The result of Congress’ hard work

Remember the habeas-stripping measure recently approved by Congress? The president is already putting it to use.

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.

Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an “enemy combatant,” a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

Al-Marri, who was a legal immigrant living with his family in Peoria before being detained, is the first detainee to fall under the new federal law. Legal immigrants used to be able to contest their imprisonment in court; the administration now has the power to remove the accused from the criminal justice system and turn them over to the military. And the administration is most certainly exercising that power now.

“It’s pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can be denied this right,” said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-Marri. “It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention.”

The Bush administration maintains that al-Marri is an al Qaeda sleeper agent, based on evidence that only administration officials have seen. Maybe al-Marri is guilty, maybe he’s not, but we won’t know because the Bush gang won’t give him a chance to defend himself.

Indeed, Al-Marri, who vehemently denied the accusations, was set to go to trial in July 2003 — right up until he was declared an “enemy combatant.” His trial was cancelled, he was removed from the process, and was turned over the military, where he was denied the right to counsel and was held with charges against him.

Glenn Greenwald explained the broader dynamic nicely.

The denial of habeas corpus rights is the most Draconian aspect of the [Military Commissions Act], as it authorizes detention for life with no real review and no meaningful opportunity to prove one’s innocence. Sen. Chris Dodd said prior to the election that he regrets the decision not to filibuster the MCA: “I regret now that I didn’t do it . . . This is a major, major blow to who we are.” And Sen. Pat Leahy, soon-to-be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has confirmed that he is “drafting a bill to undo portions of a recently passed law that prevent terrorism detainees from going to federal court to challenge the government’s right to hold them indefinitely.”

That has to happen. At the very least, re-establishing habeas corpus rights for detainees is an absolute imperative. We simply cannot be a country that vests in the President the power to order people imprisoned for life with no real review of the charges against them, particularly when the detainees are not detained on any battlefield, and particularly when they are detained inside the U.S.

There is no greater betrayal of the core principles of American political life than to have the federal government sweep people off the streets, throw them into a black hole with no contact with the outside world and no charges asserted of any kind, and simply keep them there for as long as the President desires — in al-Marri’s case, with respect to detention, now five years and counting.

Stay tuned.

What is sick is the wingnut spin that they are simply not giving terrorists “special rights” when they deny them habeas corpus. I suppose to them the fact the phrase is Latin makes it “special”.

Try it like this: “The Government has to tell you, in a court of law, why it has imprisioned you.”

That is not a “special right”.

  • At first I thought they had started calling illegal hispanic immigrants ‘enemy combatants”. But can that be far behind. Laws like that always have unintended consequences. Other departments and agencies see a good law and use it for war on drugs, war on immigration, war on environmentalists. Suddenly the police in Podunk are using it on speeders. And as I understand it you don’t have to be a foreigner to be labeled an enemy combatant.

    I suspect that Homeland Security will be the wrost abusers of these laws. And who is going to be in charge of it? Mr. “anything for security” Lieberman.

  • Two words:
    War Crimes.

    I wrote a while ago about the possiblity of mass detention for all folks with the wrong last name/religion/country of origin. I can easily see the gimping quack – desperate to look relevant and prove he isn’t a waste of whatever effort it took to conceive him – ordering mass round ups and claiming those nabbed are “sleeper agents.” Hey, it’s only a bunch of immigrants which ShrubCo has worked hard to make synonymous with “Non-Americans sneakin’ in here and stealin’ our jobs.”

    Looks like I need to keep that particular tin foil hat.

    And does anyone wonder if this might be a sly threat to illegals? Oh no, we won’t deport you…back to your home country. We’ll send you to Romania instead!

  • I’d love to detain Republicans on this – start with Rove and work our way down their “slime chain.”

    Something that was fought for 800 years ago, which has been central to every major political struggle for rights ever since, is not “special right.” Although if the wingnuts want to prove their “patriotism” by giving up all their “special rights” (starting with their white skin privilege) that’s all right with me.

    Fucking morons.

  • Let me tidy this for you a bit Tom Cleaver:

    Although if the wingnuts want to prove their “patriotism” by giving up all their “special rights” (starting with their white skin privilege) that’s all right with me.

    We can use the pelts to make coats for displaced Iraqi children. Actually, if the hide of the wingnut is as impervious to bullets as the head of the wingnut is impervious to facts, this might be a way to overcome the body armor shortage.

    tAiO – Really not in the mood for Refuglican Follies today.

  • We are a nation led by criminals. We will pay the price if we do not put our criminals behind bars.

    INTERVIEW WITH TERROR EXPERT RON SUSKIND:

    …The thing they did with Mohammed is that we had captured his children, a boy and a girl, age 7 and 9. And at the darkest moment we threatened grievous injury to his children if he did not cooperate

    …SPIEGEL ONLINE: With all your access to high-level sources, have you come across anyone who still thinks it is a good idea for the US to torture people?

    Suskind: No…

    …people in the counter-terrorism community in the United States are terrified at this point … We need a strategy. And we need it immediately because, in some ways, we are less safe then we were on Sept. 12.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445117,00.html

  • ***any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention.”***

    And herein lies the foundation of why I keep saying that Herr Bush is in symbiance with Herr Hitler.

    Hitler needed “an overt, domestic enemy of the State” to crutch his National Socialism. Hitler used Jews, Slovaks, Gypsies, French, Poles, Russians, Bulgarians, and Blacks as his “domestic” enemy—other than those Jews who were German citizens, pretty much all immigrants. He then established laws that stripped Germany’s Jews of citizenship, property rights, legal rights, etc. Bush has been cripped in recent months by having all of his “enemies of the State” on the other side of the planet—but now, he has his “overt, domestic enemy of the State”—in America’s immigrant population.

    A population, by the way, which has a history of voting against Republicans….

  • Lance: What is sick is the wingnut spin that they are simply not giving terrorists “special rights” when they deny them habeas corpus.

    The whole point of habeas corpus is that it isn’t special and applies to everyone no matter how bad we believe they are.

    And we need to consistently take exception to the use of the word “terrorists” to describe those who would be denied due process; as if there is no chance of false accusation, mistaken identity or abuse of the law. These are people who have not yet been determined to be terrorists (after all, you cannot deny due process to someone who’s been already been through it), and if they haven’t been through it, they’re not terrorists.

  • Well, they can only lock up and throw away the key if you’re an “immigrant”. So you just need to make sure you keep your identity papers with you at all times, so you can prove you’re a “citizen” and allowed to talk to a judge.

    Oh freedom, I miss you.

  • So you just need to make sure you keep your identity papers with you at all times, so you can prove you’re a “citizen”

    Yesiree Americans, be sure to carry your passport (the new ones with the RFID chip) at all times. If they can track you at all times they’re not as likely to hunt you down.

    Unless you walk by a mosque. Or voted for the wrong party. Or didn’t make the deadline for accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. Or have ever sat next to a gay person on the bus, curled your lip at the mention of Rush Limbaugh, mentioned evolution, annoyed one of Over Hill Over Dale’s spermatazoa, or speak a foreign language… Then you’re just screwed.

  • Health care? Social Security? Iraq? I think the number one priority has to be reestablishing habeas corpus. And that by no means is meant to downplay the importance of those issues, especially in terms of lives lost in Iraq. But this remains the most disgusting abuse of power by the outgoing Congress and Bush and denigrates everything that every service member risk their lives for. It will be the true lasting legacy of this administration although Iraq will be the immediate one. But thankfully the Alien/Sedition Acts, Japanese internment, and other such abuses of civil rights are appropriately remembered as I believe this ultimately will be as well. It just makes me so sick.

    I am hopeful that amendments to the law can be passed, although it would be interesting to see Bush’s first veto. Yet another reason to take back the White House in ’08.

  • However inadequate Bush’s reading list might be, *someone* in the admin (or DoJ) has been reading Kafka with pleasure and fascination. The vicious circle of “impossible proof” created by yanking habeas corpus away from the accused, reinfoirced by a grandfathered blanket-pardon for their tormentors, is straight out of there.

    I agree; if we can do it to legal immigrants, then illegals are dead meat already and citizens can’t be far behind (naturalized ones first, born ones next.)

    Still… One thing has been puzzling me throughout. In all our grab for power — rendition, endless internments without trial, torture, etc — *WHY* have not the countries of origin complained, *LOUDLY* about it? Why hasn’t US been sued in the Hague, if only for the sake of an empty gesture, by Canada, Germany, and Quatar? Those were their citizens; their rights should have been protected by their countries.

  • Comments are closed.