Terror case challengesWH strategy of unlimited power through AUMF

[bigtree]

Terror case challenges White House strategy-
An appeals court refused the government's request to have Jose Padilla transferred to Florida for a criminal trial.

"Suddenly, terror suspect Jose Padilla seems a lot more dangerous to the Bush administration.

It has nothing to do with his suspected involvement in Al Qaeda bomb plots, analysts say. Rather, the administration worries that the US Supreme Court might agree to hear Mr. Padilla's case and decide one of the most pressing constitutional issues in the war on terrorism. And by all appearances, government lawyers think they might lose.

>>>>It is not a minor matter. The claim of broad presidential power is a cornerstone of the administration's effort to restore what it views as the proper level of executive authority after decades of erosion following the Watergate scandal. Such robust, independent presidential power is said to be critical to safeguarding the country from a repeat of the 9/11 terror attacks.

>>>>The administration's actions create "an appearance that the government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court," writes Judge J. Michael Luttig in a 13-page order released on Wednesday.

"We believe that the issue is of sufficient national importance as to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court," Judge Luttig writes.

(The panel scolded Bush for manipulating them.)

"While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective might be."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1223/p02s01-uspo.html


The Supreme Court has already given deference to Bush, deciding that he has the right to detain Americans under the authority Congress gave him in the Authorization to Use Military Force for the 'war on terror'. Attorney General Gonzales cited the Supreme Court decision as he defended Bush's warrantless spying in claiming that the AUMF gave Bush the power to do anything he wants, legal or not, so long as he says his target is related to the terror threat.

What the panel is demonstrating is that Bush has maybe pushed the AUMF argument too far. If the panel acts and removes the ruling that allows Bush to hold Padilla, as they were set to before Bush tried to sidestep them in civilian court, it would represent not only a rebuke to their handling of Padilla. It would be a direct challenge to the broad interpretation of the SC ruling that Gonzales and Bush are relying on to claim unlimited power in their campaign against 'terror'.

The Supreme Court should welcome the chance to reign in what is certainly a ridiculously broad interpretation by Gonzales and Bush of their detention ruling.

[bigtree]

1. , Michael Luttig, is a conservative who was considered for the SC by Bush

He and his collegues want to know why the Bush decision to move Padilla to civilian court came only two business days before Padilla's appeal was scheduled to be filed with the Supreme Court.