Imprisonment without trial.(THE LAST WORD)

The three-judge panel making up the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously agreed on September 9 that American citizens no longer have the right to trial by jury.

Led by J. Michael Luttig, the unanimous appellate court ruled that Brooklyn, New York, native Jose Padilla could be incarcerated indefinitely by the Bush administration without being tried for or even being formally charged with a crime. Padilla has already been in federal prison for more than three years. The court concluded that requiring the Bush administration to eventually proceed to "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 the 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."

Notwithstanding the fact that the Bush administration has already had Padilla in custody for more than three years and that any intelligence he may have would be extremely dated, the appellate court ruled that a circuit court decision granting this American citizen a trial "fails to ac cord the President the deference that is his when he acts pursuant to a broad delegation of authority from Congress."

After more than three years, how much discretion does the Bush administration get?

Judge Luttig answered by approving of Padilla's "detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities," despite the fact that the president has publicly stated that the duration of his "war on terror" will be at least "a generation." In other words, the president can imprison any American without trial or charges indefinitely, simply by accusing him of being an "enemy combatant."

So much for the unqualified guarantee in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which pledges that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."

One of the most troubling parts of the court's decision is that it is based upon assumptions. For instance, Judge Luttig asserted: