Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

    www .nytimes. com /2008/07/16/washington/16combatant.html?em&ex=1216267200&en=d3c315e2b68a7 317&ei=5087%0A

    President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled on Tuesday in a fractured 5-to-4 decision.
    Skip to next paragraph

    Ali al-Marri
    Related
    Blurry Peek at Questioning of a Guantánamo Inmate (July 16, 2008)
    In War of Vague Borders, Detainee Longs for Court (January 5, 2007)
    Times Topics: Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri
    Text of the Decision (pdf)

    But a second, overlapping 5-to-4 majority of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, ruled that Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar now in military custody in Charleston, S.C., must be given an additional opportunity to challenge his detention in federal court there. An earlier court proceeding, in which the government had presented only a sworn statement from a defense intelligence official, was inadequate, the second majority ruled.

    The decision was a victory for the Bush administration, which had maintained that a 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force after the Sept. 11 attacks granted the president the power to detain people living in the United States.

    The court effectively reversed a divided three-judge panel of its own members, which ruled last year that the government lacked the power to detain civilians legally in the United States as enemy combatants. That panel ordered the government either to charge Mr. Marri or to release him. The case is likely to reach the Supreme Court.

    How helpful the decision will be to Mr. Marri remains to be seen, as the majority that granted him some relief was notably vague about what the new court proceeding should look like. In that respect, Tuesday’s decision resembled last month’s decision from the United States Supreme Court granting habeas corpus rights to prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay.

    Mr. Marri is the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant. The government contended, in a declaration from the defense intelligence official, Jeffrey N. Rapp, that Mr. Marri was a Qaeda sleeper agent sent to the United States to commit mass murder and disrupt the banking system.

    Mr. Marri was arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science. He was charged with credit-card fraud and lying to federal agents, and was on the verge of a trial on those charges when he was moved to military detention in 2003.

    Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said the decision properly recognized “the president’s authority to capture and detain Al Qaeda agents who, like the 9/11 hijackers, come to this country to commit or facilitate warlike acts against American civilians.”

    Mr. Roehrkasse added that while the department believed that Mr. Marri “had already received all the process he was due,” its lawyers were “studying the court’s decision and will respond to Mr. Marri’s contentions” before the trial judge.

    Jonathan L. Hafetz, a lawyer for Mr. Marri with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, called the Fourth Circuit’s decision deeply disturbing.

    “This decision means the president can pick up any person in the country — citizen or legal resident — and lock them up for years without the most basic safeguard in the Constitution, the right to a criminal trial,” Mr. Hafetz said.

    The 216-page decision included seven opinions, none of which commanded a majority. The only common ground was four unsigned paragraphs at the beginning of the decision summarizing the result.

    The Fourth Circuit is generally considered the nation’s most conservative federal appeals court. The closely divided and complex decision in a major terrorism case therefore came as something of a surprise.

    Mr. Marri’s unusual situation played a role, said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at Wake Forest University. Mr. Marri “was lawfully present in the U.S. and then arrested and held here, as opposed to being a noncitizen captured in a foreign land,” Professor Chesney said. “This consideration makes his case more difficult even in the eyes of relatively conservative jurists.”

    The five judges who ruled that the president has the authority to detain people captured in the United States offered differing criteria for who might be subject to such detention.

    Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said the president might detain members of organizations or nations against which Congress had authorized the use of force who mean to harm people or property to further military goals.

    To reverse the trial judge’s decision allowing Mr. Marri’s detention to continue “because he was not captured on a foreign battlefield or foreign soil,” Judge Wilkinson wrote, “is akin to a judicial declaration that Congress and the executive may fight only the last war.”

    Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, writing for herself and three other judges, disagreed, saying that Mr. Marri was at most a civilian criminal who may be prosecuted in the courts but not detained by the executive branch.

    “This does not mean that al Marri, or similarly situated American citizens, would have to be freed,” Judge Motz wrote. “Like others accused of terrorist activity in this country, from the Oklahoma City bombers to the convicted September 11th conspirator [Zacarias Moussaoui] they could be tried on criminal charges and, if convicted, punished severely. But the government would not be able to subject them to indefinite military detention.”

    Judge William B. Traxler Jr. was the swing vote. He agreed that Mr. Marri was subject to detention if what the government said about him was true. But Judge Traxler broke with the judges who voted against Mr. Marri across the board. Those judges said Mr. Marri had already had an adequate opportunity to challenge his detention in court, in the proceeding based on Mr. Rapp’s statement. Judge Traxler said that Mr. Marri must be given a fair and meaningful opportunity to see and refute “the most reliable evidence” against him, subject to national security and other concerns.

    The four judges who would have ordered Mr. Marri’s release from military custody — Judges Motz, Roger L. Gregory, M. Blaine Michael and Robert B. King — agreed to join an order returning the case to the trial court based on Judge Traxler’s middle ground. They did so, Judge Motz wrote, “to give practical effect to the conclusions of the majority of the court who reject the government’s position.”

    But Judge Gregory expressed frustration over the net effect of the exercise. “There is no concrete guidance as to what further process is due” Mr. Marri, he wrote.

    All of the judges who would have denied Mr. Marri any relief — Judges Wilkinson, Karen J. Williams, Paul V. Niemeyer and Allyson K. Duncan — were appointed by Republican presidents; all who would have granted him full relief were appointed by Democrats. Judge Traxler was appointed to the appeals court by President Bill Clinton.

    In the conclusion of his long opinion, Judge Wilkinson said terrorism cases presented courts with special challenges.

    “We may never know,” he said, “whether we have struck the proper balance between liberty and security, because we do not know every action the executive is taking and we do not know every threat global terror networks have in store.”
    Discuss/resort to childish behavior and insult eachother.

  • #2
    Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

    Told you he was trying to make America into an empire, same way Hitler did his propaganda, scare the people into believing false stuff,
    "A Veteran is someone who , at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to
    'The United states of America' for an amount of 'upto and including my life'. That is honor, and there are way to many people in this country who no longer understand it."-Author Unknown

    "I got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section" -Any.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

      Comparing Bush to Hitler is a little bit exaggerated, don't you think? Godwin's law ftw, by the way.

      While I would think it's completely fine to detain a suspected terrorist for times up to two weeks, or longer, if there is suspicion that he may engage in terroristic activities soon, Mr. Marri seems to be far from one. He may be a criminal, but so are some non-Arabic US citizens as well. The government isn't always right - they are humans. Humans make mistakes. And if such a mistake results in an innocent being detained for years without trial, it isn't right - I'm all for fighting terrorists, and - while currently not living in the United States - also a supporter of the war against terror. But it should be clear if a person is an enemy or not before you fire at them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

        There's something many of you civilians don't understand about this current war. ALL of the fighters are technically civilians. They are part of no government endorsed army. Now, while true they become combatants once they pick up a gun and shoot at us, they can still be very hard to identify.

        Here's an example that has been common in Iraq:
        A lone man/woman/child points and shoots his AK-47/RPG/etc at a convoy rolling through town. Now they're an enemy combatant. BUT, often they jump behind a corner, throw their weapons away, and come back out sans weapon, and they are identified as a civilian again. It's frustrated our troops so bad when they can't retaliate against an attack, because it can be so difficult to identify the enemy. They don't wear uniforms or anything.

        This puts us in a bit of a predicament. Do we detain people who we suspect know about or are involved in terrorist activities, but let them go because they are a "civilian?" Obviously, we shouldn't hold people we find to be innocent, but it is still a difficult decision.
        "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

          Originally posted by Fenian420 View Post
          Told you he was trying to make America into an empire, same way Hitler did his propaganda, scare the people into believing false stuff,
          oh yea because deep down inside, president george bush in less than a year is going to kill over a million jews............dude, how can you even think of comparing bush to hitler?
          Now comparing Saddam to Hitler, i can see some comparisons there, especially since saddam idolized hitler, but bush to hitler? no effing way......i think the grunge music in seattle might be tampering with your brain, or all those starbucks.

          fenian explain empire to me please i would like to hear your idea/thoughts also.


          On a side note - is there any way we can suggest to the NSA who can be detained, because there were these people in high school who used to taunt and tease the hell out of me and its about time they got what has been coming to them for a while. I wonder if there will be a suggestion box, will there be tours of the facility, this could be a huge money making event, we could make a theme park out of it.
          Randy = Ace ! - Warlab
          Level II Volunteer FireFighter
          Level I HazMat Technician
          NYS EMT-B
          Town of Mamaroneck Fire Dept.

          sigpic




          Bring On Project Reality 1.0!!!
          RSS Feeds:Bamboo | | 9/11 - Never Forget |
          Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
          Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
          We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

            Originally posted by Delta*RandyShugart* View Post
            On a side note - is there any way we can suggest to the NSA who can be detained, because there were these people in high school who used to taunt and tease the hell out of me and its about time they got what has been coming to them for a while. I wonder if there will be a suggestion box, will there be tours of the facility, this could be a huge money making event, we could make a theme park out of it.
            That is, in essence, the problem with giving the executive extra-legal or extra-constitutional powers. Do those of you with a hate-on for Hillary trust that she would not use this little loophole inappropriately? Even a well-meaning executive can screw up this kind of decision, which is why we have habeus corpus in the first place.
            In game handle: Steel Scion
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

              Originally posted by Steeler View Post
              That is, in essence, the problem with giving the executive extra-legal or extra-constitutional powers. Do those of you with a hate-on for Hillary trust that she would not use this little loophole inappropriately? Even a well-meaning executive can screw up this kind of decision, which is why we have habeus corpus in the first place.
              I agree with you completely in principle but I don't think that his qualifies as extra-legal, and it's certainly not anything new.


              July, 1942, Ex Parte Quirin:
              Originally posted by The Supreme Court
              The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
              I don't think many people feel the same way as back then...had we caught Iraqi soldiers in civilian clothes in the U.S. in 2003, and the military hanged them, I think some people might not be happy. But it's been a long-established principle in the laws of war that that spies and saboteurs get the raw deal upon capture.
              ---
              Sources say the Dow Jones' decline is directly related to Dethklok front-man Nathan Explosion's constant deleting of potential new albums.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

                As awesome of a precedent as Ex-Parte-Quirin is, that case was argued 7 years before the Geneva Conventions were signed. Our law has changed a bit since then.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

                  Originally posted by Delta*RandyShugart* View Post
                  oh yea because deep down inside, president george bush in less than a year is going to kill over a million jews............dude, how can you even think of comparing bush to hitler?
                  Now comparing Saddam to Hitler, i can see some comparisons there, especially since saddam idolized hitler, but bush to hitler? no effing way......i think the grunge music in seattle might be tampering with your brain, or all those starbucks.


                  fenian explain empire to me please i would like to hear your idea/thoughts also.


                  On a side note - is there any way we can suggest to the NSA who can be detained, because there were these people in high school who used to taunt and tease the hell out of me and its about time they got what has been coming to them for a while. I wonder if there will be a suggestion box, will there be tours of the facility, this could be a huge money making event, we could make a theme park out of it.
                  Well, rather than simply saying "how can you even think of comparing bush to hitler".. lets actually do a comparison. Lets see what hitler did that bush is doing now (but we have to remember that hes only taking orders here, hes not the top of the foodchain). Regardless, he's still responsible for his actions.

                  And lets not forget, if you replace jew with terrorist, the picture becomes a lot clearer.

                  Actually rather than comparing them myself, it seems that many have already taken the time to write out comparisons, so I'll just copy one:

                  The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors.' The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

                    Originally posted by Kerostasis View Post
                    As awesome of a precedent as Ex-Parte-Quirin is, that case was argued 7 years before the Geneva Conventions were signed. Our law has changed a bit since then.
                    Recently, sure, we've interpreted some things differently. I'm not trying to argue that it should be the way we do things. I just don't think it's some grand departure from tradition. My earlier comment was imprecise.

                    The ICRC doesn't seem to think so either.
                    ---
                    Sources say the Dow Jones' decline is directly related to Dethklok front-man Nathan Explosion's constant deleting of potential new albums.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

                      Originally posted by angrysniper View Post
                      Well, rather than simply saying "how can you even think of comparing bush to hitler".. lets actually do a comparison. Lets see what hitler did that bush is doing now (but we have to remember that hes only taking orders here, hes not the top of the foodchain). Regardless, he's still responsible for his actions.

                      And lets not forget, if you replace jew with terrorist, the picture becomes a lot clearer.

                      Actually rather than comparing them myself, it seems that many have already taken the time to write out comparisons, so I'll just copy one:
                      do you google all day long and try to find articles about how "evil america" is? Seriously, is this how you spend your time, then you paste an article, make a little quip and expect everyone to go on your side because the person who wrote it states their opinion and you just sum up what they say as yours?

                      Definition of Terrorism by wikipedia:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

                      Definition of Judaism:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism


                      You should really think about what you are going to write before you write it.....there is no way you can put "terrorist" in place of "jew", seriously angrysniper, go away from the computer for a few hours, go outside, i take it you are on summer break, go to the library, do something other than looking up how "america is so evil". Or if you are over the age of 18, and want to get away, then leave the country....hell, i'd be happy if i found out you were helping obama on his campaign.
                      Randy = Ace ! - Warlab
                      Level II Volunteer FireFighter
                      Level I HazMat Technician
                      NYS EMT-B
                      Town of Mamaroneck Fire Dept.

                      sigpic




                      Bring On Project Reality 1.0!!!
                      RSS Feeds:Bamboo | | 9/11 - Never Forget |
                      Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
                      Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
                      We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

                        Or, you could just ignore such posts if you are offended. Accusing people of hating America anytime they post a critique of the current administration doesn't put you in a good light.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

                          Being half Jewish I am offended that he would compare hitler to bush, and that he would think that terrorists are in the same leagues as jews, when ironically most terrorist groups want to destroy Israel and all the jews of the world. So yes I could ignore it, but his comparison is so off the grid that I wanted to point it out.
                          Randy = Ace ! - Warlab
                          Level II Volunteer FireFighter
                          Level I HazMat Technician
                          NYS EMT-B
                          Town of Mamaroneck Fire Dept.

                          sigpic




                          Bring On Project Reality 1.0!!!
                          RSS Feeds:Bamboo | | 9/11 - Never Forget |
                          Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
                          Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
                          We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

                            It's been pointed out already. And, if you are compelled to point out everything that anyone ever says which disagrees with you, then you will live a life just like the one you accuse the OP of two posts earlier.

                            P.S. He made no comparisons between Bush and Hitler regarding their respective stances towards Israel. So it makes no sense for you to be offended for being Jewish.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Federal court: Bush can indefinitely detain civilians

                              Originally posted by Delta*RandyShugart* View Post
                              Being half Jewish I am offended that he would compare hitler to bush, and that he would think that terrorists are in the same leagues as jews, when ironically most terrorist groups want to destroy Israel and all the jews of the world. So yes I could ignore it, but his comparison is so off the grid that I wanted to point it out.
                              Well what do you know, we have something in common. I'm half jewish too. And you're completely misconstruing what I said. I didn't say "terrorists are in the same league as jews" I said they're in the same place, they're the scapegoats the government is using to justify its illegal actions. And the comparison of bush and hitler is not off the grid at all if you compare their actions. Bush has yet to slaughter millions of civilians he labels terrorists.

                              As for your personal attacks, I'm simply going to ignore them.

                              And don't worry, I don't support Obama, nor McCain. I equate that with campaigning to have Pinocchio in office, since they're both puppets.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X