1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Appeals Court Orders Enemy Combatant Free by Military

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by insane man, Jun 11, 2007.

  1. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    June 11, 2007
    Appeals Court Orders Enemy Combatant Free by Military
    By ADAM LIPTAK

    In a stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration’s central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism, a federal appeals court ordered the Pentagon to release a man being held as an enemy combatant.

    “To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”

    “We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”

    The ruling was handed down by a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., in the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar and the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant.

    Mr. Marri, whom the government calls a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, was arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.

    He has been held for the last four years at the Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C.

    Judge Motz wrote that Mr. Marri may well be guilty of serious crimes. But she said that the government cannot circumvent the civilian criminal justice system through military detention.

    Mr. Marri was charged with credit-card fraud and lying to federal agents after his arrest in 2001, and he was on the verge of a trial on those charges when he was moved into military detention in 2003.

    The government contended, in a partly declassified declaration from a senior 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.

    Two other men have been held as enemy combatants on the American mainland since the Sept. 11 attacks. One, Yaser Hamdi, was freed and sent to Saudi Arabia after the United States Supreme Court allowed him to challenge his detention in 2004.

    The other, Jose Padilla, was transferred to the criminal justice system last year just as the Supreme Court was considering whether to review his case. He is now on trial on terrorism charges in federal court in Miami.

    A dissenting judge in today’s decision, Henry E. Hudson, visiting from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, wrote that President Bush “had the authority to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant or belligerent” because “he is the type of stealth warrior used by Al Qaeda to perpetrate terrorist acts against the United States.”

    Jonathan Hafetz, the litigation director of the Liberty and National Security Project of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and one of Mr. Marri’s lawyers, said of the court’s decision: “This is landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power. It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals — citizens and immigrants - in the United States.”

    Writing for the majority, Judge Motz ordered the trial judge in the case to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Pentagon “within a reasonable period of time” to do one of several things with Mr. Marri. He may be charged in the civilian court system; he may be deported; or he may be held as a material witness; or he may be released.

    “But military detention of al-Marri,” Judge Motz wrote, “must cease.”

    Times
     
  2. hotballa

    hotballa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    12,521
    Likes Received:
    316
    I'm not cool with the president having the power to declare who's an enemy combatant and who isn't, but this guy does seem to be the kind of guy that we're all looking out for. The enemy combatant term is fine with me, I just think it needs more oversight to prevent abuse.
     
  3. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    I really doubt that President Bush made the call on this guy...
     
  4. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    How about bringing forth the evidence and putting the guy on trial?

    That's a radical idea for ya...
     
  5. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,685
    Likes Received:
    16,212
    You missed the point entirely.
     
  6. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    No he didn't.

    My question is what is Bush and his justice department afraid of to let these people have an open and fair trial?
     
  7. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    3,389
    I understand some of the criticisms of the administration regarding trying possible terrorists in courts but yes at the very least use the court-martial system.

    In fact, I think the court-martial system is the perfect compromise and the infrastructure for it is already set up.
     
  8. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    Yet another example of liberal trial lawyers emboldening the terrorists.
     
  9. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    isn't that even worse. that some flunkie from liberty law is making these decisions?
     
  10. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    Its good to see a return of the rule of law, hopefully....
     
  11. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,685
    Likes Received:
    16,212
    Yes, and giddyup focused on Bush specifically and not his administration (the justice department), thus missing the point. :)

    In his world, if Bush doesn't do something himself, he's not responsible for it.
     
  12. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,239
    Why? Wouldn't you rather just torture the guy and see if he'll tell you anything?



    D&D. Replicant Democrat.
     
  13. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    Is it possible that having an 'open' trial would reveal too much about the methods we use to find, track, and/or detain terrorists?
     
  14. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471

    [edit] If we don't torture, kidnap and fly people to undisclosed prisons around the world, detain people without access to lawyers or the courts what's the problem?
     
    #14 mc mark, Jun 13, 2007
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2007
  15. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't think this article is talking about flying people to undisclosed prisons in other countries, is it? I'm asking if having an open trial might reveal too much about how we find, track, and detain terrorists.
     
  16. DonkeyMagic

    DonkeyMagic Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    21,604
    Likes Received:
    3,487
    he's complicating this issue with bringing up another.
     
  17. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471

    For the slow people on the board I'm saying if we don't do those things, then we should have no problem having open and fair trials for detainees.
     
  18. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    so we shouldn't have open trials on drug dealers, murderers, rapists burgulars etc etc.
     
  19. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    Well, actually I don't think 'kidnapping' per se is illegal. Secret prisons in other countries doesn't have anything to do with this issue. OTOH saying 'let's not do those things' when we're talking about 'finding, tracking, and detaining terrorists' seems like you're purposely avoiding the question at hand. Further, there doesn't seem to be any reason to call someone slow when you're not on point at all.
     
  20. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    I don't believe I said that. What I asked was whether or not an open trial would compromise our ability to find, track, and catch terrorists. Strange how people keep answering with non-answers or other questions. If you really want to say "yes, it would - but it's worth the tradeoff" then say that, lol.
     

Share This Page