For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians...indefinitely

[ProSense]

June 11, 2007 01:15 PM

For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians -- let alone imprison them indefinitely"

The Fourth Circuit held today that a so-called "enemy combatant" who was taken from his Peoria, IL home and detained without charges in South Carolina, must be freed from military custody. Lyle Denniston explains the court's holding:

(T)he panel concluded, it would grant al-Marri habeas relief, though not immediate release. It said the government had accused him -- though not with formal charges -- of "grave crimes." The case was returned to a federal judge in South Carolina with instructions to order the Pentagon to release al-Marri from military custody "within a reasonable period of time to be set by the District Court. The Government can transfer al-Marri to civilian authorities to face criminal charges, initiate deportation proceedings against him, hold him as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, or detain him for a limited time pursuant to the Patriot Act. But military detention of al-Marri must cease."

The court added that detainees "captured and detained within the United States" may not be stripped of their habeas rights by an act of Congress, and thus the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear this case.

The case is al-Marri v. Wright. Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Roger Gregory. District Judge Henry Hudson, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented.

UPDATE: Human Rights First details some of the facts:

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari student, was arrested in Peoria, Illinois in December, 2001 and detained in New York City as an alleged material witness in the 9/11 attacks. For the next 18 months, the case against Mr. Al-Marri was based on financial fraud and false statement charges, to which he plead not guilty. On June 23, 2003, just weeks before Mr. al-Marri's planned trial in the federal court, President Bush declared him an "enemy combatant" in the “war on terror” and ordered him transferred to military custody. The Justice Department asked the court to dismiss all charges against al-Marri, and civilian authorities in Peoria, Illinois, turned him over to the Defense Department for detention at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charlestown, South Carolina. Mr. Al-Marri was held incommunicado at the Naval Brig for 17 months while being interrogated under allegedly coercive and abusive conditions. On July 8, 2004, Mr. Al-Marri’s counsel filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging Mr. Al-Marri’s detention as an “enemy combatant.”

UPDATE II: The opinion is available here.

[northzax]

1. The case against him is irrelevant

He could be charles manson, ted bundy and ted kazynski wrapped into one, and the constitution is clear. You can't imprison someone without trial, access to the courts and lega representation. It's not that tough of a concept.

[MasonJar]

2. Bush transferred him because he had no evidence is my best guess.

[Canuckistanian]

3. Whaa?

"The court added that detainees "captured and detained within the United States" may not be stripped of their habeas rights by an act of Congress, and thus the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear this case."

Did I read that right? Congress can't override habeas rights?

[aquart]

4. Prettiest thing I ever heard.

[Canuckistanian]

5. Why didn't anyone mention this before?

When I come to realize it, the Judicial branch does outweigh the Legislative branch, as far as interpretation of Constitutional matters are concerned.

Seems to me, this should go directly to the SC for a definitive ruling.

Then, bye-bye, Military Commissions Act.

[aquart]

7. Oh, we can wait a couple of years for that.

Really. Wait.

[BrainGlutton]

8. Are you really confident THIS SCOTUS would vote that way?

[Canuckistanian]

11. If it ever goes to the SCOTUS

They've been avoiding it so far - but the stark question of habeas corpus rights as it applies to civilians could only yield ONE answer if the Constitution is to survive.

If the SCOTUS rules clearly against habeas, there will be... well, I don't know.

But the Constitution will become null and void.

[sendero]

10. I think you did..

... laws passed by the congress still have to be constitutional.

That one is clearly not, and that is what the court is saying I think.

[treestar]

6. Never thought I'd see the day

When something like this woudldn't be so glaringly obvious that no court would have had to deal with it.

[19jet54]

9. Most of us have been saying this all along...

... just because I call my enemy (US citizen) a pig, does not mean it is so. Nor does it mean I can butcher, cook & eat the pork under the law.

Frickin Morons! :crazy:

[lonestarnot]

12. No habeas corpus testing.