Court rules in favor of enemy combatant
First things first. There is a difference between the way I see this ruling being good and the way the left does. They see it as a way to exercise their Bushate. I see it as the world's leader in pressing for human right's reform walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
I have no problem with the MCA: 2006. I think it is a great tool to help provide security to the country while giving rights to a class of person so despicable that they are not addressed in the Geneva Conventions; except indirectly as spies, and as everyone knows the Geneva conventions upholds the summary execution of spies and grants them no rights or guarantees of humane treatment.
However, since al-Marri was a legal resident he is protected under the constitution. And even if the MCA permits him to be held until trial if the government cannot develop a case in 5 years they need to kick the defendant loose.
The MCA does not stipulate time lines for hearings for combatants so the government can interview the detainee and use that information in current cases, but no law based on the US Constitution should permit unlimited detention.
The MCA is a powerful tool and a necessary one as it establishes a system of justice for enemy combatants. But like all power, it has the potential for abuse. And while I'm certain parts of the MCA was written knowing legal challenges would provide for guidance and limitations, we need to remember one important fact... the United States is not a third world dictatorship, it is the United States of America. Other countries aspire for the freedoms we have. Residents and citizens on US soil should not be treated as enemy combatants and their right to habeus corpus should never be in jeopardy.
(I added the article below in case the link "times out")
Jun 11, 1:58 PM EDT
Court rules in favor of enemy combatant
By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON Associated Press Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it suspects of being an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday.
"To sanction 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," the court panel said.
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, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.
It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.
He is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.
Jose Padilla, another U.S. citizen, was held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.
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 at Bradley University.
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.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment