Hamdi

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 15, 2004, 8:09 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6012286/site/newsweek/

The first U.S. government-declared "enemy combatant" in the war on terror will soon be released from a military prison in South Carolina under an agreement that will allow him to fly home to Saudi Arabia as a free man, administration officials tell NEWSWEEK.

The agreement to free Yaser Esam Hamdi represents a stunning reversal for the Bush administration, which argued for more than two years that the former Taliban fighter was potentially so dangerous that he had to be detained indefinitely in solitary confinement with no access to counsel and no right to trial.

But in a landmark ruling last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that Hamdi, an American citizen, be allowed to consult with his lawyer and challenge the basis for his imprisonment. This pushed the case back into federal court and forced the Justice Department to mount a hasty retreat.

The result, officials say, is a highly detailed agreement that is expected to be made public later this week. It will result in Hamdi being flown back to Saudi Arabia on a U.S. military aircraft without ever being charged with any terror-related activity—a symbolic victory for critics who have long pointed to the case as a prime example of what they see as the Bush administration's overreaching in combating the terrorist threat

A senior Justice Department official insisted to NEWSWEEK that Hamdi was never considered anything more than a "low-level terrorist" and that his release is in keeping with "standard" practice during earlier conflicts—in which prisoners of war were eventually returned home.
"When an individual is no longer considered to be a threat and their intelligence value is exhausted, it is common to release them," said the official.

Low level my ass, you had no case Asscroft

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 15, 2004, 10:26 pm

makes me sick to my stomach when I see a so-called civilized nation behaving like that. at least the resident racists on the board will give me some entertainment defending the bush admin from shit like this.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 15, 2004, 10:39 pm

They'll avoid this like the senate comments on the state of Iraq

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 15, 2004, 10:48 pm

I give him 3 weeks before he's beheaded when he gets back to Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure which side will actually do it athough it will be blamed on the terrorists either way.

Alegedly, according to you conspiracy nuts, Bush is butt buddies with certain Saudis. Do you think Hamdi will be safer there?

He just got the death sentence.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 15, 2004, 11:18 pm

I hate terrorists just as much as everyone else, but this is another example of the 911 hysteria causing my government to be trigger happy. Thank goodness someone came to their senses. I'll admit, I would not have given this guy a second thought a week or so after 911 though. The haze has been lifting for a while now for most of us, and those that did support Bush early on are waking up with the worst hang over ever, realizing we just had a one night stand with the devil.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 15, 2004, 11:37 pm

U.S. Officials say that in November 2001 he was fighting as part of a Taliban unit and was carrying a Kalashnikov assault rifle when he was captured by pro-U.S. Northern Alliance forces in northern Afghanistan. His captors turned him over to the U.S. military.

It's not like this guy was strolling in the park. He just got 3 squares a day courtesy of Uncle Sam for less than 3 years. While that is not trivial if he was truly innocent it's also not enough for me to declare massive failure upon Ashcroft, the Justice Department, or our government as a whole.

Even if the guy was innocent I'm not losing any sleep over this. You guys seem to forget there is a war going on.

Pherr and Krimson I'm actually ashamed of you both. You are both like guys that woke up next to some ugly chick you picked up at the bar and now you trying to pull your pants on as you hobble to the door. Get some perspective, look back on the history that found American forces on the ground in Afhganistan in the first place. Remember that Americans were getting ambushed on a daily basis. This guy is a lot luckier than many people caught up in those circumstances. You two seem only too willing to accept this story and piss on your fellow Americans without waiting for the facts to out. Why don't you wait and see what comes out in 6 months after each side has a chance to truly tell it's story?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 15, 2004, 11:56 pm

Metanis wrote:
U.S. Officials say that in November 2001 he was fighting as part of a Taliban unit and was carrying a Kalashnikov assault rifle when he was captured by pro-U.S. Northern Alliance forces in northern Afghanistan. His captors turned him over to the U.S. military.
It's not like this guy was strolling in the park. He just got 3 squares a day courtesy of Uncle Sam for less than 3 years. While that is not trivial if he was truly innocent it's also not enough for me to declare massive failure upon Ashcroft, the Justice Department, or our government as a whole.

Even if the guy was innocent I'm not losing any sleep over this. You guys seem to forget there is a war going on.

Pherr and Krimson I'm actually ashamed of you both. You are both like guys that woke up next to some ugly chick you picked up at the bar and now you trying to pull your pants on as you hobble to the door. Get some perspective, look back on the history that found American forces on the ground in Afhganistan in the first place. Remember that Americans were getting ambushed on a daily basis. This guy is a lot luckier than many people caught up in those circumstances. You two seem only too willing to accept this story and piss on your fellow Americans without waiting for the facts to out. Why don't you wait and see what comes out in 6 months after each side has a chance to truly tell it's story?

The agreement to free Yaser Esam Hamdi represents a stunning reversal for the Bush administration, which argued for more than two years that the former Taliban fighter was potentially so dangerous that he had to be detained indefinitely in solitary confinement with no access to counsel and no right to trial.

Sorry that will piss me off, under any circumstances every fucking time, he's a citizen

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 16, 2004, 1:01 am

Metanis wrote:Even if the guy was innocent I'm not losing any sleep over this.

and that is why civilized people revile you and your ilk.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 16, 2004, 1:25 am

Pherr the Dorf wrote:Sorry that will piss me off, under any circumstances every fucking time, he's a citizen

Yes, he was!.

Shannon Spann, wife of CIA officer Johnny "Mike" Spann, sits beside his grave at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, Monday, May 27, 2002

You crying over a piece of dogshit terrorist who left this country when he was 3 years old is just pathetic. You really need to get your fucking head screwed on Pherr.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 16, 2004, 1:31 am

Metanis wrote:
Pherr the Dorf wrote:Sorry that will piss me off, under any circumstances every fucking time, he's a citizen

You crying over a piece of dogshit terrorist who left this country when he was 3 years old is just pathetic. You really need to get your fucking head screwed on Pherr.

Citizens have rights... constitutional rights, period, there is no more discussion needed, he deserved council, Ted Bundy got Council, the fuckers that did OK City got council, a citizen deserves a lawyer

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 16, 2004, 1:48 am

You can't win this argument Met so give it up...

Our constutition gives EVERY American citizen whether they are a mass murders to brainwashed zelots to law abiding citizens who make a mistake the right to a trial and representation. He did NOT get those for 3 year under Bush and his cronies who continually play on people's fears to spit in the face of everything this country stands for and everything they SAY they stand for... it's pathetic. At one time I use to get offended at the comparisons between some of the things goign on here and NAZI Germany but the facts don't lie...

Marb

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 16, 2004, 1:57 am

Marbus wrote:You can't win this argument Met so give it up...

It's not an argument Marb. It's a way of life.

And actually I do plan on winning this one... on November 2nd... when George W. Bush is re-elected.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 16, 2004, 2:01 am

Is it ok for any US citizen not to have a lawyer, that is what I want to know Met? This is about the damn constitution

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 16, 2004, 2:01 am

it takes a certain kind of retard to turn a gross violation of someone's constitutional rights into a re-elect bush cheer with such a straight face. you can't even buy that kind of irony but to you it's actually serious.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 16, 2004, 2:02 am

You are missing my point...

It IS a way of life, I agree with you 100% on that. It's OUR way of life. Whether we agree on this board or vote for the same person or not is not the issue. The issue is that this man was held, without a trial or even being charged. That goes against OUR way of life, does it not?

If anyone believes that the right to trial by jury and representation under the law isn't one of the things our founding fathers stood for or what makes this country great please let me know why because I certantly can't see how that would be possible... We did all take American History right?

Marb

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 16, 2004, 2:11 am

Irony?

You loonies are all crying, but this piece of trash DID get a lawyer and now he's being released. It didn't take 3 years. In legal terms that's a flash in the pan. You are all arguing constitutional violation and the facts of the case haven't even been released. What a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary ingrates. I'm sure Kooky and Canada would take you all and don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out.

You would all be fiddling while Rome burned around you.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 16, 2004, 2:13 am

Metanis wrote:Irony?

You loonies are all crying, but this piece of trash DID get a lawyer and now he's being released. It didn't take 3 years. In legal terms that's a flash in the pan. You are all arguing constitutional violation and the facts of the case haven't even been released. What a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary ingrates. I'm sure Kooky and Canada would take you all and don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out.

You would all be fiddling while Rome burned around you.

Read it, I even quoted it, he was held without a lawyer for 2 years...is this OK?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 16, 2004, 2:15 am

So it wouldnt bother you if you were arrested and had to wait three years to see a lawyer so you could be declared innocent and released? You would actually show gratitude to your jailers for feeding and clothing you for the three years you were unlawfully imprisoned for? or is just a special rule for muslims?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 16, 2004, 2:29 am

Even if the guy was innocent I'm not losing any sleep over this.

You make me sick. You are quite possibly as far from being a patriotic American as is possible to get. You symbolize everything that is wrong, rotten and corrupt about this country.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 16, 2004, 2:29 am

Ah... no one is jumping on anything. This issue has been going around for a couple of years. It's just now the outcry is getting louder... from people who think at least.

And let me tell you about Rome my friend. It wasn't those of a liberal accepting mindset that brought Rome to it's knees. It was the self-rightous bigots who thought they could do no wrong and started overriding the senate, not listening to the military advisors, removing personal freedoms or listening to multiple points of view. Eventually they being some paranoid and filled with their own egostatistical god given rights to rule... they screwed up a good thing for everyone.

Hmmmm... sounds... vaguely familiar? While people don't necessarily love Kerry, they can at least learn from history that Bushy is taking us down the wrong road.

Marb

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 16, 2004, 2:36 am

Kelshara wrote:
Even if the guy was innocent I'm not losing any sleep over this.
You make me sick. You are quite possibly as far from being a patriotic American as is possible to get. You symbolize everything that is wrong, rotten and corrupt about this country.

Not only am I losing no sleep, but tonight I'll go to bed happy in light of this comment. Thanks Princess.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 16, 2004, 2:44 am

So you are proud of being anti-American and unpatriotic? It all makes sense now.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 16, 2004, 3:07 am

I guess I just don't get it, I can't fathom how any "red blooded" American can't be outraged over this kind of crap.

It's a RIGHT, by definition it can not be taken away... but was, that is what makes it soooo wrong. If we don't.... nevermind...

Marb

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 16, 2004, 3:07 am

Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Even if the guy was innocent I'm not losing any sleep over this.
You make me sick. You are quite possibly as far from being a patriotic American as is possible to get. You symbolize everything that is wrong, rotten and corrupt about this country.
Not only am I losing no sleep, but tonight I'll go to bed happy in light of this comment. Thanks Princess.

Well at least you’re being honest. I have to wonder though, were these same thoughts going through the minds of the German people in the 1930s. Safety above civil liberties as long as it doesn't affect me?

Now before you go inferring that I am comparing the current administration to the Nazis, I'll say that it's not what I'm saying. What I am doing is comparing you to the type of person who would sacrifice the civil liberties of others in order to feel safer.

Is that wrong? On one level I understand, I mean who doesn't want to keep their family and loved ones safe. However, sacrificing principles that we built our society around will only lead to more danger. If the principles of the Roman Republic could fall after 700 years then I have no doubt that our own that have only been around for a little over 200 years can as well if we let them. The Republic was brought down from the inside by people who took advantage of the citizen's need for safety and stability; it's a lesson that shouldn't be forgotten.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 16, 2004, 3:15 am

I know liberals would prefer to give him back his Kalashnikov assault rifle, fill up his clip, drop him off at the nearest Afghan terrorist base and wish him better luck his next attempt. I've come to realize that you pathetic liberal whores would spread your legs for anyone in the world that hates the U.S....the more they've killed, the more misunderstood they are. Feel free to go over to Iraq or Afghanistan and do some humanitarian work. These same people who's dicks you want to suck will kidnap you and lop off your head. They don't care how confused you are. I'd feel sad for your stupidity but not that you hadn't been warned.

I'm glad we won't be wasting food on this guy in jail anymore.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 16, 2004, 3:29 am

Winnow wrote:I know liberals would prefer to give him back his Kalashnikov assault rifle, fill up his clip, drop him off at the nearest Afghan terrorist base and wish him better luck his next attempt. I've come to realize that you pathetic liberal whores would spread your legs for anyone in the world that hates the U.S....the more they've killed, the more misunderstood they are. Feel free to go over to Iraq or Afghanistan and do some humanitarian work. These same people who's dicks you want to suck will kidnap you and lop off your head. They don't care how confused you are. I'd feel sad for your stupidity but not that you hadn't been warned.

I'm glad we won't be wasting food on this guy in jail anymore.

Yes because defending the constitution is the same as supporting terror, hey you can put that on a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker.

If he was a terrorist then he should be charged and prosecuted. You can try to shift the attention over to the great Republican trump card of "War on Terror", but this is an issue of a U.S. citizen being held illegally for three years by his government.

What's sadder is the fact that if he was a real terrorist and the government was unable to prosecute him then not only did they violate the constitution, but they also failed to actually fight terrorism.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 16, 2004, 3:52 am

I'm perfectly happy with sending him back to Saudi Arabia or Canada. He lived in Saudi Arabia most of his life. He should be happy there again.

U.S. citizens overseas who take up arms against their country can be held as enemy combatants without the constitutional rights afforded other Americans, a federal appeals court ruled

"The fact that he is a citizen does not affect the legality of his detention as an enemy combatant," the judges said.

"Detention of enemy combatants prevents them from rejoining the enemy and continuing to fight against America and its allies, and has long been upheld by our nation's courts, regardless of the citizenship of the enemy combatant,"

He was arrested in 2001 when he was found fighting with a Taliban military unit that surrendered to Northern Alliance forces following a battle near Konduz, Afghanistan. At surrender he was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, and admitted to having gone to Afghanistan to train with and fight for the Taliban. Hamdi was confirmed as an “enemy combatant” following a U.S. military screening, and was taken under the control of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 16, 2004, 4:05 am

If he is an enemy then they should be able to prove that right? So... why did it take so long?

I'm all for a freakin' firing squad if he is guilty. I have NO sympathay for terrorist or anyone else who plans to do harm to this Country. Nor do I wish to rush to their aid.

But this guy did less than the guy in OK City? Much less IMHO. All I'm saying is get them in get them out. I agree with you Win, at least I'm not paying for his freaking meals anymore, but I shouldn't have been paying for them this long anyway... that's my point.

Marb

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 16, 2004, 4:09 am

I don't think that's the point everyone is arguing. He is/was a U.S. citizen, if he could have been prosecuted then he should have been. If we could have come up with some charges and could have successfully procured him on those charges then I would happy call him a traitor to American and executed him. The government however was unable to even charge him with anything, they held him illegally for 3 years.

Do I feel bad that he was held for 3 years? Honestly I don't really care. However, what I do care is that the government violated the constitution that it is suppose to abide by and protect. The government is not some omnipotent entity that can be used by individuals to advance their own beliefs and agendas. It is a servant for the citizens of our nation, which means every citizen, otherwise we might as well just give up right now because you know what. Terrorism will never do nearly as much damage as our own people can do if we start giving up our civil liberties.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 16, 2004, 4:16 am

I have issues with them all being held without counsel, and I don't necessarily agree with the approach being taken with these prisoners, but-

As an American citizen, it pretty much comes down to this- given the choice between being held for less than three years and released, or being executed for treason on the spot, he got off easy.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 16, 2004, 7:36 am

Bureaucracy

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 16, 2004, 8:28 am

Didn't Metanis say that Republicans were for the rights of the people a while back and that Dems were not?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 16, 2004, 9:17 am

He was not "in jail". He was being held as a prisoner of war. They could have held him for as long as they wanted and as long as he was being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, he could have stayed there damn near forever.

Big difference between just being wrongly jailed and held as a prisoner of war. If this guy ends up driving a U-haul filled with explosives into a building where some of your family members die, I will be interested to know if you all of a sudden wonder why he was turned loose.

Trampling on a few hundred suspected terrorists rights far outweighs the impact of what would happen were they to let them free to do whatever they wanted. I am betting that not every single one of the people held is a terrorist, but I would put hard cash down that says they have a bunch of them that are. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 16, 2004, 10:26 am

Was he held as a PoW though? With actual PoW status? If so, he has rights.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

That is dangerously close to what something like Hitler would say. Or someoen supporting the camps during WWII (which I am starting to wonder if Winnow wants put in place for Arabs).

I am all for terrorists being caught and punished. But you need to follow due procedure with them.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » September 16, 2004, 10:37 am

Marbus wrote:I guess I just don't get it, I can't fathom how any "red blooded" American can't be outraged over this kind of crap.

It's a RIGHT, by definition it can not be taken away... but was, that is what makes it soooo wrong. If we don't.... nevermind...

Marb

Marbus, this kind of zealous crazed "there's a war on" mentality is gonna fuck us all over and erode everyone's civil rights. The same people that applaud this are the same ones that rammed the Patriot Act down America's throat. Let's swaddle ourselves in the red white and blue flag of "patriotism" while we turn America into a fascist state.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 16, 2004, 10:41 am

Kelshara wrote:Was he held as a PoW though? With actual PoW status? If so, he has rights.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
That is dangerously close to what something like Hitler would say. Or someoen supporting the camps during WWII (which I am starting to wonder if Winnow wants put in place for Arabs).
.

Actually it's dangerously close to what Spock said!

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 16, 2004, 10:45 am

That article states he was held as an "enemy combatant". As such.....

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312

To: Members of the ASIL-CFR Roundtable

From: William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense

Subject: Enemy Combatants

There is no doubt that the attacks of September 11, 2001 constituted acts of war. They possessed the intensity and scale of war. They involved at least one military target, the Pentagon, and they came on the heels of a decade of attacks by al Qaida on U.S. military and civilian targets. Congress on September 18, 2001 authorized the President to use force in response to the attacks. And both the United Nations and NATO recognized that the attacks were "armed attacks" within the meaning of the UN Charter and NATO treaty. Since September 11th (and perhaps before then), we have been at war - both legally and in fact.

War implicates legal powers and rules that are not available during peacetime. Among other things, the war context gives the President the authority to detain enemy combatants at least until hostilities cease.

Enemy Combatant

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

Authority to Detain

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President's authority is bolstered by Congress's Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized "the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines" committed or aided in the September 11 attacks." Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President's traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation's history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

Who Decides

The determination of enemy combatant status has traditionally resided with the military commander who is authorized to engage the enemy with deadly force. In this regard, the task ultimately falls within the President's constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief to identify which forces and persons to engage or capture and detain during an armed conflict. Of course, there is no requirement that the President make such determinations personally, and in the vast majority of cases he does not do so. Rather, consistent with longstanding historical practice and applicable rules of engagement, the task is normally a function of the military command structure.

In the current conflict, military personnel ordinarily make enemy combatant determinations during combat operations, under the combatant commander's direction. With respect to individuals captured in the United States, to date DoD has detained only Abdullah al Muhajir, also known as Jose Padilla. The President, as Commander in Chief, determined that Mr. Padilla is an enemy combatant.

Detainee Rights

All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee's country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.

U.S. citizen enemy combatants who are detained in the United States may challenge their detention by a petition for habeas corpus. In the view of the U.S. government, enemy combatants have no right to counsel to challenge their detention. Providing enemy combatants a right of access to counsel could thwart our ability to collect critical information and could imperil efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks. It might also enable detained enemy combatants to pass concealed messages to the enemy.

In Padilla v. Bush, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23086 (S.D.N.Y. December 4, 2002), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently upheld the government's ability to detain U.S. citizen enemy combatants in the United States but required the government to provide access to Padilla by his attorneys for limited purposes. We are currently reviewing the court's decision.

Length of Detention

Many have claimed that enemy combatants are being detained "indefinitely." The suggestion appears to be that they are being detained lawlessly and without limit. That is not true. As explained above, the constitutional power to detain during wartime is well settled. In addition, international law - including the Third Geneva Convention - unambiguously permits a government to detain enemy combatants at least until hostilities cease. There may be uncertainty about when hostilities cease in the novel conflict with al Qaida. But disquiet about indefinite detention is misplaced for two reasons.

First, the concern is premature. In prior wars combatants (including U.S. POWs) have been legally detained for years. We have not yet approached that point in the current conflict. Second, the government has no interest in detaining enemy combatants any longer than necessary, and the Department of Defense reviews the status of all enemy combatants on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they should continue to be detained. Since we first captured or came to control detainees in Afghanistan, we have released many thousands, and we recently released additional detainees from the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But as long as hostilities continue and the detainees present a threat or retain intelligence or law enforcement value, no law requires that the detainees be released, and it would be imprudent to do so.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 16, 2004, 10:48 am

Thanks Kill. But Libs don't deal well with facts.

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 16, 2004, 10:48 am

Of course, as an enemy combatant, he could have been held for the entire duration of the actions in Afghanistan. If that dragged on for another 20 years, then he can legally be held for that entire duration.

My point is, stop your whining, it is perfectly legal and any country on the planet can do the same according to international laws. If he didn't want to be imprisoned, maybe he should not have been engaged in a battle with U.S. forces?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 16, 2004, 10:51 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Thanks Kill. But Libs don't deal well with facts.

Coming from you, that comment is not just ironic as hell.. it is also hillarious.

Thanks for the info Kil. Good stuff.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 16, 2004, 10:55 am

ENEMY COMBATANTS
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld et al.
Docket No. 03-6696
Vacated: The Fourth Circuit

Argued: April 28, 2004
Decided: June 28, 2004
For Case Analysis: See ABA Preview 397

Is a United States citizen, detained on United States soil as an enemy combatant, entitled to an opportunity to challenge his "enemy combatant" label?

Yes. The Court ruled that, although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention.

From the opinion by Justice O'Connor (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy and Breyer):

There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those [September 11] attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the [Authorization for Use of Military Force]. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use. … Even in cases in which the detention of enemy combatants is legally authorized, there remains the question of what process is constitutionally due to a citizen who disputes his enemy-combatant status. … Striking the proper constitutional balance here is of great importance to the Nation during this period of ongoing combat. But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship. It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. … We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.

Since you want facts, that is the law, period

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 16, 2004, 11:01 am

Pherr the Dorf wrote:
ENEMY COMBATANTS
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld et al.
Docket No. 03-6696
Vacated: The Fourth Circuit

Argued: April 28, 2004
Decided: June 28, 2004
For Case Analysis: See ABA Preview 397

Is a United States citizen, detained on United States soil as an enemy combatant, entitled to an opportunity to challenge his "enemy combatant" label?

Yes. The Court ruled that, although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention.

From the opinion by Justice O'Connor (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy and Breyer):

There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those [September 11] attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the [Authorization for Use of Military Force]. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use. … Even in cases in which the detention of enemy combatants is legally authorized, there remains the question of what process is constitutionally due to a citizen who disputes his enemy-combatant status. … Striking the proper constitutional balance here is of great importance to the Nation during this period of ongoing combat. But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship. It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. … We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.

Since you want facts, that is the law, period

Thus the reason he is now being released right? The original classification made it justified though right? Jesus.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » September 16, 2004, 11:01 am

I would have to agree with some other people. This guy is fucked when he gets back to Saudi. They will have no qualms about locking his ass up and I see him getting about 4 steps from the plane before he is grabbed again.

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 16, 2004, 11:02 am

U.S. citizen enemy combatants who are detained in the United States may challenge their detention by a petition for habeas corpus

And they did grant his release based on this challenge. Where the U.S. actually screwed up is that they should have put him in Cuba with the others. If he had been held anywhere other than on U.S. soil, he would have not even had the right to challenge. If the court had ruled against Hamdi, he would have been held until the end of actions.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » September 16, 2004, 11:02 am

I guess if someone is alarmed that civil rights are going down the shitter, they get labeled as a "lib" and "unamerican".

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 16, 2004, 11:10 am

Civil rights? Man we need to rethink who gets civil fucking rights. Your rights should cease to exist as a citizen the day you pick up the AK and join the Taliban to fight against the country you claim to be a citizen of. Where are these "civil rights" for the 3000 people that died just because they made it to work on 9/11? This guy got locked up for a while because he was trying to kill Americans. There are a lot of people whose bodies will never even be recovered that I can guarantee you would have LOVED for that to be an option.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 16, 2004, 11:22 am

The Constitution of the USA is a pretty amazing document. It's one helluva pact for social justice and it's served our country and it's citizens well and I'm sure it will continue to serve for centuries to come.

However there are 2 points that need to be made.

1. It's not sacred.

2. The terrorists we are fighting would be glad to roll up the constitution and shove it so far up your ass your head explodes.

===

Regarding note #1. Since most of you libs also seem to be aethists or at least borderline agnostic, I think you are conferring some form of deity worship on the US Constitution.

I think the Constitution is a really great thing, but it pales in significance next to the Bible.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 16, 2004, 11:24 am

Kim here are a few facts
First- you were wrong, we could not have held him for 20 years
Second- he was considered such a high level terrorist one day he had to be in solitary, then he's a low level when we release him, huh?
Third- every single damn citizen of the united states gets civil rights, even the aformentioned OK City Bombers

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » September 16, 2004, 11:29 am

Metanis wrote:
U.S. Officials say that in November 2001 he was fighting as part of a Taliban unit and was carrying a Kalashnikov assault rifle when he was captured by pro-U.S. Northern Alliance forces in northern Afghanistan. His captors turned him over to the U.S. military.
It's not like this guy was strolling in the park. He just got 3 squares a day courtesy of Uncle Sam for less than 3 years. While that is not trivial if he was truly innocent it's also not enough for me to declare massive failure upon Ashcroft, the Justice Department, or our government as a whole.

KEEP ON TRUCKIN' LIL FELLA

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 16, 2004, 11:36 am

Yes...we could have held him for as long as the conflict was going. If that took 20 years...then he could be held for 20 years.

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens,

I have no idea where you are going with your second point. It doesn't matter one iota what "level" terrorist he is. He was an enemy combatant and was detained.

Your third statement made no sense either. The OK City bomber was put to death. He was found to have been guilty and got the big needle. I guess they should have put Hamdi on trial and when he was found guilty, he could have gotten it too. That would be civil rights at its best for you.