"Stinging rejection"

In a follow up to the earlier report, Adam Liptak writes in the New York Times that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (Richmond) has ordered an "enemy combatant released." 

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”

“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”

The ruling was handed down by a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., in the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar and the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant.

Mr. Marri, whom the government calls a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, was arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.

Obviously, one of the judges held out.  But the judgment is interesting in that it questions sharply the practice of using military courts to judge civilians.

He has been held for the last four years at the Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C.

Judge Motz wrote that Mr. Marri may well be guilty of serious crimes. But she said that the government cannot circumvent the civilian criminal justice system through military detention.

Of course stacking the judicial system with compliant judges will make sure future rightwing administrations won't be troubled by American justice.

Writing for the majority, Judge Motz ordered the trial judge in the case to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Pentagon “within a reasonable period of time” to do one of several things with Mr. Marri. He may be charged in the civilian court system; he may be deported; or he may be held as a material witness; or he may be released.

Liptak called it a "stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration’s central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism." At least Judge Motz managed to resuscitate the quaint notion of habeas corpus.  At least there's that...

Comments

[Ron]

And as usual, most of the press fails to maintain a critical distance. How can they call this man an enemy combatant when there's been no impartial review of the evidence? Whatever happened to using "alleged" to describe someone who hasn't been tried yet? Some reports do use quote marks around "enemy combatant", but that's not nearly enough distance -- I doubt many people even pay attention to the connotations of quote marks.

Isn't the whole notion of habeas corpus meant to prevent a unilateral judgement on criminal guilt? That's shot if the words "enemy combatant" are used without some qualifier.