See also Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686 (2005); In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443; (DDC 2005); and the Moussaoui case. Yes, terrorists get due process, even enemy combatants
Rasul v. Bush was controversial, but I admit it EDIT: gave federal courts JURISDICTION to hear. But...
There is a contrary to In re Guantanamo, prior, DC District Court holding on what that means. Khalid v. Bush, 355 F.Supp.2d 311
D.D.C.,2005. A conservative judge said the opposite - fine, you got a hearing, and you have no constitutional grounds for challenging your detention. There is a split within the circuit, and we're waiting on the appeals.
Moussaoui was arrested in the US and charged with criminal offenses, which is a different ball of wax. He's being treated like a criminal. The Guantanamo detainees are being treated like soldiers in an illegal international army. Like Karen said, we're not alleging they did anything wrong - they're enemy combatants in an illegal army, and they're being incapacitated so they don't rejoin the fight. The debate is whether those guys have access to U.S. domestic courts. That, IMO, is absurd. POWs don't get access to U.S. domestic courts (that I know of), and neither should these guys.
Derek |
