Saturday, September 10, 2005
Luttig for Justice
I just finished reading Padilla v. Hanft, the 4th Circuit case just written by Judge Michael Luttig which reversed the poorly reasoned, lower court ruling that Jose Padilla, sent here by Al Qaeda to blow up apartment buildings, could not be detained like a prisoner of war, but had to have charges brought against him. Judge Luttig, and the other two on the panel, said the President could do just exactly what he has done; take the traitorous American citizen prisoner and keep him in jail until the war's won (OK, he didn't use those words).
It is a well reasoned decision, so well thought out in fact that Luttig jumps to the head of the line, in my book, for nomination and appointment to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor.* It turns out Luttig was at UVa Law School when I was attending grad school there but I didn't know him. (Maybe I saw him at Graduate Unhappy Hour). What really impressed me was how clear headed Luttig was discussing the real problems associated with bringing an enemy belligerent to trial during the war (and I don't entirely mind saying that I had the same thoughts in an earlier posting here):
We are convinced, in any
event, that the availability of criminal process cannot be
determinative of the power to detain, if for no other reason than
that criminal prosecution may well not achieve the very purpose
for which detention is authorized in the first place -- the
prevention of return to the field of battle. Equally important,
in many instances criminal prosecution would impede the Executive
in its efforts to gather intelligence from the detainee and to
restrict the detainee’s communication with confederates so as to
ensure that the detainee does not pose a continuing threat to
national security even as he is confined –- impediments that
would render military detention not only an appropriate, but also
the necessary, course of action to be taken in the interest of
national security.
The Washington Post, of course, urges us to do the exact wrong thing--indict Jose Padilla. If you can stomach it, here's what passes for Democrat logic.
* Although I still hold out hopes for Janice Rogers Brown. One of these days black Americans have to realize that it is Republicans who are trying to raise them up and Democrats who are trying to keep them down.
It is a well reasoned decision, so well thought out in fact that Luttig jumps to the head of the line, in my book, for nomination and appointment to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor.* It turns out Luttig was at UVa Law School when I was attending grad school there but I didn't know him. (Maybe I saw him at Graduate Unhappy Hour). What really impressed me was how clear headed Luttig was discussing the real problems associated with bringing an enemy belligerent to trial during the war (and I don't entirely mind saying that I had the same thoughts in an earlier posting here):
We are convinced, in any
event, that the availability of criminal process cannot be
determinative of the power to detain, if for no other reason than
that criminal prosecution may well not achieve the very purpose
for which detention is authorized in the first place -- the
prevention of return to the field of battle. Equally important,
in many instances criminal prosecution would impede the Executive
in its efforts to gather intelligence from the detainee and to
restrict the detainee’s communication with confederates so as to
ensure that the detainee does not pose a continuing threat to
national security even as he is confined –- impediments that
would render military detention not only an appropriate, but also
the necessary, course of action to be taken in the interest of
national security.
The Washington Post, of course, urges us to do the exact wrong thing--indict Jose Padilla. If you can stomach it, here's what passes for Democrat logic.
* Although I still hold out hopes for Janice Rogers Brown. One of these days black Americans have to realize that it is Republicans who are trying to raise them up and Democrats who are trying to keep them down.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:43 PM 
