Bush administration defends detainee policy
 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...tainee_policy/

(Excerpt) WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration yesterday mounted its first full defense in the Supreme Court of presidential power to order the capture and long-term detention of "enemy combatants" during the war on terrorism.

The justices should not even get involved in any review of that power, because there is no constitutional doubt about it, the Justice Department argued in a lengthy legal brief.

The document was filed in the case of a US citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been detained for two years by the US military since being picked up in Afghanistan.

Because Hamdi was denied access to the legal process, his father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, appealed the detention on his son's behalf. The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to take the case next month. The brief mentions, in a footnote, that the Defense Department has now decided to allow Hamdi access to a lawyer, but it contends that it was granted not because he had a right to it, but "as a matter of discretion and military policy."




I'm wondering what people think of this. It really bothered me. I understand that precautions must be made to protect the country, but I don't see why someone should be detained for so long without being charged, or having some sort of trial. I would think it would make more sense for the military to make the effort to find out if someone really was a threat rather than to simply imprison them indefinitely on shallow grounds.

If they were doing this to non-citizens, that would be one thing. But to detain a citizen indefinitely, sometimes w/o informing him of the charges, etc is stepping over the line. But good luck changing anything. They'll justify anything.

I hear these guys were all in Afhganistan for summer camp and stuff.

-Rudey
--Sipping on iced tea and playing tennis.

LMAO!

Nice one Rudey, truly nice.

Kitso
KS 361

I wouldn't mind so much if there were a declared war or state of emergency. Those things end in theory lol.

In this case we are technically just holding home.

LAwyers on here: Isn't thata violation of habeus corpus?

No because they're not prisoners of war.

-Rudey

Ok if they are not prisoners of war, or being held on a charge. What are they lol? Other than shit out of luck?

Enemy combatants.

-Rudey
--Now if someone can tell me what the dead rat and douche bags in the living room were used for at my roommates' party, that'd be really good to know.

-- "detainees"

They're being "detained".

Lucky fellas.. on vacation in the Carribean. Their fellow terrorists have to be in the Middle East. I'll bet they're jealous. No jihad for them this year..

LOL... I would never have thought of it that way!