News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page

NewsMinesecuritycivil-rights — Viewing Item


Citizen enemy combatants { January 8 2003 }

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
   http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/national/08CND-DETAIN.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/national/08CND-DETAIN.html

January 8, 2003
Court Rules U.S. Can Hold Citizens as 'Enemy Combatants'
By NEIL A. LEWIS


WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 -- A federal appeals court handed the Bush administration a major victory today in ruling that a wartime president has the authority to detain indefinitely a United States citizen captured as an enemy combatant on the battlefield and deny that person access to a lawyer.

The closely watched case that set up a stark clash between the nation's security interests and its citizens' civil liberties, resulted in an expansion of the power of the presidency as the three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Mr. Bush was due great deference in conducting the war against terrorism. The judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., said that it was improper for courts to probe too deeply into the detention of Yasser Esam Hamdi, a 22-year-old American-born Saudi Arabian who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and is imprisoned in a military brig in Norfolk, Va.

The case arose when lawyers for Mr. Hamdi challenged his detention, asserting that because he was a citizen he had the same constitutional rights as citizens in criminal cases, including the right to consult with a lawyer and to question the reasons for his confinement.

The appeals panel said that to deprive any citizen of his constitutional protections "is not a step than any court would casually take."

Nonetheless, in the opinion written by the circuit's chief judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the court said: "The safeguards that all Americans have come to expect in criminal prosecutions do not translate neatly to the arena of armed conflict. In fact, if deference is not exercised with respect to military judgments in the field, it is difficult to see where deference would ever obtain."

The full opinion can be read on the appellate court's web site: www.ca4.uscourts.gov.

The Hamdi case appears to be the first in modern American legal history in which a citizen has been detained without being charged and without being given access to a lawyer. While Mr. Hamdi's lawyers are certain to seek a review from the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee the justices will take up the case.

Along with Mr. Hamdi, the only other American citizen being held without charges is Jose Padilla, an American accused of trying to explode a radioactive bomb in the United States. He is being held in a military brig in South Carolina.

Today's ruling may be the most far-reaching yet in a host of court cases brought on by the Bush administration's efforts in the war against terrorism.

In one case, a federal trial judge has upheld the administration's decision to hold about 600 prisoners at the Guantánamo naval base in Cuba, ruling that the laws of the United States do not apply there. Other federal judges have ruled that the Bush administration could not hold hearings on immigration violations in secret and could not withhold the names of those arrested on such charges from the public. Those rulings are making their way up through appeals courts.

The Hamdi case began with the narrow focus of whether the courts should be satisfied with a Defense Department official's two-page, nine-paragraph statement that offered a spare accounting of facts to justify the government charge that Mr. Hamdi has been properly labeled an enemy combatant. A lower court judge, Robert G. Doumar of Federal District Court, ruled in August that the declaration by Michael Mobbs, a special assistant to the deputy secretary of defense, was not sufficient.

The appeals court today reversed that finding but went much further in defining the authority of the executive branch in wartime.

"The constitutional allocation of war powers affords the president extraordinarily broad authority as commander in chief and compels courts to assume a deferential posture in reviewing exercises of this authority," the court said. While courts are entitled to review detentions when asked, the court said that, "courts are ill-positioned to police the military's distinction between those in the arena of combat who should be detained and those who should not."

The court said that it would be improper for the judicial branch to launch an exhaustive inquiry into the conditions of Mr. Hamdi's capture as requested by his lawyers. To do so, the judges said, would be to haul officers back from across the globe and the conduct of the war should not be determined by litigation.

Frank W. Dunham Jr., a federal public defender in Virginia, who argued the case for Mr. Hamdi, had asserted that the defendant was entitled to challenge the allegations that he was an enemy soldier.

But the court said that because it was "undisputed that he was present in a zone of active combat operations, we are satisfied that the Constitution does not entitle him to a searching review of the factual determinations underlying his seizure there."

In addition, the judges rejected appeals by Mr. Hamdi's lawyers that they should consider whether the war was at an end. Such questions, the court said, were solely the province of the president and his military advisers.

Judge Wilkinson ended the opinion today with a mention of the casualties of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "It is not wrong even in the dry annals of judicial opinion to mourn those who lost their lives that terrible day," he wrote. "Yet we speak in the end not from sorrow or anger, but from the conviction that separation of powers takes on special significance when the nation itself comes under attack."

Judge Wilkinson was joined on the panel by Judge William W. Wilkins, both of whom were appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The third panel member, Judge William B. Traxler, was first named to the bench by the first President George Bush and elevated to the appeals court by President Bill Clinton.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy



habeas-corpus
police-swabbed-eyes-with-pepper-spray
1228 terror warrants 2002 { May 1 2003 }
Against counsel for suspects
Americans can be held
Americans would trade rights for security
Anti terror laws increasingly used against common criminals { September 9 2003 }
Bloomberg law tickets sitting people
Brit law destroys freedom better than terrorists { June 12 2008 }
Bush bans using race federal investigations { June 18 2003 }
Bush can order killing on US soil
Bush wants indefinitely detentions on suspicion alone { June 11 2007 }
Canada free speech curtailed by hate speech law { June 11 2008 }
Canadian mounties seize reporters files { January 22 2004 }
Cfr member urges domestic cia agency { September 26 2005 }
Citizen enemy combatants { January 8 2003 }
Citizens no rights { December 1 2002 }
Civil liberties timeline
Colorado bill 03 322 [pdf]
Colorado bill stigmatizes muslims
Crackdown on dissent { January 30 2001 }
Denied access to attorney
Deporting 13k arabs not terrorists { June 7 2003 }
Detainee trial allows hearsay and coerced statements { January 19 2007 }
Dirty bomb victims may be shot
Emergency room to contact fbi { May 9 2003 }
Fbi papers indicate surveillance violations { October 24 2005 }
FBI starts question muslin about 2004 summer attacks { July 18 2004 }
Feds hid potographs to win terror convictions { March 29 2006 }
Foreign student targeted { April 8 2003 }
Freedom to lose
G8 summit protected by preemtive state of emergency
Global threatening human rights
Homeland security given data on arab americans { July 30 2004 }
Homeland security suspicious of homeless { August 22 2005 }
Infringing human rights { December 17 2002 }
Local rights defense { November 22 2002 }
Louisiana court gives police search powers { March 27 2004 }
Louisiana police search without warrants { March 26 2004 }
Lynching law used against blacks
Man defends from warrantless plainclothes police
Mideast photos prints { November 7 2002 }
Mounted police assaulted anti war press conference
Muslim feel targeted by laws { July 9 2003 }
Muslim leader slams britain police state tactics
Nyc requires permit to use video camera { August 1 2007 }
Police can force person talk { May 28 2003 }
Police granted freedom to barge into homes { June 15 2006 }
Police kill wrong man because soda can { July 13 2004 }
Police need not explain arrests says high court
Police searching homes raises concerns
Police spray students for no reason { April 18 2004 }
Police stops violation seatbelt law
Random checks { November 12 2002 }
Rights abuses feared
Rights eroding { November 6 2002 }
Taser gun death is part of national pattern { July 29 2005 }
Terror court { November 14 2001 }
Terror laws used for non terror activities
Terrorist law nabs minor offenses not terrorists { June 12 2005 }
Tibetan nun detained for six months { February 3 2004 }
Us born citizens held without lawyer
US citizens can be declared enemy combatants { February 1 2007 }
US eroding human rights worldwide { May 23 2007 }
War on civilrights
War on terror trampled human rights { May 28 2003 }

Files Listed: 64



Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security
Archives
Support one-state solution for Israel and Palestine Tea Party bumper stickers JFK for Dummies, The Assassination made simple