Contact Information: Contact: Judicial Watch 202-646-5188
Judicial Watch Amicus Curiae Brief: Courts Should Not Impede President's Ability to Obtain Wartime Advice
Backed by Yale Law School, "Dirty Bomber" Jose Padilla Sued Former Bush Official for Recommending "Enemy Combatant" Designation, Seeks Damages
| Source: Judicial Watch
WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - December 4, 2009) - Judicial Watch, the public interest group
that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today
that it has filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing for the reversal of a lower court's
decision allowing to go forward a suit against former Bush Deputy Assistant
Attorney General John Yoo filed by a Yale Law School human rights clinic on
behalf of "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla.
Padilla, who is currently serving a seventeen-year sentence in federal
prison after being convicted of providing material support to terrorists,
among other criminal offenses, maintains that his constitutional rights
were violated when President Bush designated him as an "enemy combatant"
and ordered his detention by the U.S. military, allegedly at the
recommendation of Yoo. Padilla is asking the court to award him monetary
damages for these alleged violations of his rights.
According to Judicial Watch's brief, filed on November 28, 2009, the U.S.
District Court erred by refusing to dismiss this lawsuit, giving rise to
serious concerns about "separation of powers":
"Judicial Watch's primary concern is that the District Court failed to
consider adequately the weighty separation of powers concerns that arise
whenever the Judicial Branch seeks to involve itself in the presidential
decision-making process. These separation of powers concerns are all the
more significant when the decision-making process involves national
security and the exercise of the President's powers as Commander in Chief.
If the decision is allowed to stand, it would represent an unprecedented
expansion by the Judicial Branch into the President's ability to receive
wartime advice from his advisors."
Padilla, an American citizen, moved to Egypt in 1998 and spent the next
several years traveling throughout the Middle East. According to U.S.
intelligence officials, Padilla was introduced to senior Osama bin Laden
lieutenant Abu Zubaydah in 2001. He then received training from Al Qaeda
operatives, returning to the United States allegedly to conduct
reconnaissance and to build and detonate a "radiological dispersal device"
(also known as a "dirty bomb") within the United States, possibly in
Washington, D.C. On May 8, 2002, authorities arrested Padilla at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport. On June 9, 2002, President Bush designated
Padilla an "enemy combatant" and transferred him to a military prison.
Specifically, President Bush determined that Padilla "posed a continuing,
present and grave danger to the national security of the
United States," and that "detention of Mr. Padilla is necessary to prevent
him from aiding Al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States or its
armed forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens."
"The District Court should never have allowed this case go forward. Are the
courts really going to allow a lawsuit filed by a terrorist to dictate how
the President of the United States obtains advice and makes decisions
during wartime? If the lower court's decision is allowed to stand, it will
bring chaos to the presidential decision-making process and will surely
compromise our national security," said Judicial Watch President Tom
Fitton. "And it is a scandal that Yale Law School would lend its support to
a known terrorist in this litigation."
Visit www.JudicialWatch.org to read Judicial Watch's Amicus Curiae Brief.