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.
Bush administration defends detainee policy
Linear Mode
