Of all those detained since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, one of the most puzzling has been arrest of Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari man arrested in Peoria, Ill. in late 2001.
Unlike the hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, who were captured in Afghanistan, al-Marri was captured in the U.S. and he only one declared an enemy combatant subject to indefinite detention by a 2003 presidential order.
This distinction was key to a ruling today by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which held that al-Marri had a constitutional right to challenge his detention.
In a 2-1 ruling, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz distinguished al-Marri from other detainees because he was not a combatant caught on the battlefield, but a lawful resident on U.S. soil.
"The president cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention," Motz wrote for the majority, which was joined by Judge Roger Gregory.
The court ruled that al-Marri's habeas corpus petition over his military detention must be granted—unless the government transfers him to civilian authorities to face criminal charges.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who sat on the panel, dissented arguing that the clear intent of the congressional statues was to give the president "all the powers necessary to suppress those individuals or organizations responsible."
The Justice Department plans to ask for a rehearing before the entire court.
It appears Judge Hudson undermines his own dissent when he notes that "the exact definitions of ‘enemy combatants’ and ‘enemy belligerents’ are difficult to conceptualize and apply with precision."
Posted by: Paul | June 11, 2007 at 11:56 PM