We conclude that the Secretary of Defense is a proper respondent and that the
District Court had jurisdiction. We also conclude that Padilla’s detention was not authorized by
Congress, and absent such authorization, the President does not have the power under Article II
of the Constitution to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen seized on American soil
outside a zone of combat.
"As this Court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center once stood,
we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al Qaeda poses to our country and of the responsibilities the President and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation. But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the President is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress.
Where, as here, the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and the domestic rule of law intersect, we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) (2000) (the “Non-Detention Act”) prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization. Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (“Joint Resolution”), passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization, and no exception to section 4001(a) otherwise exists. In light of this express prohibition, the government must undertake to show that Padilla’s detention can nonetheless be grounded in the President’s inherent constitutional powers."
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/padilla/padrums121803opn.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment