the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

lr_jkr9_12_08supremecourt.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« The Lingua Franca | Main | Corporate Law And Democracy Joins The Blogosphere »

May 08, 2007

Five Years On... How Significant is Padilla?

posted by Steve Vladeck

May 8 already has several claims to fame throughout history, including, perhaps most significantly, V-E Day -- May 8, 1945, on which German forces unconditionally surrendered, ending World War II in Europe.

Today is also a slightly more dubious anniversary. Five years ago today, May 8, 2002, Jose Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare Airport on a material witness warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In June 2002, Padilla was transferred to military custody, where he was detained as an "enemy combatant" until January 2006, at which time he was transferred to civilian authorities here in Miami pending trial on criminal charges.

Five years after his initial arrest, Padilla's criminal trial appears finally destined to actually take place, with jury selection concluding today and opening arguments scheduled to begin next Monday, May 14. The beginning of Padilla's criminal trial and the coincident anniversary leave me to wonder just how significant this trial actually will be, the ultimate result notwithstanding. I'm not nearly the criminal law or procedure expert that many of our readers are, and so won't deign to speak with any authority as to the merits or the likely result here. Rather, there are two points that I think bear mentioning, even if together they may be somewhat irreconcilable.

1. It's remarkable, in its own right, that the trial is actually happening--that Padilla got what, in effect, he had sought from the get-go, i.e., a meaningful day in court.

2. It's a troubling reflection upon the law "after 9/11" that it's taken five years to get to this point, without any final and determinative resolution of the merits of Padilla's military detention, and with the almost summary rejection of the argument that such a delay violates Padilla's right to a speedy trial. If Padilla is ultimately convicted, one could see this case as setting a dangerous precedent for the future, where the government can hold terrorism suspects in military custody up until the point that a court is set to rule on the merits of such detention, and then moot such a decision by indicting the individual in a civilian criminal court. [It is this reality against which Justice Kennedy was arguably inveighing in his opinion respecting the denial of certiorari in Padilla last January.]

Ultimately, I'm not sure these points are in as much tension as they might seem to be. The system is working the way it's supposed to; it just took the better part of five years to get there, and much will turn on the extent to which this case becomes precedent over the next five years.

Until then, happy anniversary.

Posted by Steve Vladeck at May 8, 2007 01:52 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2015.

Comments

Gee, the Volokh Conspiracy highlights a guy who murdered a policeman 25 freaking years ago, and who is as of today seeking (but maybe not getting) a stay of his death sentence. So it's taken at least 25 years for the dead cop to get justice, and you're worried about a measly 5 year delay for some low-life terrorist? I'm not.

Posted by: y81 at May 8, 2007 11:25 PM


What I imagine terrifies Prof. Vladeck is that if Padilla isn't who the government says he is (and it's not like the government never makes mistakes), then it's taken five years for Padilla to have a meaningful opportunity to say so. What's to stop the government from doing the same to me, or to you?

Posted by: anon at May 8, 2007 11:32 PM


Padilla of himself is insignicant; as an objective lesson he is immeasureable. Better, we should close Gitmo and move all these miscreants to prison barges at Diego Garcia with no windews, air conditioning or hot water. Oh, no Koran or prayer rug either. Further, Padilla should join them again, for he's already shown his commitments. "Anon", trouble not your heart if you've never gone to an al Qaeda training camp and taken the pledge. Relax sports fan, you and I aren't the problem.

Posted by: Keith at May 9, 2007 01:09 AM


> What's to stop the government from doing the same to me, or to you?

Riiight. Let me know when you have an actual example of the government picking random people up off the street and charging them with terrorism.

Until that day, can the hyperbolic and insufferable 'Today - Al-Queda, tomorrow - librarians!' nonsense.

You can spend the hours (... or is it mere minutes?) between now and the police state by doing some actual. you know, reading about what an enemy combatant designation is and what the difference is between that and an ordinary police arrestee.

You might even learn something. Naaah.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at May 9, 2007 02:31 AM


What's to stop the government from doing the same to me, or to you?

The absence of an authorization for the use of military force by Congress on a group we are a member of, for one.

Posted by: Rufus Lee King at May 9, 2007 05:28 AM


"What's to stop the government from doing the same to me, or to you?"

Nothing.

If you or I were travel to Pakistan or Afghanistan and train to kill innocent people en mass and then fly back here to kill as many innocent Americans as possible the government will hopefully do the same thing to you or I. Understand?

Posted by: Jose Chung at May 9, 2007 05:35 AM


As the line was drawn in Ex Parte Quririn (1942), it is key that Padilla was arrested shortly after arrival from overseas. This is not a "domestic" case.

Posted by: DWPittelli at May 9, 2007 06:41 AM


I can't understand why the Dept of Justice doesn't prosecute Padilla in Oklahoma City. You could drive a truck through the Federal Courthouse and not risk hitting anyone. There's dust on the Court Clerk's counter. We could use the tourism dollar.

Posted by: dennism at May 9, 2007 08:27 AM


To be fair, I think some of the comments are reflecting the same hyperbole that Ryan and Keith are accusing me (and Prof. Vladeck) of. My concern is fairly straightforward: _If_ Padilla isn't who the government says he is -- and I'm not saying he is, I'm just raising the possibility -- he has not yet had a chance to meaningfully rebut the evidence against him. And so, even though I am not a member of a group against whom Congress has authorized the use of military force, and even though I didn't fill out an "application form," if the government, through even the purest of motives, thought I was and I did, should it really take five years for me to have a chance to say otherwise?

Posted by: anon at May 9, 2007 09:18 AM


So let me get this straight...

If I work or visit overseas (say, an oil worker in Saudi Arabia, or the UAE)...
and I'm returning home on an international flight....
That's an international matter (Ex parte Quirin)

Then, if my name happens to resemble that of an actual terrorist, of a foreign intelligence agency just screws up, or if the government gets something wrong, I can be tortured (yes, Padilla was tortured) for 5 years before I get a day in court before I can even assert the government might have been mistaken. And this is when I am a US citizen?

No one has a problem with this? Even though Padilla wasn't 'captured' on a battlefield? Even though he was apprehended in the United States? Even though the Government's legal shellgame with Padilla finally drew the rebuke of one of the most conservative jurists and circuits around?

*sigh*

He may be guilty (although not of the dirty bomb plot, a the government acknowledges that was lie, or the apartment bombings, as the government acknowledgees that was a 'misrepresentation', but he may be a bad guy) but just charge the guy.

Posted by: loki13 at May 9, 2007 10:08 AM


I can see the point being made by Rufus, Jose, etc. about the unlikelihood of the average Joe being picked up and detained for five years in a military prison. Nonetheless, guys, you have to admit that it would be better to follow procedure than to set the precedent that the government can ignore it at their discretion. Yes, today, you and I might agree that this guy deserves to rot in jail if he really betrayed his country.

But today's "necessity" becomes tomorrow's convenience very, very easily when you've got a rogue prosecutor or "idealistic" FBI agent.

So I say we should've given this guy his day in court and *then* locked him up forever once the case against him was proven.

Posted by: Wildmonk at May 9, 2007 12:36 PM


loki13
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what torture was inflicted on poor Jose, and your sources. And surely the implication that that torture continued for 5 years isn't hyperbole? And when and where was it established that the "dirty bomb" allegation was a lie? Help us (the unwashed and uninformed commoners) out here.

Posted by: geezergeek at May 9, 2007 12:45 PM


1. Re: dirty bomb:
-There is nothing in the charges that were filed against Padilla about a dirty bomb. There is also no link to attacks being planned against US targets. Why the dirty bomb? KSM mentioned it, and it was a useful bone to throw. Since he has not been charged, and the only 'evidence' of a dirty bomb plot involving him was Ashcroft's initial news conference. the burden is not mine to establish he is not involved.

Perhaps 'lie' is too harsh. 'Made up' or 'Scare tactics' work just as well, with perhaps less malice imputed.

2. Torture:
Your definition of torture may vary. He was not (to my knowledge) placed in an iron maiden. He was subjected to sensory deprivation, stress positions, intesnive solitary confinement, and long periods of sleep deprivation. Five years of this contributed to such a serious decline of his mental health that it is questionable as to whether or not he is competent to face charges (see previous proceeding for competence against him). Federal government has conceded the truth of these statements in the court hearings to determine competency.

Posted by: loki13 at May 9, 2007 07:38 PM


The President of the United States of America can name anyone an "enemy combatant", with or with out evidence.

Once he does that, he does not need to tell anyone nor the person he has dubbed "enemy combatant".

The said person, who does not know what is going on, has not been told what is going on and is told he or she cannot ask for a lawywer, contact anyone or even what the future holds for them.

This person can be confined in isolation for the rest of their life, with no human rights guaranteed, never be told why they are there and never allowed to contact someone on the "outside".

This is all legal and it can happen to American Citizens thanks to the "Patriot Act" and any signing statement Bush adds to any bill passed or laws made.

Bush is a dictaor, a terrorist, a theocrat, a sociopath, a danger to the world, and has ruined America more than any President in the past.

This administration has created more enemies for Americans, and I would not be surprised if someone bombs us.

Corey Mondello
Boston, Massachusetts
www.CoreyMondello.com

Posted by: Corey Mondello at May 23, 2007 04:44 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Neil H. Buchanan
Miriam Cherry
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Paul Ohm
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman
Timothy Zick






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo PeƱalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member