some prisoners in the war on terror can use U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detention at a military air base in Afghanistan, for the first time extending rights given to Guantanamo Bay detainees elsewhere in the world.What's next, allowing prisoners to sue the soldiers who captured them?
The Obama administration, which rightly opposed the utterly ridiculous notion that we should give foreign wartime prisoners access to U.S. courts, should reject this ruling and refuse to abide by it, declaring it to be unconstitutional. The judicial branch is attempting to usurp the powers of the executive. The conduct of military operations, which involves the disposition of prisoners, is clearly an executive branch power and the court should have no jurisdiction. Judge Bates has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. That should be Obama's response. It won't be, but it should be.
Googling for a link to the story, here's HufPo:
ReplyDelete"He said non-Afghan detainees captured outside the country and moved to Bagram for a lengthy detention should have access to the courts to prevent the United States from being able to "move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."
[...] "It is one thing to detain those captured on the surrounding battlefield at a place like Bagram, which respondents correctly maintain is in a theater of war," Bates wrote. "It is quite another thing to apprehend people in foreign countries _ far from any Afghan battlefield _ and then bring them to a theater of war, where the Constitution arguably may not reach. Such rendition resurrects the same specter of limitless executive power the Supreme Court sought to guard against."
That seems quite reasonable. The article also notes that he's "a U.S. Army veteran and former career Justice Department official". Hmm, sounds like a fairly well-qualified judge for this kind of issue.
Sorry but it seems your conclusion paragraph is wildly off the mark.
"That seems quite reasonable."
ReplyDeleteNot hardly. Our main military prison is in Bagram. Naturally we are going to move prisoners to our main prison if we plan on holding them for any length of time. According to the judge's reasoning, if we capture someone in say Southern Iraq and move him to Bagram, we have to give him access to the U.S. court system. It's complete nonsense.
" The article also notes that he's "a U.S. Army veteran and former career Justice Department official"
Who cares? He's a judge now. He's not qualified for this issue because it shouldn't involve the judiciary at all.
"Sorry but it seems your conclusion paragraph is wildly off the mark."
Well you can disagree with it of course, but it's right on the mark for the point I made -- which is that the judiciary is usurping executive branch powers.
You'll have to explain where the executive branch gets the power to grab someone from a different country, bring them to a war prison in Afghanistan, and prohibit them from challenging the legitimacy of their detention in court.
ReplyDeleteIf someone from Southern Iraq is being legitimately detained in Bagram, then the courts will tell us that.
We have checks and balances for a reason. Far from being unconstitutional nonsense, this is one such check -- and hence part of that rule of law thing our military is fighting for.
"You'll have to explain where the executive branch gets the power to grab someone from a different country, bring them to a war prison in Afghanistan, and prohibit them from challenging the legitimacy of their detention in court."
ReplyDeleteNo, you have to explain why the judiciary should have any say over military operations. Where in the constitution does it say the judiciary determines how the executive handles military prisoners abroad?
"We have checks and balances for a reason. Far from being unconstitutional nonsense, this is one such check -- and hence part of that rule of law thing our military is fighting for."
Well, obviously we totally disagree. A check is different from a usurpation. This is a usurpation. Do you think the president should start deciding what type of prison sentences judges can hand out? Would that be a check on judicial power? If the military is fighting to give foreign prisoners they capture access to the U.S. Court systme, you might want to tell them, they'll probably be surprised to learn that's part of their mission. I'm sure it will be good for morale.