Justice Dept. fighting federal court ruling on U.S. citizen as a enemy combatant

cr726 · 06-11-2007, 10:30 PM

Justice Department plans to fight enemy combatant ruling

Associated Press - June 11, 2007 4:53 PM ET

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The Justice Department plans to fight a federal court ruling that says the Bush administration cannot hold US residents indefinitely without charging them.

That decision was made by a three-judge panel in Virginia. The Justice Department plans to ask the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling. The department says the president needs to "use all available tools" to "protect Americans from further al-Qaida attack."

The case involves Ali al-Marri (ah-LEE' al-MAH'-ree), a legal US resident, who has been held since 2001. He's accused of having links to al-Qaida terrorists.

The panel ruled the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip al-Marri of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

The ruling does not ensure his release, but means he can be returned to the civilian court system and be tried on criminal charges.
[url]http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=6642281&nav=AbC0[/url]

[QUOTE]The concept of enemy combatant is not a concept that's identified under the laws of war. The government claims it's a customary use of the laws of war or, you know, law of armed conflict, but there is no such thing as enemy combatant as the administration’s used its term. The way they use it is they try to describe it as someone who's fighting on a battlefield. But Mr. al-Marri was never on a battlefield, never fought against US troops. He's not in any way what we understand to be a combatant under the laws of war. He is essentially an alleged criminal who should be tried in the criminal justice system and has a right to be tried, but they are inventing this term to try to kind of pull the rug from under those rights and essentially get out of the Bill of Rights. [/QUOTE]

bitonti · 06-12-2007, 08:17 AM

yeah great - it only took 7 years for America to remember it's not a despotism.

cr726 · 06-12-2007, 08:22 AM

Gonzalez's statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee are starting to really come to light now.

[QUOTE=bitonti]yeah great - it only took 7 years for America to remember it's not a despotism.[/QUOTE]

parafly · 06-12-2007, 08:57 AM

For the most part, the judicial system in this country works. Here's a thought, use it...

Warfish · 06-12-2007, 10:15 AM

Holding an American Citizen indefinitely without charging them goes against the Constitution, and hence should not be allowed. This should be an easy position for anyone who claims to be a Conservative or a Constitutional Originalist. Anything less is allowing ourselves to take a step down a very slippery slope towards Facism.

Now, while I fully agree that the Bush Admin. has gone too far on this specific part, I do not support giving our rights to enemy non-citizens captured in action against our or our allies forces. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was simply not designed to account for non-State Terrorists using gurella tactics while dressed as civillians (I.e. non uniformed). While we should try to be fair and moral in their treatment, we do not "owe" them the rights and privlidges Americans have died to protect for 2+ Centuries.

parafly · 06-12-2007, 10:26 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish]Now, while I fully agree that the Bush Admin. has gone too far on this specific part, I do not support giving our rights to enemy non-citizens captured in action against our or our allies forces. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was simply not designed to account for non-State Terrorists using gurella tactics while dressed as civillians (I.e. non uniformed). While we should try to be fair and moral in their treatment, we do not "owe" them the rights and privlidges Americans have died to protect for 2+ Centuries.[/QUOTE]

There is no reason why any person, citizen or non-citizen, should be held by our government indefinitely without trial. It goes against everything our country and society stands for and unnecessarily puts us in a negative light around the world.

WJGC · 06-12-2007, 10:29 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish]Holding an American Citizen indefinitely without charging them goes against the Constitution, and hence should not be allowed. This should be an easy position for anyone who claims to be a Conservative or a Constitutional Originalist. Anything less is allowing ourselves to take a step down a very slippery slope towards Facism.

Now, while I fully agree that the Bush Admin. has gone too far on this specific part, I do not support giving our rights to enemy non-citizens captured in action against our or our allies forces. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was simply not designed to account for non-State Terrorists using gurella tactics while dressed as civillians (I.e. non uniformed). While we should try to be fair and moral in their treatment, we do not "owe" them the rights and privlidges Americans have died to protect for 2+ Centuries.[/QUOTE]

I agree. The problem I'm having with this case is that he is not an American citizen, but rather a legal resident. Just because the country allows you to live in this country does that grant you the protection of the Constitution if you are conspiring against it. Not a citizen, but not fighting on a battlefield. In the end I think the decision was the right one.

Warfish · 06-12-2007, 10:34 AM

[QUOTE=parafly]There is no reason why any person, citizen or non-citizen, should be held by our government indefinitely without trial. It goes against everything our country and society stands for and unnecessarily puts us in a negative light around the world.[/QUOTE]

Fine by me. I'm all for summary execution of ANY non-American, non-uniformed, non-state combatant captured in-action against our forces or civillians.

Our country NEVER stood for granting Terrorists OUR Rights and Protections, and any claim otherwise is a gross and wanton distortion of facts. Terrorism, i.e. blowing up our Soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan, or launching attacks on civillians in the United States are not a "Crimes", they are acts of War by Men without a State, and Prisoners of War CAN AND WERE held until the END of any conflict. So when the Islamic Fundamentlaism Jihad against America is over, and their forces admit defeat and disarm, THEN we'll release their men if they release.....oh wait, they BEHEAD all of our men.

You want to give our rights to men who would behead you the second the captured you.

Warfish · 06-12-2007, 10:35 AM

[QUOTE=WJGC]I agree. The problem I'm having with this case is that he is not an American citizen, but rather a legal resident. Just because the country allows you to live in this country does that grant you the protection of the Constitution if you are conspiring against it. Not a citizen, but not fighting on a battlefield. In the end I think the decision was the right one.[/QUOTE]

Actually, by law is DOES Grant those rights, yes. We may not like it, but it is the law.

WJGC · 06-12-2007, 10:37 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish]Actually, by law is DOES Grant those rights, yes. We may not like it, but it is the law.[/QUOTE]

Then I definately agree with the decision.

nuu faaola · 06-12-2007, 10:56 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish]Fine by me. I'm all for summary execution of ANY non-American, non-uniformed, non-state combatant captured in-action against our forces or civillians.

Our country NEVER stood for granting Terrorists OUR Rights and Protections, and any claim otherwise is a gross and wanton distortion of facts. Terrorism, i.e. blowing up our Soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan, or launching attacks on civillians in the United States are not a "Crimes", they are acts of War by Men without a State, and Prisoners of War CAN AND WERE held until the END of any conflict. So when the Islamic Fundamentlaism Jihad against America is over, and their forces admit defeat and disarm, THEN we'll release their men if they release.....oh wait, they BEHEAD all of our men.

You want to give our rights to men who would behead you the second the captured you.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this line of thinking is that it holds that the "war on terror" is a war, when it is not. We are not in a declared state of war. And there will never be any admission of defeat or disarmament by the forces we are fighting --as they are far too decentralized to do so even if they wanted to, which they of course never will. So it never ends, by definition, because ideological proxy wars do not end, by definition.

The only way we will ever reduce terrorism is by winning a war of ideas, in which average Muslims come to see that our way of life is better than the one the Jihadists are pushing. And, to me, granting rights to those who wouldn't do the same for us is a great way of showing that we are better than those we are fighting.

Beyond that, there is a practicality issue: Since this war will likely go on indefinitely, and we will likely detain hundreds and probably thousands more people in this effort, keeping them in some sort of pseudo-legal alternative justice system becomes an enormous undertaking. And, if the current state of affairs at Gitmo is any indication, it also becomes an American Gulag -- a sign to the world that we are not as morally superior as we claim to be.

Warfish · 06-12-2007, 11:09 AM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola]The problem with this line of thinking is that it holds that the "war on terror" is a war, when it is not. We are not in a declared state of war. And there will never be any admission of defeat or disarmament by the forces we are fighting --as they are far too decentralized to do so even if they wanted to, which they of course never will. So it never ends, by definition, because ideological proxy wars do not end, by definition.

The only way we will ever reduce terrorism is by winning a war of ideas, in which average Muslims come to see that our way of life is better than the one the Jihadists are pushing. And, to me, granting rights to those who wouldn't do the same for us is a great way of showing that we are better than those we are fighting.

Beyond that, there is a practicality issue: Since this war will likely go on indefinitely, and we will likely detain hundreds and probably thousands more people in this effort, keeping them in some sort of pseudo-legal alternative justice system becomes an enormous undertaking. And, if the current state of affairs at Gitmo is any indication, it also becomes an American Gulag -- a sign to the world that we are not as morally superior as we claim to be.[/QUOTE]

You may not believe we are at War, but those against us sure do.

And yet your answer to this conundrum is to grant them all the rights and protections we have, a lawyer, a day in court and beyond a reasonable doubt? :eek:

And what then? When found Guilty, what....we put them in OUR already vastly overtaxed civilian Prisons? Or do you think most will "get off", perhaps on the same technicallities many American crime-breakers get off on? Or better yet, maybe they'll be found innocent and America will be found Guilty instead?

War of ideas? What on Earth makes you think you can sit down with a Religious Extremist, who believes deeply that he is doing the Work of God on Earth (and is willing to die to do it) and "convince" him of our sides position?

You do not take the threat against us seriously at all, you want to brush it aside and pretend it doesn't exist. Right up till something bad happenes when.....suprise.....you blame America and any Republican you can find. You want to be "Morally superior", at the cost of American lives.

No wonder this country is headed down a dark road, we have Facist-in-Training Republicans and Head-in-the-Sand Liberals and damn too few folks in between, living in the land of COMMON SENSE. :rolleyes: :mad:

nuu faaola · 06-12-2007, 12:00 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish]

War of ideas? What on Earth makes you think you can sit down with a Religious Extremist, who believes deeply that he is doing the Work of God on Earth (and is willing to die to do it) and "convince" him of our sides position?

:[/QUOTE]

You will never convince the extemists otherwise. You have to kill them or arrest them.

But you can convince the should-be moderate populations they recruit from otherwsie, over time. That's what I'm talking about.

cr726 · 06-12-2007, 08:34 PM

Aren't we as a nation doing what JFK wanted to do? Nation building.
We as a nation preach our wonderful values, yet now when we are attacked we are trying to ignore one of the most important values we behold.

Like it or not this man is a legal resident of the U.S. and should not be treated like this no matter what.

It is that simple.

[QUOTE=Warfish]You may not believe we are at War, but those against us sure do.

And yet your answer to this conundrum is to grant them all the rights and protections we have, a lawyer, a day in court and beyond a reasonable doubt? :eek:

And what then? When found Guilty, what....we put them in OUR already vastly overtaxed civilian Prisons? Or do you think most will "get off", perhaps on the same technicallities many American crime-breakers get off on? Or better yet, maybe they'll be found innocent and America will be found Guilty instead?

War of ideas? What on Earth makes you think you can sit down with a Religious Extremist, who believes deeply that he is doing the Work of God on Earth (and is willing to die to do it) and "convince" him of our sides position?

You do not take the threat against us seriously at all, you want to brush it aside and pretend it doesn't exist. Right up till something bad happenes when.....suprise.....you blame America and any Republican you can find. You want to be "Morally superior", at the cost of American lives.

No wonder this country is headed down a dark road, we have Facist-in-Training Republicans and Head-in-the-Sand Liberals and damn too few folks in between, living in the land of COMMON SENSE. :rolleyes: :mad:[/QUOTE]

06-11-2007, 10:30 PM	#1
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,309	Justice Dept. fighting federal court ruling on U.S. citizen as a enemy combatant Justice Department plans to fight enemy combatant ruling Associated Press - June 11, 2007 4:53 PM ET RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The Justice Department plans to fight a federal court ruling that says the Bush administration cannot hold US residents indefinitely without charging them. That decision was made by a three-judge panel in Virginia. The Justice Department plans to ask the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling. The department says the president needs to "use all available tools" to "protect Americans from further al-Qaida attack." The case involves Ali al-Marri (ah-LEE' al-MAH'-ree), a legal US resident, who has been held since 2001. He's accused of having links to al-Qaida terrorists. The panel ruled the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip al-Marri of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court. The ruling does not ensure his release, but means he can be returned to the civilian court system and be tried on criminal charges. [url]http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=6642281&nav=AbC0[/url] [QUOTE]The concept of enemy combatant is not a concept that's identified under the laws of war. The government claims it's a customary use of the laws of war or, you know, law of armed conflict, but there is no such thing as enemy combatant as the administration’s used its term. The way they use it is they try to describe it as someone who's fighting on a battlefield. But Mr. al-Marri was never on a battlefield, never fought against US troops. He's not in any way what we understand to be a combatant under the laws of war. He is essentially an alleged criminal who should be tried in the criminal justice system and has a right to be tried, but they are inventing this term to try to kind of pull the rug from under those rights and essentially get out of the Bill of Rights. [/QUOTE]

06-12-2007, 08:17 AM	#2
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	yeah great - it only took 7 years for America to remember it's not a despotism.

06-12-2007, 08:22 AM	#3
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,309	Gonzalez's statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee are starting to really come to light now. [QUOTE=bitonti]yeah great - it only took 7 years for America to remember it's not a despotism.[/QUOTE]

06-12-2007, 08:57 AM	#4
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,294	For the most part, the judicial system in this country works. Here's a thought, use it...

06-12-2007, 10:15 AM	#5
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	Holding an American Citizen indefinitely without charging them goes against the Constitution, and hence should not be allowed. This should be an easy position for anyone who claims to be a Conservative or a Constitutional Originalist. Anything less is allowing ourselves to take a step down a very slippery slope towards Facism. Now, while I fully agree that the Bush Admin. has gone too far on this specific part, I do not support giving our rights to enemy non-citizens captured in action against our or our allies forces. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was simply not designed to account for non-State Terrorists using gurella tactics while dressed as civillians (I.e. non uniformed). While we should try to be fair and moral in their treatment, we do not "owe" them the rights and privlidges Americans have died to protect for 2+ Centuries.

06-12-2007, 10:26 AM	#6
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,294	[QUOTE=Warfish]Now, while I fully agree that the Bush Admin. has gone too far on this specific part, I do not support giving our rights to enemy non-citizens captured in action against our or our allies forces. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was simply not designed to account for non-State Terrorists using gurella tactics while dressed as civillians (I.e. non uniformed). While we should try to be fair and moral in their treatment, we do not "owe" them the rights and privlidges Americans have died to protect for 2+ Centuries.[/QUOTE] There is no reason why any person, citizen or non-citizen, should be held by our government indefinitely without trial. It goes against everything our country and society stands for and unnecessarily puts us in a negative light around the world.

06-12-2007, 10:29 AM	#7
WJGC .....\m/ \m/ All League Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	[QUOTE=Warfish]Holding an American Citizen indefinitely without charging them goes against the Constitution, and hence should not be allowed. This should be an easy position for anyone who claims to be a Conservative or a Constitutional Originalist. Anything less is allowing ourselves to take a step down a very slippery slope towards Facism. Now, while I fully agree that the Bush Admin. has gone too far on this specific part, I do not support giving our rights to enemy non-citizens captured in action against our or our allies forces. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was simply not designed to account for non-State Terrorists using gurella tactics while dressed as civillians (I.e. non uniformed). While we should try to be fair and moral in their treatment, we do not "owe" them the rights and privlidges Americans have died to protect for 2+ Centuries.[/QUOTE] I agree. The problem I'm having with this case is that he is not an American citizen, but rather a legal resident. Just because the country allows you to live in this country does that grant you the protection of the Constitution if you are conspiring against it. Not a citizen, but not fighting on a battlefield. In the end I think the decision was the right one.

06-12-2007, 10:34 AM	#8
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=parafly]There is no reason why any person, citizen or non-citizen, should be held by our government indefinitely without trial. It goes against everything our country and society stands for and unnecessarily puts us in a negative light around the world.[/QUOTE] Fine by me. I'm all for summary execution of ANY non-American, non-uniformed, non-state combatant captured in-action against our forces or civillians. Our country NEVER stood for granting Terrorists OUR Rights and Protections, and any claim otherwise is a gross and wanton distortion of facts. Terrorism, i.e. blowing up our Soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan, or launching attacks on civillians in the United States are not a "Crimes", they are acts of War by Men without a State, and Prisoners of War CAN AND WERE held until the END of any conflict. So when the Islamic Fundamentlaism Jihad against America is over, and their forces admit defeat and disarm, THEN we'll release their men if they release.....oh wait, they BEHEAD all of our men. You want to give our rights to men who would behead you the second the captured you.

06-12-2007, 10:35 AM	#9
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=WJGC]I agree. The problem I'm having with this case is that he is not an American citizen, but rather a legal resident. Just because the country allows you to live in this country does that grant you the protection of the Constitution if you are conspiring against it. Not a citizen, but not fighting on a battlefield. In the end I think the decision was the right one.[/QUOTE] Actually, by law is DOES Grant those rights, yes. We may not like it, but it is the law.

06-12-2007, 10:37 AM	#10
WJGC .....\m/ \m/ All League Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	[QUOTE=Warfish]Actually, by law is DOES Grant those rights, yes. We may not like it, but it is the law.[/QUOTE] Then I definately agree with the decision.

06-12-2007, 10:56 AM	#11
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=Warfish]Fine by me. I'm all for summary execution of ANY non-American, non-uniformed, non-state combatant captured in-action against our forces or civillians. Our country NEVER stood for granting Terrorists OUR Rights and Protections, and any claim otherwise is a gross and wanton distortion of facts. Terrorism, i.e. blowing up our Soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan, or launching attacks on civillians in the United States are not a "Crimes", they are acts of War by Men without a State, and Prisoners of War CAN AND WERE held until the END of any conflict. So when the Islamic Fundamentlaism Jihad against America is over, and their forces admit defeat and disarm, THEN we'll release their men if they release.....oh wait, they BEHEAD all of our men. You want to give our rights to men who would behead you the second the captured you.[/QUOTE] The problem with this line of thinking is that it holds that the "war on terror" is a war, when it is not. We are not in a declared state of war. And there will never be any admission of defeat or disarmament by the forces we are fighting --as they are far too decentralized to do so even if they wanted to, which they of course never will. So it never ends, by definition, because ideological proxy wars do not end, by definition. The only way we will ever reduce terrorism is by winning a war of ideas, in which average Muslims come to see that our way of life is better than the one the Jihadists are pushing. And, to me, granting rights to those who wouldn't do the same for us is a great way of showing that we are better than those we are fighting. Beyond that, there is a practicality issue: Since this war will likely go on indefinitely, and we will likely detain hundreds and probably thousands more people in this effort, keeping them in some sort of pseudo-legal alternative justice system becomes an enormous undertaking. And, if the current state of affairs at Gitmo is any indication, it also becomes an American Gulag -- a sign to the world that we are not as morally superior as we claim to be.

06-12-2007, 11:09 AM	#12
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=nuu faaola]The problem with this line of thinking is that it holds that the "war on terror" is a war, when it is not. We are not in a declared state of war. And there will never be any admission of defeat or disarmament by the forces we are fighting --as they are far too decentralized to do so even if they wanted to, which they of course never will. So it never ends, by definition, because ideological proxy wars do not end, by definition. The only way we will ever reduce terrorism is by winning a war of ideas, in which average Muslims come to see that our way of life is better than the one the Jihadists are pushing. And, to me, granting rights to those who wouldn't do the same for us is a great way of showing that we are better than those we are fighting. Beyond that, there is a practicality issue: Since this war will likely go on indefinitely, and we will likely detain hundreds and probably thousands more people in this effort, keeping them in some sort of pseudo-legal alternative justice system becomes an enormous undertaking. And, if the current state of affairs at Gitmo is any indication, it also becomes an American Gulag -- a sign to the world that we are not as morally superior as we claim to be.[/QUOTE] You may not believe we are at War, but those against us sure do. And yet your answer to this conundrum is to grant them all the rights and protections we have, a lawyer, a day in court and beyond a reasonable doubt? :eek: And what then? When found Guilty, what....we put them in OUR already vastly overtaxed civilian Prisons? Or do you think most will "get off", perhaps on the same technicallities many American crime-breakers get off on? Or better yet, maybe they'll be found innocent and America will be found Guilty instead? War of ideas? What on Earth makes you think you can sit down with a Religious Extremist, who believes deeply that he is doing the Work of God on Earth (and is willing to die to do it) and "convince" him of our sides position? You do not take the threat against us seriously at all, you want to brush it aside and pretend it doesn't exist. Right up till something bad happenes when.....suprise.....you blame America and any Republican you can find. You want to be "Morally superior", at the cost of American lives. No wonder this country is headed down a dark road, we have Facist-in-Training Republicans and Head-in-the-Sand Liberals and damn too few folks in between, living in the land of COMMON SENSE. :rolleyes: :mad:

06-12-2007, 12:00 PM	#13
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=Warfish] War of ideas? What on Earth makes you think you can sit down with a Religious Extremist, who believes deeply that he is doing the Work of God on Earth (and is willing to die to do it) and "convince" him of our sides position? :[/QUOTE] You will never convince the extemists otherwise. You have to kill them or arrest them. But you can convince the should-be moderate populations they recruit from otherwsie, over time. That's what I'm talking about.

06-12-2007, 08:34 PM	#14
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,309	Aren't we as a nation doing what JFK wanted to do? Nation building. We as a nation preach our wonderful values, yet now when we are attacked we are trying to ignore one of the most important values we behold. Like it or not this man is a legal resident of the U.S. and should not be treated like this no matter what. It is that simple. [QUOTE=Warfish]You may not believe we are at War, but those against us sure do. And yet your answer to this conundrum is to grant them all the rights and protections we have, a lawyer, a day in court and beyond a reasonable doubt? :eek: And what then? When found Guilty, what....we put them in OUR already vastly overtaxed civilian Prisons? Or do you think most will "get off", perhaps on the same technicallities many American crime-breakers get off on? Or better yet, maybe they'll be found innocent and America will be found Guilty instead? War of ideas? What on Earth makes you think you can sit down with a Religious Extremist, who believes deeply that he is doing the Work of God on Earth (and is willing to die to do it) and "convince" him of our sides position? You do not take the threat against us seriously at all, you want to brush it aside and pretend it doesn't exist. Right up till something bad happenes when.....suprise.....you blame America and any Republican you can find. You want to be "Morally superior", at the cost of American lives. No wonder this country is headed down a dark road, we have Facist-in-Training Republicans and Head-in-the-Sand Liberals and damn too few folks in between, living in the land of COMMON SENSE. :rolleyes: :mad:[/QUOTE]