Skip to comments.Court rules prisoner, an American-born suspected Taliban, can't meet with lawyers
Posted on 07/12/2002 9:24:50 AM PDT by OldeconomybuyerEdited on 04/13/2004 2:40:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a suspected American-born Taliban fighter cannot meet with his lawyers because the judge who ordered the meetings did not adequately consider the government's position that the prisoner is an enemy combatant.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
(No longer relevant - see: Deconstructing the Second Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(No longer relevant - see: War on the Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(No longer relevant - see: Seizure Fever: The War on Property Rights
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
(No longer relevant - see: Is This man's case worth suspending the United States Constitution?
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Even if Hilary were to be elected, I am sure that would never take advantage of the fact that our Constitution was gutted in the wake of 9/11...
I mean, it's not like she's power-hungry or anything...
We'll get all of our rights back as soon as this war on terror has been won.... (cough, cough)
More from the ruling:
"...The order arises in the context of foreign relations and national security, where a court's deference to the political branches of our national government is considerable. It is the President who wields "delicate, plenary and exclusive power . . . as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations -- a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). And where as here the President does act with statutory authorization from Congress, there is all the more reason for deference. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-37 & n.2 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Indeed, Articles I and II prominently assign to Congress and the President the shared responsibility for military affairs.
See U.S. Const. art. I, S 8; art. II, S 2. In accordance with this constitutional text, the Supreme Court has shown great deference to the political branches when called upon to decide cases implicating sensitive matters of foreign policy, national security, or military affairs. See, e.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 660-61 (1981); Curtiss- Wright, 299 U.S. at 319-20; United States v. The Three Friends, 166 U.S. 1, 63 (1897); Stewart v. Kahn, 78 U.S. 493, 506 (1870); The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 670 (1862).
This deference extends to military designations of individuals as enemy combatants in times of active hostilities, as well as to their detention after capture on the field of battle. The authority to capture those who take up arms against America belongs to the Commander in Chief under Article II, Section 2. As far back as the Civil War, the Supreme Court deferred to the President's determination that those in rebellion had the status of belligerents. See The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) at 670. And in World War II, the Court stated in no uncertain terms that the President's wartime detention decisions are to be accorded great deference from the courts. Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 25 (1942). It was inattention to these cardinal principles of constitutional text and practice that led to the errors below....
the June 11 order apparently assumes (1) that Hamdi is not an enemy combatant or (2) even if he might be such a person, he is nonetheless entitled not only to counsel but to immediate and unmonitored access thereto. Either ruling has sweeping implications for the posture of the judicial branch during a time of international conflict, and neither may rest on a procedurally flawed foundation that denied both petitioners and the government a chance to properly present their arguments, or to lay even a modest foundation for meaningful appellate review. The district court's order must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings....
Any dismissal of the petition at this point would be as premature as the district court's June 11 order. In dismissing, we ourselves would be summarily embracing a sweeping proposition -- namely that, with no meaningful judicial review, any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel on the government's say-so. Given the interlocutory nature of this appeal, a remand rather than an outright dismissal is appropriate. "
Think about this awhile before repeating your incorrect assertions.
Because the Constitution requires conviction for treason on the testimony of two witnesses and General Ashcroft can't satisfy the burden of proof. Eliminate this requirement, and AG's like Janet Reno could churn out the treason indictments right and left.
Voters like you are a far greater threat to what's left of the Republic than any Muslim fanatic.
Well, seeing you are a new member of Free Republic, I have to admit that possibility.
"aren't POW's because their is no war"
Well, the Founders Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all ran wars under Congressional declarations very similar to Public Law 107-40 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States....the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons "
Although it is commendable to be concerned with rights, you would be wise to look into how the Founders balanced the matter of rights and security in the Constitution.
No offense meant when I say they were much, much wiser than you.
I have yet to hear anyone suggest a better way than putting the War Powers in the legislature to be administered by the Executive- not by the Judiciary.
Notice the fourth Circuit has ruled only that the case be remanded so that the court can take consideration of the executive branches concerns- which the court , astonishingly, hadn't!
From the appeal court's ruling, it appears Hamdi will get monitored meetings with a lawyer, a habeaus proceeding, and due process review.
Pretty outstanding treatment of an enemy combatant by any reasonable person's measure!
That is right, the power to declare war is vested in the legislature. They have not declared a war. I wish they would, it would make these constitutional questions easier.
With new people, to be fair, we also have to consider that they are just woefully misinformed about our Constitution and history.
Of course, that's no reason not to beat on a newbie just because they're newbies! It certainly didn't do me any harm when my first innocent reply was responded to with accusations of malicious intent and depravity!
(Ah, the good old days.)
According to Washington, Adams, Jefferson- and their Congresses- the president has been given the authority to use the military in war.
That's as clear as can be. If you think there is a better way to understand the Constitution than by taking the understanding the Founders had of it- don't bother telling me cause I'm happy with their view!
I too wish they had issued a Declaration of War ( because it gives the congress less ability to intrude on the conduct of the war), but there is no Constitutionally based reason to reject the way taken.