Replies

This was a great post. And I am glad that we have all this info in one place.

But I am confused about much of the cases . For instance-- Hamdi case is a case concerning whether or not he should be considered a US citizen because he was born here, they (SCOTUS )decided he was a US citizen and ruled that he should be given due process under the law, and not considered an "Enemy Combatant", correct? Maybe I am wrong. But then if this assertion is correct, how does the AG use this as any type of support?

There are two things to read to help answer your questions:

1) http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544183/posts?page=26#26

2) AG's letter in post #208:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545567/posts?page=208#208

For instance-- Hamdi case is a case concerning whether or not he should be considered a US citizen because he was born here, they (SCOTUS) decided he was a US citizen and ruled that he should be given due process under the law, and not considered an "Enemy Combatant", correct?

There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U. S., at 20. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war." Id., at 37-38. While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. See id., at 30-31. See also Lieber Code, ¶ ;153, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, Gen. Order No. 100 (1863), reprinted in 2 Lieber, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 273 (contemplating, in code binding the Union Army during the Civil War, that "captured rebels" would be treated "as prisoners of war"). Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States," Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.
In light of these principles, it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of "necessary and appropriate force," Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

This case gave a limited access then, to "due process" in an Article III court - a process wehreby the detainee could challenge being assigned the status of "enemy combatant."

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.

At any rate, the Hamdi case is being cited by the DoJ (in the NSA case) for the proposition that the AUMF (authorization to use military force, granted by Congress) also gives authority to perform warrantless surveillance on the communications at issue. Just at the Court found that the AUMF authorized holding Hamdi as a possible enemy combatant.