by hilzoy
From the AP:
“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.
That law is being used to argue the Guantanamo Bay cases, but Al-Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration violations or for other crimes.
“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.””
Yep. We used to protest when other countries spirited people away and held them indefinitely without charges. Now we are one of them.
We should never have passed this bill. I can only hope the new Congress will repeal it.
Come on now hilzoy, I’m sure Mr. Kahlah Al-Marri has it much better eating lemon chicken in a nice federal prison in South Carolina than he ever had it as a student. Does he have to study now? Nope. Pop quizzes? Uh-uh. Pulling all nighters before finals? Please. This man now has days of relaxation and leisure, with not a worry in the world, for the rest of his life. All at taxpayer expense. Heck, according to the government, he doesn’t even have to deal with those pesky, messy court filings and procedures. Nothing but bliss bliss bliss all the time. Who says the United States is not a great country?
People like Menendez and Lautenberg bear some serious responsibility.
Not to mention Arlen Specter, who knew full well the bill was an unconstitutional horror and voted for it anyway after they voted his habeus amendment down. Bet he jumps at the chance to fix that part, though.
Unless Lieberman decides it would be too confrontational to change the bill now and makes the first of his many threats to switch sides over it….
Hmmm…I wonder if perhaps they arrested the man based upon information gathered in violation of FISA, and are using the new law to hide that fact.
On the way to work, I was devising a compromise that would hold the iffy Dems like Lieberman & attract enough Repubs to beat a veto:
No habeas petition until the prisoner’s been held for 1 year without being brought before a CSRT, except for petitions alleging cruel or inhumane treatment.
That would be bad, of course, but not as bad as what we’ve got now. I suppose there are holes in it (which is why I’m posting it here).
The idea is to beat the veto, so you’ve got to get, what, 16 Repubs on board, and not lose Lieberman.
If the new Congress does vote to repeal it, it will only be a symbolic gesture; the Decider would simply veto it while going on about how Dems are terrorists and terrorists hate us for our freedoms. Which we don’t have so much anymore, so they won’t hate us so much.
Congress must get busy on those investigations and oversight committees in January, first thing. Only by proving the malfeasance in the Admin can they muster they public support to force a repeal of these un-American infringements on our rights.
But even if the veto is overcome what’s to stop Bush from issuing yet another signing statement?
In a habeas case? The courts can simply ignore the signing statement.
We’re at least two years shy of regaining our rights.
Greenwald has a post on this.
Illegal Period
In case you havent noticed, George Bushs battlefield is everywhere. For immigrants here legally, the Bush administration says that means they can be declared illegal combatants and locked away forever without judicial revie…
In a habeas case? The courts can simply ignore the signing statement.
Bingo, plus another issue: how eager is the Executive, honestly, to try that signing-statement business out as a central issue before the courts? –If you answer, “not very,” then we’re on the same page here.
Signing statements are a bluff, pure & simple. At least until Republicans use secret adult-stem-cell techniques to clone Thomas and appoint 8 clones to the Court.
Anderson, I thought Alito was one of those responsible for getting Reagan into signing statements in the first place. Has he thought better of it since?
Quoth the Ugh:
An interesting question, that…
Or, the more cynical part of me says, this could be their test case for establishing how likely their chances are for disappearing US citizens. Start with an Arab, then someone from a non-Arab nation, then one more small extension after another until you can start locking away white US citizens that have done something to offend you.
I wish I could dismiss that as the product of the part of my brain that likes to think up ridiculously convoluted conspiracy theories for my own amusement, but after the last five years, I’m really not so sure anymore.
I am most encouraged by the action in Germany against Rumsfeld. Although I would prefer that some powerful Arabian country, like SA, use the methods approved by the Decider…I think I am approaching the posting rules.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I still don’t understand why (from a rhetorical point of view) so much time by Congressmen who oppose these measures on defending habeas for terrorists, when you can get the same effect by noticing that habeas is the best protection for actually innocent people.
Same thing for the whole torture debate. Don’t focus on whether torture of terrorists is effective or moral or ok, focus on the fact that torture is being used on actually innocent people.
A huge portion of the rights that ‘protect’ criminals aren’t about protecting criminals, but rather about protecting innocent people that the government has wrongly identified as criminals. The moral case for that is strong and obvious to Americans. We should argue that strong case. It is even stronger in the terrorist case where the information is likely to be shakier than it is in the criminal context.
if you read the Senate debate, they did an okay job on that. Now, granted I wish they knew about more specific cases than Arar, but not everyone can be a deranged obsessive like me.
Don’t focus on whether torture of terrorists is effective or moral or ok, focus on the fact that torture is being used on actually innocent people.
if the govt has them in detention, they can’t be “innocent”. that’s a tough little circle of irrationality to break.
As a non-citizen, green card holder, I probably need to shut up now. Hasn’t the authoritarian wing been saying all along that criticism of the administration equals support for terrorism? Yeah, I get the message. If I ever do become a citizen, and somebody asks why I never vote Republican, here’s your answer.
I, for one, love our new Imperial overlords.
Over and out.
One more thing. Here is the future escalation of who will be stripped of habeas corpus rights:
undocumented aliens -> legal resident aliens -> recently naturalized citizens (their application must have been fraudulent) -> dual citizenship holders (untrustworthy) -> naturalized citizens (they have forfeited their citizenship by being suspicious) -> citizens born to non-citizens (they are not really American) -> non-white citizens.
This has been a public service announcement from the year 2020.
Sebastian, many of us–including those in Congress–have been making precisely that argument. It’s not that the argument isn’t a good one, it’s that it gets ignored or twisted by people who are not arguing in good faith.
I’ve seen the argument, but frankly it gets about equal time even from those actively opposing the stripping of habeas. I don’t see any tactical reason to mention actual terrorists even once. Especially considering the huge numbers of innocent people actually implicated. It is harder to twist the focus if you don’t make it part of your argument at all.
Anderson, I thought Alito was one of those responsible for getting Reagan into signing statements in the first place. Has he thought better of it since?
Alito clones would be good on *this* issue, but nothing beats a Thomas clone for sheer jurisprudential wingnuttery. Where even Scalia fears to tread, Thomas marches on.
so much time by Congressmen who oppose these measures on defending habeas for terrorists, when you can get the same effect by noticing that habeas is the best protection for actually innocent people.
Because a vanishingly small proportion of people in your political party are willing to countenance the argument that any person with a Muslim or Arabic name whose current residence is Guantanamo Bay could possibly be innocent, that’s why.
You know, if MCA repeal (or partial repeal) is done in a rider to a different bill, then the veto might not be so attractive.
I would think that al Marri, if he has a habeas case, would have a pretty strong Suspension argument. Rebellion? Invasion? Public safety requiring closure of courts?
Anderson, there’s no way that DTA review can pass muster under St. Cyr. It’s just too limited.
“Because a vanishingly small proportion of people in your political party are willing to countenance the argument that any person with a Muslim or Arabic name whose current residence is Guantanamo Bay could possibly be innocent, that’s why.”
But so what? By fighting on those terms you cede half the field.
The flipside, Sebastian, is that that same proportion — you know, your small-government pals — has such unerring faith that the Bush administration will magically pick up and detain only guilty terrorists, so as far as they’re concerned, the odds an innocent person becoming ensnared in this web are exactly 0%.
Do you really not see this? You can’t argue about the potential effects on innocent people, because nobody about whom the administration has suspicions is innocent. It’s a perfect closed system.
Chris Bowers just posted the new Committee chairs and memberships over at MyDD. What Committee would have jurisdiction over the MCA? If Judiciary, you might be interested in seeing the lineup:
CHAIR: Leahy
Kennedy
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Feingold
Schumer
Durbin
Cardin
Whitehouse
I don’t see too many Friends of the MCA on that list.
Yes, judiciary. That looks like the former minority staff, + Cardin and Whitehouse–I don’t know their position on these issues but they’re from liberal enough states. So Leahy’s bill ought to reach the floor.
I think most committees, both Senate and House, are far too large. What are we looking at with Judiciary, 16% of the Senate? I don’t how many Senators have multiple assignments, I assume most. But with other duties and responsibilities, they have to be lacking time for any deep understanding of some of the issues.
So they are dependent on staff, which has positives and negatives. I would still prefer most committees cut in half.
Of course large committees can provide membership for useful sub-committees. Maybe I need to think some more.
The CIA disclosed the existence of: “a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees.” cite
Anyone going to be very surprised if those “interrogation methods” that Bush authorized don’t turn out to be the very same “interrogation methods” that Congress voted to legalize last month?