Supreme Court to hear case of enemy combatant on US soil

[TallBill]

http://www.google.com/hostedne...TiPAV9buJwpeOEo3LKNi-Q

WASHINGTON (AFP) ? The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to review the case of the only "enemy combatant" detained on US soil, Qatari national Ali al-Marri, who has been held without charge in a military jail since 2003.

The court said it will hear and take a decision by next summer on the case, which calls into question the right of the president to hold indefinitely and without charge a person declared an enemy combatant.

"We are confident that upon review, the Court will strike down this radical and unnecessary departure from our nation's most basic values," Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and counsel for al-Marri, said in a statement.

"Our position is not that the government has no power to hold him, but if they're going to deprive him of his liberty, as they've done now for years, they're going to need to charge him and try him like this country has done since its founding to every other person accused of wrongdoing," Hafetz told AFP.

Briefs will not be filed in the case until after president-elect Barack Obama takes office on January 20 next year, Hafetz told AFP.

Al-Marri was detained by FBI agents in late 2001, three months after coming to the United States in September of that year with his family to study at a university in Illinois.
The federal agents accused him of having information that could aid the investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks, Hafetz wrote in an opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times last month.

In early 2002 the US government filed charges against him, claiming he had engaged in credit card fraud and lied to the FBI.

A trial date was set for July 2003, but less than a month before it was due to begin, al-Marri was transferred to a military prison in South Carolina after Bush signed an order declaring him an enemy combatant in the war on terror.

Under current US law, al-Marri could be held in the military prison without charge "for the rest of his natural life," according to Hafetz.

A federal appeals court in July ruled that the US president has the power to keep a terrorist suspect jailed indefinitely, but that the detainee has the right to challenge his detention as an "enemy combatant."

"This sweeping claim of executive authority violates America's best traditions and defies fundamental principles of due process that have governed the nation since its founding," Steven Shapiro, executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement on Friday.

"We are hopeful that the court will reverse the appeals court decision and ensure that people in this country cannot be seized from their homes and imprisoned indefinitely simply because the president says so," he added.

The Supreme Court has ruled that war-on-terror detainees held at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- which the court considered to be US territory where rights enshrined in the US Constitution must be respected -- have a right to challenge their detention in a civilian court.

Hmm, so only one case of this happening from what I read? This is much different then the rest of the detainees at Gitmo. Gonna be interesting to see what the SCOTUS has to say next year.

Even if Obama frees him on day #1 or any other scenario this will definitely make an impact on the future.

 

[CycloWizard]

If the rules apply at Gitmo, they certainly apply on the mainland. I don't see how they would rule differently in this case. While Gitmo and similar places might be in line with the Geneva Conventions, they don't seem to appeal to the spirit of them. The conventions were geared towards nation-vs-nation wars that would actually end within a few years, not poorly defined conflicts with no beginning or end. The current conflict is an open door for life in prison without trial.

 

[DaveSimmons]

who has been held without charge in a military jail since 2003.

Already 5 years of inprisonment and possibly torture, without any charges. The Bush administration has done its best to tarnish America's reputation.

 

[Rainsford]

I would rather have the Supreme Court decide this than have Obama simply reverse Bush's policy on "enemy combatants". Our system isn't supposed to rely on the goodwill of the President, we're supposed to be a nation of laws.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I would rather have the Supreme Court decide this than have Obama simply reverse Bush's policy on "enemy combatants". Our system isn't supposed to rely on the goodwill of the President, we're supposed to be a nation of laws.

I second that. SCOTUS needs to rule strongly that you cannot just detain people forever as enemy combatants.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

who has been held without charge in a military jail since 2003.

Already 5 years of inprisonment and possibly torture, without any charges. The Bush administration has done its best to tarnish America's reputation.

And furthered by those c***s who endorse this patentily anti-American way of dealing with those in Gitmo.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I would rather have the Supreme Court decide this than have Obama simply reverse Bush's policy on "enemy combatants". Our system isn't supposed to rely on the goodwill of the President, we're supposed to be a nation of laws.

I second that. SCOTUS needs to rule strongly that you cannot just detain people forever as enemy combatants.

QFT

 

[AFMatt]

Didn't the Supreme Court already make a ruling on these prisoners a couple years ago? They should be offered the protections allowed in the Geneva Conventions Article 3.
As far as release, Obama's people have already stated they expect the same issues the current administration has already faced: No country will take them. The ones previously released were taken and tried in other countries. The rest, well, you cant just stick them on a boat and float them away.
Not only that, but I know for a fact there have been prisoners released to other countries that were somehow were determined innocent in their courts, only to return to Iraq and commit successful attacks and suicide bombings.
It's a pickle nobody wants to get into, unfortunately.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Maybe some of the forum members here who think these people are just misunderstood could offer to take them up in their own home? Maybe the Obama's could invite a couple of them to stay in the Lincoln bedroom?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Maybe some of the forum members here who think these people are just misunderstood could offer to take them up in their own home? Maybe the Obama's could invite a couple of them to stay in the Lincoln bedroom?

Yeah man, the Constitution and the Geneva Convention should only apply to people we think are good guys. That's what the founding fathers meant for the Bill of Rights, they just forgot to add that part in.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Maybe some of the forum members here who think these people are just misunderstood could offer to take them up in their own home? Maybe the Obama's could invite a couple of them to stay in the Lincoln bedroom?

You're either kind of stupid or you're really bad at making a solid argument...but you're definitely one or the other.

The ridiculous position you're taking is the refuge of morons and people who need to revisit high school debate class for one reason...anybody who really puts some thought into the issue realizes that there are more than those two options. Taking the pansy-ass, no responsibility way out and just holding "enemy combatants" forever without trial isn't a solution, it's a choice for people who lack the spine and/or brainpower to actually deal with problems. It's the war on terror equivalent of shoving all your garbage under your bed when your mom checks to see if your room is clean, it's not so much dealing with the problem as trying to avoid having to deal with it.

Your solution, on the other hand, is an "alternative" thought up by bargain-rate pundits and third-class strategists. Who in their right mind thinks the only alternative to not trying prisoners at all is to release them without any process at all? If only we had some sort of system developed over hundreds of years that was designed to flexibly deal with all sorts of bad guys, carefully balancing the rights of a country to defend itself from people who seek to harm it with the rights of the accused who may or may not be guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A system that can be relied upon to do a pretty fair job of assessing guilt in a just and impartial manner, a system that is a living example of the very freedom we fight for and the original model that the rest of the free world can try to live up to. Oh well, since we can't possibly call on a system like that, I guess the only choice is the GWB gulag solution or the "Fear No Evil" release them all directly into your living room solution.

In the end, the best argument for coming up with an alternative to the indefinite imprisonment "solution" is that the only arguments in favor of that concept are of the truly moronic variety like the one you just presented. It's been a number of years now since Bush's Gitmo approach was implemented, and the very best theses supporting it sound like they were developed by people who's total anti-terrorism experience consists of watching Jack Bauer fight bad guys on '24'. I'm not saying there are any easy answers, but this is a big boy issue...so it would be helpful if you would either shut up or put some thought into your ideas instead of lifting them directly from Bill O'Reilly rants.

Edit: Normally I might respond in a slightly more civil manner in P&N, but this argument was pretty dumb the FIRST time somebody brought it up. It doesn't get any better by repetition...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Maybe some of the forum members here who think these people are just misunderstood could offer to take them up in their own home? Maybe the Obama's could invite a couple of them to stay in the Lincoln bedroom?

You're either kind of stupid or you're really bad at making a solid argument...but you're definitely one or the other.

The ridiculous position you're taking is the refuge of morons and people who need to revisit high school debate class for one reason...anybody who really puts some thought into the issue realizes that there are more than those two options. Taking the pansy-ass, no responsibility way out and just holding "enemy combatants" forever without trial isn't a solution, it's a choice for people who lack the spine and/or brainpower to actually deal with problems. It's the war on terror equivalent of shoving all your garbage under your bed when your mom checks to see if your room is clean, it's not so much dealing with the problem as trying to avoid having to deal with it.

Your solution, on the other hand, is an "alternative" thought up by bargain-rate pundits and third-class strategists. Who in their right mind thinks the only alternative to not trying prisoners at all is to release them without any process at all? If only we had some sort of system developed over hundreds of years that was designed to flexibly deal with all sorts of bad guys, carefully balancing the rights of a country to defend itself from people who seek to harm it with the rights of the accused who may or may not be guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A system that can be relied upon to do a pretty fair job of assessing guilt in a just and impartial manner, a system that is a living example of the very freedom we fight for and the original model that the rest of the free world can try to live up to. Oh well, since we can't possibly call on a system like that, I guess the only choice is the GWB gulag solution or the "Fear No Evil" release them all directly into your living room solution.

In the end, the best argument for coming up with an alternative to the indefinite imprisonment "solution" is that the only arguments in favor of that concept are of the truly moronic variety like the one you just presented. It's been a number of years now since Bush's Gitmo approach was implemented, and the very best theses supporting it sound like they were developed by people who's total anti-terrorism experience consists of watching Jack Bauer fight bad guys on '24'. I'm not saying there are any easy answers, but this is a big boy issue...so it would be helpful if you would either shut up or put some thought into your ideas instead of lifting them directly from Bill O'Reilly rants.

Edit: Normally I might respond in a slightly more civil manner in P&N, but this argument was pretty dumb the FIRST time somebody brought it up. It doesn't get any better by repetition...

Ummm...he was being sarcastic I believe.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Maybe some of the forum members here who think these people are just misunderstood could offer to take them up in their own home? Maybe the Obama's could invite a couple of them to stay in the Lincoln bedroom?

You're either kind of stupid or you're really bad at making a solid argument...but you're definitely one or the other.

The ridiculous position you're taking is the refuge of morons and people who need to revisit high school debate class for one reason...anybody who really puts some thought into the issue realizes that there are more than those two options. Taking the pansy-ass, no responsibility way out and just holding "enemy combatants" forever without trial isn't a solution, it's a choice for people who lack the spine and/or brainpower to actually deal with problems. It's the war on terror equivalent of shoving all your garbage under your bed when your mom checks to see if your room is clean, it's not so much dealing with the problem as trying to avoid having to deal with it.

Your solution, on the other hand, is an "alternative" thought up by bargain-rate pundits and third-class strategists. Who in their right mind thinks the only alternative to not trying prisoners at all is to release them without any process at all? If only we had some sort of system developed over hundreds of years that was designed to flexibly deal with all sorts of bad guys, carefully balancing the rights of a country to defend itself from people who seek to harm it with the rights of the accused who may or may not be guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A system that can be relied upon to do a pretty fair job of assessing guilt in a just and impartial manner, a system that is a living example of the very freedom we fight for and the original model that the rest of the free world can try to live up to. Oh well, since we can't possibly call on a system like that, I guess the only choice is the GWB gulag solution or the "Fear No Evil" release them all directly into your living room solution.

In the end, the best argument for coming up with an alternative to the indefinite imprisonment "solution" is that the only arguments in favor of that concept are of the truly moronic variety like the one you just presented. It's been a number of years now since Bush's Gitmo approach was implemented, and the very best theses supporting it sound like they were developed by people who's total anti-terrorism experience consists of watching Jack Bauer fight bad guys on '24'. I'm not saying there are any easy answers, but this is a big boy issue...so it would be helpful if you would either shut up or put some thought into your ideas instead of lifting them directly from Bill O'Reilly rants.

Edit: Normally I might respond in a slightly more civil manner in P&N, but this argument was pretty dumb the FIRST time somebody brought it up. It doesn't get any better by repetition...

Ummm...he was being sarcastic I believe.

I don't think he was. Sadly.

 

[winnar111]

Yawn. Geneva Conventions already allow us to hold combatants until the end of hostilities.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yawn. Geneva Conventions already allow us to hold combatants until the end of hostilities.

So you're saying you agree the Geneva Conventions apply to these people we're holding?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yawn. Geneva Conventions already allow us to hold combatants until the end of hostilities.

So you're saying you agree the Geneva Conventions apply to these people we're holding?

Even if they did, hostilities aren't over.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yawn. Geneva Conventions already allow us to hold combatants until the end of hostilities.

So you're saying you agree the Geneva Conventions apply to these people we're holding?

Even if they did, hostilities aren't over.

So do they or don't they? If they don't, then the fact that the GC says something is irrelevant, so why mention it?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yawn. Geneva Conventions already allow us to hold combatants until the end of hostilities.

So you're saying you agree the Geneva Conventions apply to these people we're holding?

Even if they did, hostilities aren't over.

So do they or don't they? If they don't, then the fact that the GC says something is irrelevant, so why mention it?

My belief is that they don't. Some people, however, for whatever reason, feel differently.

Either way it is irrelevant.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

My belief is that they don't. Some people, however, for whatever reason, feel differently.

Either way it is irrelevant.

How so? If they apply, we have committed countless egregious violations of them as they tend to frown on torturing prisoners. To say that we're within our rights to hold someone while ignoring the rest of the articles would be absurd.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

My belief is that they don't. Some people, however, for whatever reason, feel differently.

Either way it is irrelevant.

How so? If they apply, we have committed countless egregious violations of them as they tend to frown on torturing prisoners. To say that we're within our rights to hold someone while ignoring the rest of the articles would be absurd.

Even if you call waterboarding torture, torturing them and holding them are 2 different things, in 2 different parts of the conventions.

The military isn't using waterboarding anyway, so its moot.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Your solution, on the other hand, is an "alternative" thought up by bargain-rate pundits and third-class strategists. Who in their right mind thinks the only alternative to not trying prisoners at all is to release them without any process at all? If only we had some sort of system developed over hundreds of years that was designed to flexibly deal with all sorts of bad guys, carefully balancing the rights of a country to defend itself from people who seek to harm it with the rights of the accused who may or may not be guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A system that can be relied upon to do a pretty fair job of assessing guilt in a just and impartial manner, a system that is a living example of the very freedom we fight for and the original model that the rest of the free world can try to live up to. Oh well, since we can't possibly call on a system like that, I guess the only choice is the GWB gulag solution or the "Fear No Evil" release them all directly into your living room solution.

It's a good thing Lincoln never used that system, else we might not have a country today.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

My belief is that they don't. Some people, however, for whatever reason, feel differently.

Either way it is irrelevant.

How so? If they apply, we have committed countless egregious violations of them as they tend to frown on torturing prisoners. To say that we're within our rights to hold someone while ignoring the rest of the articles would be absurd.

Even if you call waterboarding torture, torturing them and holding them are 2 different things, in 2 different parts of the conventions.

The military isn't using waterboarding anyway, so its moot.

The argument of "we only violated this section over here so it's okay" sounds like a really good one.

As for your fabulous Lincoln reference, you realize the Constitution mentions insurrection or rebellion as reasons to suspend habeas corpus, right? While Lincoln is still widely condemned for doing it, at least he had some Constitutional backdrop for doing so. Also, if you think that without imprisoning 20,000 people without trial the North would not have won the Civil War, go read a book.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

As for your fabulous Lincoln reference, you realize the Constitution mentions insurrection or rebellion as reasons to suspend habeas corpus, right? While Lincoln is still widely condemned for doing it, at least he had some Constitutional backdrop for doing so. Also, if you think that without imprisoning 20,000 people without trial the North would not have won the Civil War, go read a book.

Well since Civil War was declared the Constitution was technically suspended since it's home country was at war with itself.

How can you have a Constitution when it's under contention?

Hey maybe Bush forgot to declare war here and that's his excuse.

 

[AFMatt]

Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. The prisoners at GITMO are neither honorable POWs nor are they even lawful combatants. We, being the kind nation we are, however, have given these detainees protection under Art 3.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: AFMatt
Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. The prisoners at GITMO are neither honorable POWs nor are they even lawful combatants. We, being the kind nation we are, however, have given these detainees protection under Art 3.

Are you trying to say that the detainees at GITMO are terrorists? If so, what are you basing this determination on?

This has all been gone over many times before. I have no idea why you would simply assume that the people held there are neither honorable POWs or 'lawful combatants', but you should take a serious look at what might have caused you to reach such a ridiculous conclusion.