Enemy Combatants: 3, Still Unclassified: 600+

[Timber Loftis]

Just so you know, if the government designates you (a US Citizen), as it has done with 2 other Americans, as an "enemy combatant," they take away your lawyer and lock you up without a hearing.

NOte the one DOJ attorney states:
``We are confident we would have prevailed on the criminal charges,'' Fisher said. ``However, setting the criminal charges aside is in the best interests of our national security.''

That can't be true. Did I read that right? One wonders how these crazy government building bombers got so fed up one day -- NOT. The day we've written a law that encourages a prosecutor to drop a sound case so the feds can throw someone in jail WITHOUT A TRIAL is the day we should find the person responsible for that law and take turns kicking them in the balls.

Don't forget what the Monty Python boys say: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"
__________________________________________________ ____________

U.S. Gives Qatari Man Enemy Combatant Status
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:50 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Qatar man alleged to have been paving the way for al-Qaida operatives to settle in the United States was designated Monday as an enemy combatant by President Bush and could ultimately face trial by a military tribunal, government officials said.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, 37, has been in custody since late 2001, first as a material witness and later on criminal charges of lying to the FBI and on a charge of credit card fraud. This new designation puts him under the control of the Defense Department, without most rights afforded defendants in the civilian U.S. criminal justice system.

Al-Marri is the third person identified by name as an enemy combatant since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the only one who is not a U.S. citizen. In addition, there are more than 600 unidentified people captured on the battlefield as enemy combatants who are being interrogated at the U.S naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan and later found to have been born in Louisiana. Jose Padilla is alleged to have been involved in a plot to detonate a radioactive ``dirty bomb'' in the United States.

Al-Marri's designation as an enemy combatant came after prosecutors Monday dropped the criminal charges against him. Alice Fisher, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's criminal division, said the decision was made not because that case was weak but because it was the best way to deter future terrorist attacks.

``We are confident we would have prevailed on the criminal charges,'' Fisher said. ``However, setting the criminal charges aside is in the best interests of our national security.''

Bush approved the designation of al-Marri as an enemy combatant Monday morning, she said.

Designation as an enemy combatant means that al-Marri has no right to representation by an attorney -- a situation that has drawn court challenges -- and that he could be held by the military indefinitely, possibly to face eventual trial by a military tribunal where fewer U.S. criminal justice rules apply.

Fisher said that al-Marri was ``positively identified'' as being part of a planned second wave of al-Qaida terrorist attacks by ``an al-Qaida detainee in a position to know.'' She would not identify that person, but officials have said that senior al-Qaida operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has provided a wealth of information about the network's presence in the United States.

Al-Marri's attorney, Mark Berman of Newark, N.J., said he believed the government decided to switch his client's status because al-Marri refused to cooperate and would not plead guilty as others accused in the war on terrorism have done.

``I'm not surprised but it makes you wonder how far the government is prepared to go in denying constitutional rights,'' Berman said.

The FBI first interviewed al-Marri on Oct. 2, 2001, after receiving a tip that he might be involved in terrorism. He was interviewed again in early December 2001 and then placed in custody as a material witness on Dec. 12, 2001.

Al-Marri was subsequently charged with lying about phone calls he made to a number in the United Arab Emirates used by Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, who prosecutors say provided financial backing to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Prosecutors also said in previous indictments that al-Marri ran a credit-card scam to finance al-Qaida activities.

Al-Marri was living in Peoria, Ill., where he had attended Bradley University to study computer science, receiving a bachelor's degree in 1991. After living abroad for a few years, al-Marri returned to the United States on a student visa on Sept. 10, 2001 -- the day before the attacks in New York and Washington.

In February, the Saudi Arabian government ignored a request from the State Department and issued a passport to al-Marri's wife and five young children, who have since left the United States.

Fisher said that al-Marri allegedly attended the same al-Farooq training camp in Afghanistan as numerous other would-be terrorists and met al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Authorities believe al-Marri was trained in use of poisons but had not been sent to the United States to mount an attack.

Still, Larry Mefford, the FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism, said al-Marri's role in helping members of al-Qaida sleeper cells get established in the United States should not be minimized.

``He is somebody who posed a danger to the United States,'' Mefford said. ``Clearly, we think he is very important.''

[ 06-23-2003, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[B_part]

I think the "legal" ground for that treatment comes from the Geneva Convention about war prisoners. As Al Qaeda is considered an enemy power who has declared war on the US, that convention kicks in.
And it says that enemy combatants who don't follow the laws and customs of war ( ), and terrorists sure don't do that, are automatically denied some rights the convention grants to prisoners about trials and right to defense.

So if you start to consider the person a war prisoner outside the geneva convention, you can do pretty much what you want - see Xray camp.

I am not saying this is right, in fact I think it's wrong and dangerous to freedom in general - you start with al quaeda, you might end up with greenpeace and the boy scouts.

Maybe Timber can you give us a better assessment on how shaky this interpretation is on the legal ground

[Donut]

Looks like their about to get 5 new inmates. Despite a High Court injunction.


US takes Malawi al-Qaeda suspects

Five suspected al-Qaeda members arrested by Malawi have been handed to US authorities, despite an injunction blocking deportation.
The BBC's southern Africa correspondent, Barnaby Phillips, says the five suspects appear to have been whisked out of Malawi, although the Americans are not yet saying where they have been taken.

On Tuesday, Malawi's High Court ruled the country's government could not circumvent its own laws by handing over the five detainees, who come from Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Turkey,

An injunction obtained by the suspects' lawyers to block their deportation ordered the government either to charge the men with an offence within 48 hours or release them on bail.

The 48-hour time period elapsed at 2200 local time (2000 GMT) on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, a High Court judge demanded that they be freed but he was told they were no longer in Malawi custody.

Malawi's Director of Public Prosecutions, Fahad Assani, refused to disclose when the five Muslim foreigners had left Malawi, but denied that they had been deported.

"If the Americans has intelligence linking anyone residing in the country to terrorism, Malawi has the duty to facilitate their arrests," he told the BBC.

He confirmed the five were no longer in the custody of Malawi authorities. Their lawyer, Shabir Latif, accused the government of violating its own laws.

A senior Malawian immigration official told Reuters news agency that he was travelling with the suspects.

"I'm not in Malawi at the moment. We are out of the country. They are not in the custody of Malawi, they are in American custody," he said.

State prosecutors say the five men - two from Turkey, one Saudi, one Sudanese and a Kenyan - were arrested in a joint operation run with US officials at the weekend, barely two weeks before President Bush is scheduled to visit Africa.

A spokesmen for the police chief and interior ministry said that Malawi intelligence and immigration officers apprehended the men after they were identified by the US Central Intelligence Agency.

The BBC's Raphael Tenthani in Blantyre says that Malawi does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

[Timber Loftis]

Looks like the Malawi government is bending over backwards (or is it forwards??) to smooch good ole US ass, despite the rule of law.

Personally, I think if (IF) the US "whisked" Malawi citizens away to X-ray (rather than deport), Malawi should declare it an act of war and espionage.

{edit}
Ooops, just noticed they aren't from Malawi. Nevertheless, they were within Malawi's legal protective blanket at the time, and the court ruled you charge them or release them.

[ 06-25-2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Looks like the Malawi government is bending over backwards (or is it forwards??) to smooch good ole US ass, despite the rule of law. Personally, I think if (IF) the US "whisked" Malawi citizens away to X-ray (rather than deport), Malawi should declare it an act of war and espionage.

I doubt it was done without the consent of the Malawi Government.

[harleyquinn]

My thought is I'm curious to see just how loud our government would be yelling if it was an American citizen in another country (say a more conservative country compared to the US, like China was (maybe still is, not sure)), who was suddenly whisked away, denied the right to speak to family, lawyer, a US Rep, anyone, and was sentenced to death without a trial, or just left in jail for eternity. I'm positive we'd be up in arms and our Gov't would be livid (for example, the tension that erupted after some service men were captured when the spy plane was shot down by China a few years back).
I don't like this "enemy combatant" policy only because I fear of the precedence it'll set for other countries. It will make me wary of where I travel from now on, to make sure that there is little or no anti-american sentiment in that country (good luck, I know )

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Looks like the Malawi government is bending over backwards (or is it forwards??) to smooch good ole US ass, despite the rule of law. Personally, I think if (IF) the US "whisked" Malawi citizens away to X-ray (rather than deport), Malawi should declare it an act of war and espionage.

I doubt it was done without the consent of the Malawi Government. [/QUOTE]Of course. An immigration official is travelling with them according to your posted bbc article. But, I think the "Malawi Government" is of 2 opinions -- that of the administration/governmental head and that of the court.

Harkening back to my first post, did you note that the fellas lawyer claims the government switched his status because he wouldn't cop a plea and cooperate? Reminds me of Smith's reaction to Neo when he flips him off and demands a phone call.

[Donut]

Originally posted by harleyquinn: My thought is I'm curious to see just how loud our government would be yelling if it was an American citizen in another country (say a more conservative country compared to the US, like China was (maybe still is, not sure)), who was suddenly whisked away, denied the right to speak to family, lawyer, a US Rep, anyone, and was sentenced to death without a trial, or just left in jail for eternity. I'm positive we'd be up in arms and our Gov't would be livid (for example, the tension that erupted after some service men were captured when the spy plane was shot down by China a few years back). I don't like this "enemy combatant" policy only because I fear of the precedence it'll set for other countries. It will make me wary of where I travel from now on, to make sure that there is little or no anti-american sentiment in that country (good luck, I know )

There'd be a recknin' that's for sure.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by B_part: I think the "legal" ground for that treatment comes from the Geneva Convention about war prisoners. As Al Qaeda is considered an enemy power who has declared war on the US, that convention kicks in. And it says that enemy combatants who don't follow the laws and customs of war ( ), and terrorists sure don't do that, are automatically denied some rights the convention grants to prisoners about trials and right to defense.

I disagree with you somewhat there B_part. Bush declared war on terrorism. It may be ahard for terrorists to recognize that war since they are not a contracting party. So from the Geneva convention

Article 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. Article 2 In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Hmm that pretty much nails it IMO.

Timber, I agree with your opening statement. Just a question though. Isn't it common practise to try prisoners of war in military tribunals? Or do you try them in a regular court?

[B_part]

As you cited "even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them", and that means the Geneva convention can be applied. But terrorists do not act according the "laws and customs of war" (e.g. they voluntarily target civilians, they don't wear proper uniforms and things like that), so, according to the Geneva convention, they lose their right to be treated by the terms of the said convention. That leaves them in a vacuum of legal rights, and allows them to be detained at camp Xray.
That's also the reason why special forces use uniforms, although without nationality tags: if they were caught without uniform who clearly identified them as soldiers, they would be out of the Geneva convention. Not that countries like Iran or Sudan care much about that...

I don't think that's right, but that's the interpretation of the law US military must be endorsing.