Financial Times (UK): White House caught in legal bind By Stephanie Kirchgaessnerin Washington Published: December 10 2005 02:00
The Bush administration yesterday found itself in an awkward legal predicament after it was forced to ask an appeals court to set aside a ruling that supported the administration's right to detain US citizens without charge.
The White House said in a filing to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in Virginia that a September decision by the three-judge panel that upheld the government's right to detain Jose Padilla, an American accused but not charged in 2002 with planning to detonate on US soil a radioactive "dirty bomb", was "moot" following Mr Padilla's indictment on criminal charges last month.
The administration's decision to charge Mr Padilla with conspiracy to murder individuals abroad and support terrorists - a move that transferred his case from the jurisdiction of the military to the Department of Justice - was widely seen as an attempt by the White House to avoid the case being brought before the Supreme Court.
Avoiding a review would have left in place a strong legal precedent in support of the administration's policy.
But last week the Virginia court unexpectedly asked the government to explain why its charges against Mr Padilla differed from the original allegations against him, including claims that Mr Padilla was planning to blow up buildings in New York, before it would agree to Mr Padilla's transfer.
The White House said yesterday in its court filing that the fact that the charges involved "different facts" from those relied upon to defend Mr Padilla's three-and-a-half-year detainment was "not consequential", and requested that he be transferred "as soon as possible".
It also said concerns that Mr Padilla could be redesignated as an enemy combatant - even if he was found not guilty on criminal charges - were "hypothetical", and therefore not worthy of a review by courts.
Mr Padilla's attorneys have said that the risk of their client being detained again without charge meant the case was "capable of repetition, yet evading review" - a circumstance that allows the Supreme Court to take on the case even if it is "moot".
Find this article at: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0353ab72-6923-11da-bd30-0000779e2340,ft_acl=,s01=1.html