Posted on 09/27/2004 7:01:03 AM PDT by JesseHousman
The Justice Department's deal to release Yaser Esam Hamdi, the U.S. citizen it once branded among the ''worst of the worst'' of terrorists, at best is unsettling. At worst it is evidence of shameless hypocrisy by our government in detaining a presumed terrorist in solitary confinement for more than two years, then unceremoniously setting him free after the Supreme Court says that the captive has a right to challenge his detention.
No longer a threat?
Rather than present evidence that justifies the arrest and detention, the Justice Department will free Mr. Hamdi on condition that he renounce his U.S. citizenship, return to Saudi Arabia where he grew up and report any suspected terrorist activity. So do we now accept the Justice Department's assertion that Mr. Hamdi isn't a ''threat to the United States''? What about the administration's claims that he was so dangerous that he couldn't even be allowed to talk with a lawyer?
Mr. Hamdi either will be wrongly freed or has been wrongly imprisoned. It would be easy to make a reasoned judgment that it's the latter, but no one can be sure of that. None of the government's accusations that Mr. Hamdi took up arms against the United Staes has been or will be subjected to legal scrutiny. This is grossly unsatisfactory.
One issue under question is the extent of presidential powers during wartime. Does mere designation of a person as an ''enemy combatant'' justify a denial of due process? Of course not. The Supreme Court said as much in June when it ruled that Mr. Hamdi and other ''enemy combatants'' have a basic right to challenge their detention.
''A state of war is not a blank check for the president,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the decision. By avoiding a hearing or legal proceeding on the validity of Mr. Hamdi's arrest and detention, the administration may say that it protects intelligence sources and methods. Fine. But it also is spared the embarrassment of a high-profile case that could lay bare the capriciousness of the ''enemy combatant'' designation and policy of detention without charge or legal review.
Potential abuse of power
Since the high court's ruling and after holding detainees at Guantánamo for years, the Pentagon initiated an annual ''administrative review'' to decide which detainees should be released. For those accused of war crimes, it sanctioned military-style hearings. Neither process is in keeping with conventional judicial procedures and each should face further legal challenge.
Even in the face of terrorism, U.S. courts must remain a check on the potential abuse of power by an overreaching government.
This man should still be in prison!
Unless he's a tracer...
When I first heard this story that was my feeling as well.. If he's that dangerous then the only thing to be gained by his release is to track him...
We released Farooqi - and now he's taking a dirt nap.
Sometimes it's a good thing to let the prey run for a bit - you learn where the dens are...
Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,Beep, Beep, Beep,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.