The President ordered a man held,detained and no access to outside anything indefinitely.
I don't wanna be held in custody of the military without access to an attorney. Do you?
2007-06-11 09:59:56 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
On June 11, 2007, the three-judge appeals panel unanimously found that the court had jurisdiction over Mr. Al-Marri’s case, and held 2-1 that the Military Commissions Act did not strip a lawful resident alien of his right to habeas corpus, the President lacks the authority to detain Mr. Al-Marri as an "enemy combatant" without charge, and instructed the lower court to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Secretary of Defense to release Mr. Al-Marri from military custody.
I googled it
2007-06-11 11:21:13 · update #1
No one should be above the law.
Mr. Lopez would tell us different. He is being held indefinitely for alleged terrorist activities and he is a US citizen. So, then yes. But they are not supposed to be. After 9/11 no one cares about treating him this way. But we all should. If the government can do it to him they can do it to anyone. All they have to say is that you are engaged in terrorist activities. Then lock you away.
Drug laws, where the government can take your property away and not even charge you with a crime. People want to set up laws thinking that will give them security, but they just loose freedom.
WE NEED TO THINK PEOPLE! FREEDOM COMES FIRST!!!
2007-06-11 10:25:27 · answer #1 · answered by Injam 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First off unlike most other nations the President of the United States has no executive immunity meaning that they can be arrested and charged at any time. The only real constitutional question then is can the President pardon himself?
I am not familiar with this particular case you are referring too but I find it highly unlikely the President himself would directly order someone detained. I believe what you are referring too is the mechanism by which either the military or a federal agency can detain an individual and the fact that the authority to do so comes from the executive branch. Incidentally these mechanisms are not applicable to actual U.S. Citizens. It is a setteled fact that the Constitution trumps any and all security , military laws and executive orders.
2007-06-11 10:15:29 · answer #2 · answered by levindis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The lead cases in the recent military detentions (Hamdi and Hamdan v Rumsfeld) show that there must be some sort of possible appeal to the judicial system. That is, indefinite detentions are not permitted. Habeas corpus is supposed to still apply to military detentions....but of course with different rules that stink for the detainee.
2007-06-11 10:03:46 · answer #3 · answered by Brand X 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What man are you talking about? We're not holding any U.S. citizens indefinitely. Yes we are holding non-citizens in a Cuban prison, but these folks are un-uniformed terrorists and military combatants. They don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention Treaty, and they don't qualify for Habius Corpus, since they are not U.S. citizens. (By the way, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habius Corpus during the Civil War.)
2007-06-11 10:05:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The President is not above the law. The trick is to get anyone to bring an action against the sitting President. Sadly, our Democratic congress is unwilling to do this and have wimped out at every turn against impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.
2007-06-11 10:02:27 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you don't want to be held in the custody of the military without knowledge of the crime you are accused of, or access to an attorney, then simply do not commit terrorist acts or conspire to do so.
2007-06-11 10:05:42 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The president cannot be held accountable for interpretations of the law. He can be held accountable for certain of his actions, but they are limited in scope to things that do not directly pertain to the direct operation of the country, or to actions taken during a war.
2007-06-11 10:04:40 · answer #7 · answered by MrKnowItAll 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"no guy is above the regulation" however thats in basic terms written on paper, doesnt mean it wouldnt take place. like the nixon watergate stuff, it replaced into in basic terms approximately a coverup, even though it failed. the better up you are the greater assets you may conceal up.
2016-12-12 18:17:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's see....Clinton was impeached for perjury. So, yes, they are accountable, but only according to the law and not because you don't like something that's happened.
2007-06-11 10:03:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The terrorists are enemy combatants who are trucked to another country, fight and kill civilians, and then scream they have human rights.
Fat chance, the terrorists get what they deserve.
2007-06-11 10:03:40 · answer #10 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋