NY Times Advertisement
The five-to-four decision effectively reverses last year’s ruling that the administration cannot label US residents “enemy combatants” and jail them indefinitely without charge.
Irregardless of what misdeeds that al-Marri has commited, what does this mean for all non-citizens who are legal residents of the United States?
Essentially, what this ruling does is to afford our military the ability to label legal residents in the US as "enemy combatants" and therefore deny the detainee rights afforded to regular legal residents. Such as a right to a criminal trial.
I do not want anybody to mistake my point as sympathizing with al-Marri, as I think evidence against him is more than convincing, however, he was not a "noncitizen" captured in a foreign land. He was a citizen of Qatar, and was a captured within our borders.
Being that he was captured here, he doesn't really fit the description of "enemy combatant" and therefore some would argue that he should be tried in a civilian criminal court and not a military tribunal.
This desicion is critical, as it shows us that legal residents of the US may not be as free to voice thier dissent, at least not as radically as they may choose. If it is too radical, then they may find themselves with the label of "enemy combatant." Much like how certain posters on this board refer to other posters on this board as "terrorist sympathizers" and the like.
Re: Court Backs Bush on Military Detentions 
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
