The normally conservative 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the US can’t detain enemy combatants without filing charges, in a case involving “an immigrant [the US] believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent.”
“In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn’t strip Ali al-Marri of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court,” Associated Press reports. “It ruled the government must allow him to be released from military detention.”
The court panel said that “to uphold such extraordinary power would effectively undermine all of the freedoms recognized by the Constitution,” and sanctioning “such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the constitution – and the country.”
Excerpts from AP article:
#
Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master’s degree.
….
Al-Marri’s lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn’t repeal the writ of habeas corpus – defendants’ traditional right to challenge their detention.
June 12, 2007 at 6:18 pm |
“…the US can’t detain enemy combatants without filing charges…”
-It is important to note that this only applies to enemy combatants detained on US soil.
June 12, 2007 at 11:43 pm |
Knighthospitaller,
Well, more precisely, it is about citizenship and not about if they were arrested on U.S. soil or not.
The Hamdi and Padilla cases were about whether President Bush could deny to American citizens their constitutional rights to due process, to a lawyer, a fair and speedy trial, to any communication with others, or real review by a judge, by simply labeling a person an “enemy combatant” and then placing them under military control.
Since Hamdi and Padilla are American citizens, the ruling is justified as the constitution guarantees its citizens due process of law.
As for non-American citizens, they can still be detained as, “enemy combatants,” whether on U.S. soil or not… That is up to the President…
Cheers
June 13, 2007 at 12:40 am |
Yes. That is a great way of explaining it. I just want to make sure that people understand the difference between Hamdi and Padilla, and the prisoners held over seas…