period of rebellion or invasion.

Without clear Congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen as an "illegal enemy combatant" and the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days[4]. However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On February 20, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal. The Supreme Court heard the case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, in April 2004, but on June 28, 2004, the court dismissed the petition on technical grounds[5]: First, it was improperly filed in federal court in New York instead of South Carolina, where Padilla was actually being detained. Second, the Court held that the petition was incorrect in naming the Secretary of Defense as the respondent instead the Commanding Officer of the naval brig who was Padilla's actual custodian for habeas corpus purposes.

The case was refiled and a decision in Padilla's favor was issued in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the government's petition to have his case heard directly by the court, instead of the appeal being first heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig. In the ruling, Luttig cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following the September 11, 2001 attacks, attacks in New York City, as well as the June 2004 ruling concerning Yaser Hamdi. Attorneys for Padilla, plus a host of civil liberties organizations, blasted the detention as illegal. They said it could lead to the military holding anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library. The Bush Administration denied the allegations.

But as the Congressional military authorization [2] pertained only to nations, organizations or persons whom the President "determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11, 2001 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons", others argue that this kind of Congressional limitation to the military power would assure an appropriately narrow range of detainees and the power to detain would last only so long as the Congressional authorization was not revoked or remained in effect by its terms. Also the Yaser Hamdi Supreme Court case (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) upon which the court relied requires a habeas corpus hearing for any alleged enemy combatant who demands one, claiming not to be such a combatant, which would also place additional judicial or perhaps military tribunal oversight over each such detention.

However, one of the provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 enacted on October 17, 2006 states: "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding any other law [emphasis added] (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter."

[edit] The Indictment: Habeas Corpus Satisfied?

On November 22, 2005, CNN's front page broke the news that Padilla had finally been indicted on charges he "conspired to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas." [2] Many news sources correlated the indictment's timing as avoidance of an impending Supreme Court hearing on the Padilla case: "the administration is seeking to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over the issue". [3] [4] [5] None of the original allegations put forward by the U.S. government three years ago, the claims that held Padilla in the majority in solitary confinement throughout that period, were part of the indictment: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced Padilla is being removed from military custody and charged with a series of crimes" and "There is no mention in the indictment of Padilla's alleged plot to use a dirty bomb in the United States. There is also no mention that Padilla ever planned to stage any attacks inside the country. And there is no direct mention of Al-Qaeda. Instead the indictment lays out a case involving five men who helped raise money and recruit volunteers in the 1990s to go overseas to countries including Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo. Padilla, in fact, appears to play a minor role in the conspiracy. He is accused of going to a jihad training camp in Afghanistan but the indictment offers no evidence he ever engaged in terrorist activity." [6] [7] Considering Padilla was held for years in military custody with no formal charges brought, many were shocked by this move by the George W. Bush presidential administration [8] [9] [10] [11], and some reasoned [12] that a repeat of such a process would allow the U.S. government to detain citizens indefinitely without presenting the cause that would eventually be tried. A transfer to civilian court was denied the U.S. Administration by a federal appeals court in December 2005. The court recognized "shifting tactics in the case threatens [the government's] credibility with the courts". [13] This was countered by Solicitor General Paul Clement: the federal appeals court decision "defies both law and logic," he stated in a request to the Supreme Court for immediate transfer on December 30, 2005, [14] one day after Padilla's lawyers filed a petition of their own charging the U.S. President of overstepping his authority. [15]

On January 3, 2006, the United States Supreme Court granted a Bush administration request to transfer Padilla from military to civilian custody.[16] Padilla was transferred to federal prison in Miami from the Navy brig in Charleston while the Supreme Court decided whether to accept his appeal of the government's authority to keep citizens it designates "enemy combatants" in open-ended military confinement without benefit of trial. [17] He pled not guilty to the charges issued in Miami.

On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari, to hear Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit Court's decision that the President had the power to designate him and detain him as an "enemy combatant" without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.

[edit] Allegation of torture during imprisonment

A legal brief filed on behalf of Padilla alleges that during his imprisonment he has been subjected to torture, including sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.[6]

George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, reports that Padilla's mental faculties have been so impaired by the conditions of incarceration and interrogation:[7]

"The forensic psychiatrist who examined him says that he 'does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, ie, post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation'."

[edit] Names

According to his attorney and others, Padilla has changed the pronunciation of his family name from the typical puh-de-yah (with the ll vocalized as /ʎ/, as in quesadilla and other Spanish words and names) to puh-DILL-uh [18] [19]. (See also Ll.)

Padilla's Muslim name Abdullah al-Muhajir, which he began using during his jail sentence, literally means "Abdullah the migrant". "al-Muhajir" is a laqab (epithet) rather than an adopted family name. Padilla is not related or known to be connected in any way to Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

[edit] Padilla and speculation about the Oklahoma City bombing

Following Padilla's arrest, several media outlets pointed to a resemblance between Padilla and police sketches of an Oklahoma City bombing suspect known as "John Doe No. 2," although no official sources have connected him with that event. However, some commentators, such as talk radio host Glenn Beck, continue to subscribe to the theory Padilla was "John Doe No. 2" and that he was involved with the plot at Oklahoma City. Also, both Padilla and Timothy McVeigh had lived in the greater Fort Lauderdale, Florida area. [20] [21] [22]

A related conspiracy theory claims he was likely a CIA agent and that the fact he is being held as an enemy combatant is part of a cover up of his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombings while a CIA agent. [23]

[edit] Timeline

  • March 2002: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida's operational planner and organizer, allegedly suggests Jose Padilla target up to three high-rise buildings that use natural gas with a radiological "dirty bomb."
  • May 8, 2002: Padilla arrives at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after an overseas trip, carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives. He is arrested on a material witness warrant.
  • June 9, 2002: Padilla is listed as an "enemy combatant" and transferred to the Defense Department.
  • Dec. 18, 2003: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals orders Padilla to be released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts.
  • Jan. 22, 2004: The 2nd Circuit suspends its ruling after the Bush administration appeals the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • March 3, 2004: Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002.
  • June 28, 2004: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York.
  • Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.
  • Oct. 25, 2005: Padilla appeals the appeals court decision to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration's deadline for filing arguments is Nov. 28.
  • Nov. 22, 2005: Padilla is indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. The charges do not include any allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot or other plans for U.S. attacks.
  • Dec. 21, 2005: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig chastises the administration for using one set of facts to justify holding Padilla without charges and another set to persuade a grand jury in Florida to indict him. Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts."
  • Jan. 4, 2006: Supreme Court agrees to let the military transfer Padilla to Miami to face criminal charges, overruling the 4th Circuit.
  • Jan. 12, 2006: Padilla pleads not guilty to charges alleging he was part of a secret network that supported Muslim terrorists. The charges could bring a life in prison sentence.
  • April 3, 2006: Supreme Court rejects Padilla's appeal, although Chief Justice John Roberts and other key justices said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ Feds arrest man linked to 'dirty bomb' suspect June 15, 2002 CNN MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Federal officials in Miami told CNN Saturday they had arrested a south Florida Muslim activist with ties to "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.
  2. ^ a b US Congress' joint resolution of September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF"); public law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224
  3. ^ Authorization for Use of Military Force: Padilla v. Bush: Jose Padilla under the Joint Resolution The Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, issued by the Syracuse University College of Law
  4. ^ Appeals Court Says Bush Can't Hold U.S. Citizen Published on Thursday, December 18, 2003 by Reuters
  5. ^ Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426
  6. ^ " The Bush administration's torture of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla", Glenn Greenwald
  7. ^ George Monbiot, Routine and systematic torture is at the heart of America's war on terror, The Guardian, December 11, 2006 - - mirror

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29_eb3c.html"
In other languages