De ingezetenen van de V.S. in militaire brigs? Govt zegt het oorlog is
Door MATTE APUZZO | Als zijn cel bij de Baai van Guantanamo was, zou de gevangene enkel één van honderden veronderstelde voor de kust vastgehouden terroristen, waar de V.S. zijn. zegt de Grondwet niet van toepassing is. Maar Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is de V.S. ingezeten die in een militaire brig Zuid- van Carolina wordt gehouden; hij is de enige vijandelijke strijder die op de V.S. wordt gehouden. grond. Dat maakt zijn geval zeer verschillend.
Vangst van al-Marri zou zes jaar geleden het verhaal van het counterterrorismsucces van het beleid van Bush kunnen zijn grootste binnenlandse. De autoriteiten zeggen hij een al-Qaida dwarsbalkagent die in middenAmerika leeft was, giftige gassen onderzoekt en een cyberattack in kaart brengt.
Om het houden van hem te rechtvaardigen, eiste de overheid een brede interpretatie van de bevoegdheden in oorlogstijd van de voorzitter, die verder dan warrantless aftappen of van het controlebankwezen transacties gaat. Advocaten van de overheid vertelden federale rechters dat de voorzitter de militairen in de om het even welke V.S. kan sturen. de buurt, vangt een burger en houdt hem in gevangenis zonder last, voor onbepaalde tijd.
Er is weinig middengrond tussen de twee kanten in het geval van al-Marri, dat voor een federaal beroephof in Virginia is. De overheid zegt de voorzittersbehoeften deze bevoegdheid om de natiebrandkast te houden. De advocaten van al-Marri zeggen dat zolang de voorzitter iedereen kan vasthouden hij wil, is niemand veilig.
___
Een nationale Qatari, al-Marri kwam aan de V.S. met zijn vrouw en vijf kinderen op Sept. 10, 2001 - op een dag vóór de terroristenaanvallen in New York en Washington. Hij kwam op een studentenvisum dat naar een doctoraal examen in computerwetenschap streeft aan van Bradley Universiteit, een kleine privé school in Peoria, Illinois.
De overheid zegt hij andere plannen had.
Volgens hofdocumenten die veelvoudige intelligentiebronnen aanhalen, bracht al-Marri maanden in al-Qaida opleidingskampen tijdens de recente jaren '90 door en werd geschoold in de wetenschap van vergiften. De zomer vóór al-Marri verlaten voor de Verenigde Staten, kwam hij naar verluidt Oussama ben Laden en Sept. samen. de Sjeik Mohammed van Khalid van 11 genie. De twee leiders al-Qaida beslisten al-Marri een perfecte dwarsbalkagent zou maken en zich hem in de V.S. overhaast stortte. vóór Sept. 11, de overheid zeggen.
Een computerspecialist, al-Marri werd bevolen om verwoesting op de V.S. te veroorzaken. banking system and serve as a liaison for other al-Qaida operatives entering this country, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Rapp, a senior member of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
According to Rapp, al-Marri received up to $13,000 for his trip, plus money to buy a laptop, courtesy of Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who is suspected of helping finance the Sept. 11 attacks.
A week after the attacks, Congress unanimously passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It gave President Bush the power to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the attacks.
The FBI interviewed al-Marri that October and arrested him in December as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. He rarely had been attending classes and was failing in school, the government said.
When investigators looked through his computer files, they found information on industrial chemical suppliers, sermons by bin Laden, how-to guides for making hydrogen cyanide and information about chemicals labeled “immediately dangerous to life or health,” according to Rapp’s court filing. Phone calls and e-mails linked al-Marri to senior al-Qaida leaders.
In early 2003, he was indicted on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. Like anyone else in the country, he had constitutional rights. He could question government witnesses, refuse to testify and retain a lawyer.
On June 23, 2003, Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.
A military brig allowed more options. Free from the constraints of civilian law, the military could interrogate al-Marri without a lawyer, detain him without charge and hold him indefinitely. Courts have agreed the president has wide latitude to imprison people captured overseas or caught fighting against the U.S. That is what the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is for.
But al-Marri was not in Guantanamo Bay.
“The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. “Today it’s Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there’s no going back.”
Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al-Qaida safe house in a U.S. suburb?
Sulmasy says no. That’s how Congress wrote the bill and “if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language,” he said.
That would require the politically risky move of pushing legislation to make it harder for the president to detain suspected terrorists inside the U.S.
Al-Marri is not the first prisoner who did not fit neatly into the definition of enemy combatant.
Two U.S. citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, were held at the same brig as al-Marri. But there are differences. Hamdi was captured on an Afghanistan battlefield. Padilla, too, fought alongside the Taliban before his capture in the United States.
By comparison, al-Marri had not been on the battlefield. He was lawfully living in the United States. That raises new questions.
Did Congress really intend to give the president the authority to lock up suspected terrorists overseas but not those living here?
If another Sept. 11-like plot was discovered, could the military imprison the would-be hijackers before they stepped onto the planes?
Is a foreign battlefield really necessary in a conflict that turned downtown Manhattan into ground zero?
Also, if enemy combatants can be detained in the U.S., how long can they be held without charge? Without lawyers? Without access to the outside world? Forever?
These questions play to two of the biggest fears that have dominated public policy debate since Sept. 11: the fear of another terrorist attack and the fear the government will use that threat to crack down on civil liberties.
“If he is taken to a civilian court in the United States and it’s been proved he is guilty and it’s been proved there’s evidence to show that he’s guilty, you know, he deserves what he gets,” his brother, Mohammed al-Marri, said in a telephone interview Friday from his home in Saudi Arabia. “But he’s just been taken there with no court, no nothing. That’s shame on the United States.”
Courts have gone back and forth on al-Marri’s case as it worked its way through the system. The last decision, a 2-1 ruling by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, found that the president had crossed the line and al-Marri must be returned to the civilian court system. Anything else would “alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic,” the judges said.
The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.
“What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?” Judge William B. Traxler asked.
“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.
The court seemed torn.
One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.
Another judge said the question is not whether the president was generous in his use of power; it is whether the power is constitutional.
Whatever the decision, the case seems destined for the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the first military trials are set to begin soon against detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Al-Marri may get one, too. Or he may get put back into the civilian court system. For now, he waits.
See More:USA NewsHave Your Say: US residents in military brigs? Govt says it’s war
Please note, only selected comments will be published.
Or discuss this report in our our new forums
This entry was posted on Sunday, May 25th, 2008 at 2:43 am and is filed under War & Terrorism News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Free Newsletter
Loading ...Related News
- Detainee’s Suit Says Abuse Was Videotaped
- Aviation companies point fingers over 9/11
- Bush calls for expansion of spy law
- CIA misled judges in Moussaoui case
- Cast wary eye on surveillance efforts
Email This Page To A Friend
Latest Headlines
- Libya releases ‘disappeared’ dissident, says rights group
- The ‘War Crimes File’
- White House fed war propaganda to a “complicit” media
- The last Briton in Guantanamo faces death penalty
- UK Police Harrass Youths
- Autism Risk Linked to Distance From Power Plants
- How McCain Has Supported Bush
- UN chief “shocked” over Zimbabwe’s murdered activists
- The Genealogy of Torture and Democracy
- Lecturers defy government over ID cards
More Breaking News
Archive
