POLITICS: Senate Bars Detainees From Filing Lawsuits

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It certainly seems constititutional:

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think the question was if we were really at war, since there wasn't an explicit declaration of war by the Congress. The D.C. Circuit ruled that by giving the President the authorization for military action, the Congress did automatically give the President the war powers to detain combantants, so it was basically a de facto declaration of war.

Originally posted by Indy
If they fall under the jurisdiction of the military court then they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. Its either that or they are entitled to protection under the same laws U.S. citizens are since they are technically being held on U.S. soil. I'd watch my step if I were Bush. I don't think he wants to be found in violation of the Geneva Convention. But then when has he ever cared about human rights?

The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002).

Enemy Combatant

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

Authority to Detain

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

Originally posted by Indy
Let an international court decide.

Originally posted by oily one
The question that linger is "What do you do with enemy combatants?" Do you keep them detained forever? I don't think the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are of importance anymore, intelligence wise

Originally posted by subz
You want to do away with peoples rights to fair trials?

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Why should non US citizens have access to our courts? That is a privillege a US citizen has, not a foreign national being held prisoner.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Why should non US citizens have access to our courts? That is a privillege a US citizen has, not a foreign national being held prisoner.

Originally posted by subz
Also what these people seem to not comprehend is that these plaintiffs were removed (kidnapped if you will) from their own country by United States forces. If they were whisked away from their country by the US, held in Guantanamo for 3 years, found innocent of any wrong doing then they should be able to sue the United States.

Members of the al Qaeda organization are not considered "prisoners of war," and therefore, do not have protection under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, al Qaeda terrorists are, under international law, considered "illegal combatants," and are subject to trial by military tribunals.

Source