Fourth Circuit to Reconsider Case of "Enemy Combatant" al-Marri: Why the Administration is So Scared
by Jesselyn Radack
Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:28:31 AM PDT
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative appeallate court in the country, will reconsider its stinging panel decision that slammed the Bush Administration for continuing to detain "enemy combatant" Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri indefinitely without charge.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20070824_Court_will_reconsider_its_ruling_on_detainee.htmlEven though the decision has limited or nonexistent practical consequence -- it benefits only those who are both under the direction of an enemy nation and living legally in the U.S. (a non-existent class according to the Department of Homeland Security --
the Fourth Circuit has now agreed to en banc review (by the full 10-member court) of the 2 to 1 ruling the panel made.
Why? Because the decision looks to treaty obligations under the Hague and Geneva Conventions and recognizes that the Administration's arguments run directly contrary to the Constitution, as interpreted through "two centuries of growth and struggle, peace and war. . ."...................
Why is the Administration so worried? Because the Fourth Circuit's al-Marri decision looks not only to law-of-war principles, but also (gasp!) to treaty obligations under the Hague and Geneva Conventions and related principles of customary international law. The opinion thus draws a line between "combatants" (members of a nation's military, militia, or other armed forces, and those who fight alongside them) and "civilians" (all other persons). And it notes that al-Marri's detention was neither the "classic wartime detention" the government claimed had rendered Hamdi an enemy combatant, nor the "classic battlefield detention" the government claimed had rendered Padilla an enemy combatant.
more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/24/75536/0644