.Off base on terror: Judge's decision throws open U.S. courthouse doors to our worst enemies
A federal judge has taken the fateful step of ruling that three of the 600 prisoners at Bagram air base in Afghanistan have rights under the U.S. Constitution. This is dangerous folly.
One can only pray that higher courts reject Judge John Bates' premise that noncitizens are not barred - as long thought - from contesting war captivity abroad in American civilian courts.
While Bates emphasized the distinct circumstances of the three, he built his holding on the notion that U.S. control of Bagram gave prisoners a leg up on getting into court.
Activists who have taken up the cause of the detainees were ecstatic. Tina Foster, of the International Justice Network, said the Bates ruling would extend "to any place where the United States seeks to hold individuals in a legal black hole."
Presidents Bush and Obama - yes, Obama - argued against opening our courts to terror suspects abroad. But Bates drew his reasoning from the 2008 Supreme Court decision that foolishly granted Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights.
At the time, it was thought the effects of that case would go no further than Gitmo. That base in Cuba was seen as American territory for constitutional purposes because the U.S. controlled it under a long-term lease.
But now Bates has said the military has an "objective degree of control" at Bagram, putting prisoners, in effect, on U.S. soil. Then he applied a "functional, multi-factor, detainee-by-detainee test" to gauge rights.
He gave three detainees - two Yemenis and one Tunisian - access to federal courts because they had been apprehended elsewhere and taken to Afghanistan. But he suggested that prisoners captured in Afghanistan would not get the same rights. And he couldn't figure out what to do with an Afghan prisoner, fearing the Afghan government would get peeved if U.S. courts began meddling.
Simply put, the case is a misbegotten mess that demands clarity on appeal: The Constitution does not protect war prisoners across the four corners of the globe.
NYDaily
One can only pray that higher courts reject Judge John Bates' premise that noncitizens are not barred - as long thought - from contesting war captivity abroad in American civilian courts.
While Bates emphasized the distinct circumstances of the three, he built his holding on the notion that U.S. control of Bagram gave prisoners a leg up on getting into court.
Activists who have taken up the cause of the detainees were ecstatic. Tina Foster, of the International Justice Network, said the Bates ruling would extend "to any place where the United States seeks to hold individuals in a legal black hole."
Presidents Bush and Obama - yes, Obama - argued against opening our courts to terror suspects abroad. But Bates drew his reasoning from the 2008 Supreme Court decision that foolishly granted Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights.
At the time, it was thought the effects of that case would go no further than Gitmo. That base in Cuba was seen as American territory for constitutional purposes because the U.S. controlled it under a long-term lease.
But now Bates has said the military has an "objective degree of control" at Bagram, putting prisoners, in effect, on U.S. soil. Then he applied a "functional, multi-factor, detainee-by-detainee test" to gauge rights.
He gave three detainees - two Yemenis and one Tunisian - access to federal courts because they had been apprehended elsewhere and taken to Afghanistan. But he suggested that prisoners captured in Afghanistan would not get the same rights. And he couldn't figure out what to do with an Afghan prisoner, fearing the Afghan government would get peeved if U.S. courts began meddling.
Simply put, the case is a misbegotten mess that demands clarity on appeal: The Constitution does not protect war prisoners across the four corners of the globe.
NYDaily
posted by madtom at 7:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home