‘Enemy combatant’ ruling blow to Bush
The White House suffered another serious legal blow in the “war on terror” on Monday when a court ruled that the military could not indefinitely detain a Qatari citizen captured in the US.
[…]
“The president lacks power to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain al-Marri,” wrote Judge Diana Gibbon Motz in the 2-1 decision. “We have found no authority for holding that the evidence offered by the government affords a basis for treating al-Marri as an enemy combatant, or as anything other than a civilian.”
The court also rejected the argument that the battleground extended to the US.
“If the president had his way, he would have virtually unlimited authority to detain any non-citizen on his say-so, place him in indefinite military custody, and deny him access to court to challenge the detention,” said Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch. “This decision should remind the president that even he is not above the law.”
Here’s an editorial from Canada that discusses the dilemma of how to handle ‘enemy combatants’ stemming from the recent Omar Khadr ruling. What should we do with them?
>The court also rejected the argument that the battleground extended to the US.
I think that sums up the decision right there.
Is this a surprise to anyone?
Frankly, yes I’m shocked that the Supreme Court was able to step in and stop this nonsense. I’m surprised the President hasn’t claimed that dealing with “enemy combatants” was specifically not part of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and thus they cannot rule on it.
#3 – They issued a ruling. At this point, what makes you think Bush really cares?
Its a circuit court ruling.
#5
Ah. Although if the Supreme Court indeed does not have jurisdiction that would prevent an appeal would it not?
civil liberties are like homeowners insurance— it may seem that fires only happen in houses where people are careless or malicious, and that all you need to do is to be be careful and you won’t need it, but you know as well as i do that not having homeowners insurance is stupid.
you could be erroneously labeled a terrorist
* a clerical error could do it
* your ex wife or other enemy could lie about you,
* your computer could be hacked .
there are all sorts of ways the government could incorrectly ruin your life.
so um, yeah, don’t be so quick to give up your rights people.
“What should we do with them?”
Chip him, and release him back into the wild, follow him, and see if he hooks up with his old buds.
Seriously, I got nuthin.
We are trying to make “rules” about war. Difficult, but it can be done. When suspected enemy is found in a war zone, they can be shot dead or held prisoner. The prisoner judicial review should be limited to whether or not he was in a war zone as the alternative is he could have been killed. He should be released when Congress declares there is no more war.
For people arrested in a non war zone–they should be treated according to criminal law.
Will the above catch alot of innocent people in the war zone? Yes. War by definition is not far.
put them on trial as the criminals the govt claims they are. that’s what they are doing with Jose Padilla after insisting for years that they just couldn’t. That’s probably what they will do here to avoid a final loss in the USSCT.
and you know what? if the government doesn’t have any evidence, then they gotta turn them loose. that’s one of them-there “technicalities.”
#6. Congress has yet to declare war, AFAIK.
#10
Yes they have. Lookup the AUMFs signed into law since 2001.
#11. an AUMF is not a declaration of war.
#12
The Supreme Court disagress. Read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Yes we are war.
I have read Hamdi, and nowhere does it state that a AUMF is identical to a DoW. A DoW has very specific meanings under international law and is specifically provided for in the Constitution. An AUMF is found nowhere in the Constitution.