detaining without charges: a little tougher now?

[Darren Dirt]

Setback to US power to detain suspects

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/setback-to-us-power-to-detain-suspects/2007/06/12/1181414304680.html">http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/setbac ... 04680.html</a><!-- m -->

A US federal appeals court has ruled that the Government cannot indefinitely imprison a US resident on suspicion alone, ordering it either to charge a Qatari national, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, with terrorist crimes in a civilian court or release him.

Monday's ruling is a blow to the Bush Administration's assertion that the president has exceptionally broad powers to combat terrorism, including the authority to detain, without charge, foreign citizens living legally in the country.

It is the first time a court has said that Mr Marri cannot be held forever without facing formal charges...

"The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention," the panel found.


District Judge Henry Hudson, a Bush appointee, dissented from the opinion, claiming that Mr Bush had the power to detain enemy combatants under Congress's authorisation to use military force.

"Although al-Marri was not personally engaged in armed conflict with US forces, he is the type of stealth warrior used by al-Qaeda to perpetrate terrorist acts against the United States," Judge Hudson wrote. "There is little doubt", he maintained, that Mr Marri intended to aid in hostile attacks on the US.

The Government said that Mr Marri - who was identified as part of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of the September 11, 2001, attacks - came to the US to prepare for a second wave of attacks.

The panel found that the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which prohibits enemy combatants from challenging the basis for their imprisonment in US courts, does not apply to a person living legally in the US.


(see also Gitmo compared to Nuremberg

[eye2i2hear]

Darren Dirt Wrote:
The panel found that the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which prohibits enemy combatants from challenging the basis for their imprisonment in US courts, does not apply to a person living legally in the US.

Seems, pilgrim, ya gotta wonder just what sense "living", "legal", and "in the U.S." holds "here", aye No State projector??  8)  (emphasis on the "holds"?  heck, where IS "here", Toto?!?  Alice?  Neo?  Truman?  Black's 6th: "United States. The term has several meanings."?)  :

[Marc Stevens]

Darren Dirt Wrote:District Judge Henry Hudson, a Bush appointee, dissented from the opinion, claiming that Mr Bush had the power to detain enemy combatants under Congress's authorisation to use military force.

There's a shocker.

Gee, no kidding, now why would a political appointee disagree with those who don't agree with his master?