PDA

View Full Version : In Guantanamo Case, U.S. Gov Says It Can Indefinitely Detain Anyone — Even U.S. Citizens




Marenco
06-25-2019, 07:08 PM
In Guantanamo Case, U.S. Gov Says It Can Indefinitely Detain Anyone — Even U.S. Citizens

FOR OVER 17 years, Moath al-Alwi has been held at Guantánamo Bay without charge. A Yemeni citizen, al-Alwi is one of Guantánamo’s “forever prisoners,” those whom the U.S. government has not charged with a crime but is unwilling to release. On June 10, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in his case, the latest setback in al-Alwi’s long effort to obtain due process rights. Even though the court wouldn’t take al-Alwi up, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that it would only be a matter of time before the court had to grapple with the forever prisoners and the scope of the government’s power to hold them.

The Supreme Court rejection — and Breyer’s comments — briefly brought al-Alwi’s case back to national attention. Little noted, however, were the eyebrow-raising assertions that the government has made in this case about its powers to indefinitely detain not just al-Alwi, but anyone — including U.S. citizens.

In a filing with the Supreme Court this April, lawyers for the Justice Department argued that the United States can continue to hold al-Alwi indefinitely without charging him. They also embraced the power to detain a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant”, an assertion they haven’t advanced openly since the era of President George W. Bush. Notably, the lawyers seemed to indicate, for the first time in a filing with the Supreme Court, that the government could even detain a U.S. citizen for as long as it has held al-Alwi, 17 years and counting, without charge.”

“There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” the filing read. Were al-Alwi a citizen, they argued, he “would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.” There were no “constitutional questions” raised by this hypothetical, they maintained.

The continued detention of al-Alwi has been justified by the government under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, a law passed in the days after 9/11. That AUMF entered the country into a state of war that seems to have no particular endpoint. It has also allowed the creation of a permanent state of legal exception that opens the door to practices like indefinite detention without trial. These legal powers are now being asserted by government lawyers almost 18 years after the law was passed to ensure that they extend even to Americans potentially detained as enemy combatants in the future.

“Detention without charge under the laws of war is meant to be finite, temporary, and exceptional — but that exception is becoming the rule. We’re now talking about a claim that detention can last potentially for life,” said Pardiss Kebriaei, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy organization. Kebriaei has represented Guantánamo detainees in the past, including men now released from the prison. She argues that the ongoing detention of most prisoners — there are 40 still at Guantánamo — has little to do with security concerns.

“The idea that lifelong imprisonment of detainees is strictly necessary for U.S. national security, that there is no other way but imprisonment to mitigate any risk, is a farce,” said Kebriaei. “It continues to be sanctioned in part because the public cannot see for themselves the senselessness of continuing to hold these detainees. Five of them have been cleared for transfer by the government itself. Others are sick, aging, changed people who are close to two decades removed from the actions the government has used to justify their detentions.”

In the same filing in which the U.S. government reserved the right to indefinite detention, government lawyers also asserted that were al-Alwi caught in Afghanistan today, he could be held elsewhere — a reference, al-Alwi’s lawyer’s say, to rendition, the practice of covertly moving detainees across international borders, often to countries where they are at risk of maltreatment. In the April filing, government lawyers said that current legal agreements did “not deprive the United States of the authority to detain petitioner elsewhere.”

IMPRISONED IN HIS mid-20s, al-Alwi is now over 40 years old. During his time in Guantánamo, he has protested his detention by various means, including yearslong periods when he refused food and was subjected to painful force-feeding procedures. At one point during a hunger strike, his weight dropped to less than 100 pounds. More recently, he has begun making artwork, some of which was recently displayed at an event at the City University of New York School of Law. The government had previously tried to prevent the release of his art, which includes several model ships he built at Guantánamo using cardboard, plastic bottle caps, and other reclaimed or discarded materials.

“Moath has been struggling against the injustice of his imprisonment at Guantánamo without charge or fair process for over 17 years,” said Ramzi Kassem, a professor at CUNY School of Law who represents al-Alwi along with a group of students through the school’s Immigrant and Non-Citizen Rights Clinic. “He has done that against all odds, most recently by expressing his thirst for freedom through his virtuosic ship models and in his other artwork, which the Department of Defense tried to censor.”

The next steps in al-Alwi’s legal challenge to his detention remain unclear, though his lawyers say that they plan to continue fighting for him. Kassem says that the government’s assertion that it can indefinitely detain or even administer rendition of prisoners like al-Alwi represents a degradation of moral and legal standards at Guantánamo Bay.

“For the Solicitor General of the United States to cavalierly suggest that [al-Alwi’s] extraordinary ordeal would be unremarkable even if it had been imposed on a U.S. citizen and to brandish overtly the threat of rendition shows just how cruel and inhumane both the government and the law have become in these cases,” Kassem said. “It also shows that even if you only care about U.S. citizens, then you should be very alarmed about what is being done to Moath.”

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/21/guantanamo-bay-indefinite-detention/

Grandmastersexsay
06-26-2019, 09:12 AM
That would never hold up in court for a us citizen, who unlike foreign citizens, are afforded protection under the constitution.

Superfluous Man
06-26-2019, 09:30 AM
That would never hold up in court for a us citizen, who unlike foreign citizens, are afforded protection under the constitution.

Where do you find something in the Constitution that delegates to the federal government the power to violate the rights of foreign citizens?

Also, n.b. that even under the premise of your statement that the Constitution only limits the acts of the federal government that violate American citizens' rights, the assumption that courts would never rule in favor of the federal government violating the rights of American citizens, regardless of what's in the Constitution, is quite tenuous and I think disproved by a number of examples.

spudea
06-26-2019, 09:35 AM
If a U.S. citizen was part of Osama Bin Laden's crew, they would be tried for treason and promptly hanged / firing squad. This guy wishes he was a U.S. citizen.

Superfluous Man
06-26-2019, 09:41 AM
If a U.S. citizen was part of Osama Bin Laden's crew, they would be tried for treason and promptly hanged / firing squad. This guy wishes he was a U.S. citizen.

I see no reason that either that hypothetical citizen or Bin Laden himself should be punished without being proven guilty through due process.

devil21
06-26-2019, 10:55 AM
That would never hold up in court for a us citizen, who unlike foreign citizens, are afforded protection under the constitution.

There is no constitution of the republic in effect. That went away a long time ago. You know, like when the original republic/union dissolved over the Civil War. That little happening dissolved the original republic and the constitution of 1789. No one can point to any specific time when the original constitution was later re-ratified by the states to reunite the republic/union. These government lawyers know this. The judges know this. I presume the ACLU/civil rights lawyers also know this.

spudea
06-26-2019, 11:14 AM
There is no constitution of the republic in effect. That went away a long time ago. You know, like when the original republic/union dissolved over the Civil War. That little happening dissolved the original republic and the constitution of 1789. No one can point to any specific time when the original constitution was later re-ratified by the states to reunite the republic/union. These government lawyers know this. The judges know this. I presume the ACLU/civil rights lawyers also know this.

the position of the federal government is the union did not "dissolve" as you indicate, as the southern states were never allowed to leave the union in the first place

devil21
06-26-2019, 11:26 AM
the position of the federal government is the union did not "dissolve" as you indicate, as the southern states were never allowed to leave the union in the first place

But they did and created their own government, yes? By doing so, they dissolved the original document that they were a party to and the government that it established. Please point me to any constitutional operation in the wake of the Civil War that rejoined the seceeded states back under the constitution of 1789. I'll wait.

(and please don't post the SCOTUS ruling 4 years after the Civil War was over that basically just says "nuh uh, do over.")

Ender
06-26-2019, 11:32 AM
the position of the federal government is the union did not "dissolve" as you indicate, as the southern states were never allowed to leave the union in the first place

But legally, & constitutionally, the southern states were allowed to leave. Lincoln completed the Hamiltonian coup of a strong central gov & no states's rights.

devil21
06-26-2019, 11:38 AM
But legally, & constitutionally, the southern states allowed to leave. Lincoln completed the Hamiltonian coup of a strong central gov & no states's rights.

Which is why Lincoln and Hamilton are so celebrated today, even gracing the banker's currency (Grant too) and having their own broadway shows, even.

shakey1
06-26-2019, 11:38 AM
Thanks to Obummer’s contribution to the NDAA.

Ender
06-26-2019, 01:51 PM
Which is why Lincoln and Hamilton are so celebrated today, even gracing the banker's currency and having their own broadway shows, even.

Exactly.

spudea
06-26-2019, 08:02 PM
But they did and created their own government, yes? By doing so, they dissolved the original document that they were a party to and the government that it established. Please point me to any constitutional operation in the wake of the Civil War that rejoined the seceeded states back under the constitution of 1789. I'll wait.

(and please don't post the SCOTUS ruling 4 years after the Civil War was over that basically just says "nuh uh, do over.")

The US congress and constitution continued to exist during the civil war. The confederacy was militarily conquered and several requirements were imposed on the states before they regained political representation in the still existing US congress. This regaining of political representation in the still existing US congress is the rejoining under the US constitution. You use the term dissolved as if the US congress ceased to exist entirely which is not true. You're suggesting they rejoined a different government or different constitution? Such as?

devil21
06-26-2019, 08:51 PM
The US congress and constitution continued to exist during the civil war. The confederacy was militarily conquered and several requirements were imposed on the states before they regained political representation in the still existing US congress. This regaining of political representation in the still existing US congress is the rejoining under the US constitution. You use the term dissolved as if the US congress ceased to exist entirely which is not true. You're suggesting they rejoined a different government or different constitution? Such as?

Look up the Organic Act of 1871. It turned DC from the seat of the original republic into the seat of a corporation. Yes, they joined a new corporation based in DC instead of rejoining the original republic that they left. If a state left the union, they were no longer a party to the original pact that established that union, right? Therefore, in order to "rejoin", there had to be a new form of government for them to "join". You can't just leave a contract then later return back into the same contract. A new contract must be established. Corporate charters do not require ratification. So the point is that the current constitution are bylaws of a corporation, not the laws of a republic. That explains why Congress ignores the constitution all the time, often brazenly such as in cases like the coining of money. The amendments are merely suggestions for the corporation to try to adhere to but are not requirements. Additionally, the continual emergency declarations roughly every 90 days by the President (doesn't matter which one) suspend any claim to 1789 constitutional rights by keeping us all in a constant state of emergency/martial law.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Lw_5ex8KA

You should probably read this excellent book:
http://newsbitsandbites.com/pdf/FruitsFromaPoisonousTree.pdf

Superfluous Man
06-26-2019, 08:59 PM
Thanks to Obummer’s contribution to the NDAA.

How could it be thanks to Obama's NDAA? Obama's last NDAA was for fiscal year 2017. We're already on our second one in Trump's tenure. Whatever's in the current version was signed by Trump, not Obama.