PDA

View Full Version : Federal Court Rules in Favor of 'Enemy Combatant'




zimv20
Jun 11, 2007, 03:35 PM
wash post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061101135.html?hpid=moreheadlines)


A federal appeals court today ruled that the U.S. government cannot indefinitely imprison a U.S. resident on suspicion alone, and ordered the military to either charge Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri with his alleged terrorist crimes in a civilian court or release him.

The opinion is a major blow to the Bush administration's assertion that as the president seeks to combat terrorism, he has exceptionally broad powers to detain without charges both foreign citizens abroad and those living legally in the United States. The government is expected to appeal the 2-1 decision handed down by a three-judge panel of the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is in Richmond, Va.

The decision is a victory for civil libertarians and Marri, a citizen of Qatar who was a legal resident of the United States and studying in Peoria, Ill., when he was arrested in December 2001 as a "material witness." He was detained initially in civilian prisons, then transferred to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. , where he has been confined for the past five years.

The government argued that Marri, who had met with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, was sent to the United States for a second wave of terrorist attacks.

The appeals panel said President Bush overstretched his authority by declaring Marri an "enemy combatant," because the Constitution protects both U.S. citizens and legal residents such as Marri from an unchecked military and from being detained without charges and a fair trial. The court rejected the administration's claim that it was not relevant that Marri was arrested in the United States and was living here legally on a student visa.

"The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention," the panel found. "Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them 'enemy combatants.' "

Marri is the last of three U.S. residents who had been imprisoned at the Charleston brig.

Two others have since left the brig. Yaser Esam Hamdi -- a U.S. citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan -- was held for almost three years by the military without charges. He was released and sent to his native Saudi Arabia after the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that U.S. citizens must be provided with a trial by an impartial court. Jose Padilla, originally accused by the government of being a "dirty bomber," had also been held in the brig. But the government, just before a Supreme Court hearing on the case, chose to file much less substantial criminal charges against Padilla in November 2005 and transferred him to a civilian prison in Miami in January 2006.

"This is an important victory for the rights of all individuals in this country to be free from unchecked executive detention power," said Jonathan Hafetz, al-Marri's lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school. "If the government seeks to detain someone, it has the burden of producing its evidence in a court of law."

Judge Henry Hudson, who dissented from the panel, said he agreed there was little precedent but said Bush did have the power to determine that al-Marri was an enemy combatant under Congress's Authorization to Use Military Force.

"Although al-Marri was not personally engaged in armed conflict with U.S. forces, he is the type of stealth warrior used by al Qaeda to perpetrate terrorist acts against the United states," Hudson wrote. "There is little doubt" that al-Marri was in the country to aid in hostile attacks on the United States.

Marri's brother, Jarallah al-Marri was captured in January 2002 and transported to military detention at United States Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

well, at least one branch of gov't is still checking some over-reaching executive powers...



FFTT
Jun 11, 2007, 11:55 PM
Even the worst criminal is permitted to have their day in court and to answer
the charges against them.

Otherwise, anyone could accuse another person of something terrible out of spite or propaganda induced paranoia making their life miserable.

Motley
Jun 12, 2007, 08:18 AM
But how are they supposed to protect our freedoms without being able to take them away at a moments notice?

Swarmlord
Jun 12, 2007, 09:24 AM
He was a legal resident, so the court did what it was supposed to do. It's called checks and balances. Don't look for those militants they picked up over in Afganistan getting the same break real soon though.

leekohler
Jun 12, 2007, 10:47 AM
He was a legal resident, so the court did what it was supposed to do. It's called checks and balances. Don't look for those militants they picked up over in Afganistan getting the same break real soon though.

Give me a break- you don't believe in checks and balances anymore than I believe in Jesus. ;)

biturbomunkie
Jun 12, 2007, 10:49 AM
king george teh great isn't above the law??

IJ Reilly
Jun 12, 2007, 11:19 AM
The decision will be appealed by the Justice Department and probably overturned, according to the articles I've read. Then if it gets to the Supreme Court, it will face at least four "strict constructionist" justices who won't be able to find the words habeas corpus in the Constitution using both hands.

skunk
Jun 12, 2007, 11:26 AM
Then if it gets to the Supreme Court, it will face at least four "strict constructionist" justices who won't be able to find the words habeas corpus in the Constitution using both hands.None of them has both hands free.

Swarmlord
Jun 12, 2007, 11:43 AM
Give me a break- you don't believe in checks and balances anymore than I believe in Jesus. ;)

Actually I do, but I don't believe that the leader of one branch of the government should anticipate how another branch may react to a decision and not proceed. The system works. To do otherwise encourages stagnation and indecision.

skunk
Jun 12, 2007, 12:54 PM
The system works.Funny guy.

Ugg
Jun 12, 2007, 03:45 PM
Don't look for those militants they picked up over in Afganistan getting the same break real soon though.

Oh, you mean the ones that were sold to the Americans, just so we could show that we had someone to blame?

How many years has it been now? How many have been charged with a crime? How many have been sent home?

Looks like the system has failed pretty much everyone, ourselves included.

solvs
Jun 13, 2007, 03:19 AM
He was a legal resident, so the court did what it was supposed to do. It's called checks and balances. Don't look for those militants they picked up over in Afganistan getting the same break real soon though.

Even if they're innocent?

atszyman
Jun 13, 2007, 08:36 AM
Even if they're innocent?

They were apprehended in Afghanistan, they can't possibly be innocent...:rolleyes:

They lived in a country where terrorists hid out, therefore they must've known everything just like everyone in the US knew about McVeigh, or the Unibomber, or Columbine, or VA Tech, or...:rolleyes:

solvs
Jun 14, 2007, 02:51 AM
I've heard stories about innocent Canadians, cameraman's assistants, people visiting their families, all caught up in this mess. And some people don't even want to give them trials to prove they actually did something. It's shameful, and I'm amazed anyone can still defend it, especially given what we know.