Posted on 06/10/2002 8:48:03 PM PDT by mhking
'DIRTY BOMB' SUSPECT CAN BE HELD INDEFINITELY
Press Association
Mon Jun 10 2002 20:21:02 ET
The US citizen accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb in Washington faces an uncertain future in military custody.
Abdullah Al Mujahir has been moved from a civilian jail to a high-security US Navy prison in South Carolina after officials determined he was an "enemy combatant" who posed a serious and continuing threat to Americans.
But a US Justice Department official said there are no plans to make him face a military tribunal set up for alleged terrorists because these are only for non-Americans. Nor are there any plans to press criminal charges against the al Qaida suspect.
Under US legal rules, Al Mujahir can be held indefinitely an as enemy soldier, the official said.
US Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the position, claiming that Al Mujahir is being held under the laws of war and under a Supreme Court precedent which established that the military may detain a US citizen who has joined the enemy and entered America to carry out "hostile acts."
The decision has been criticised by civil rights groups who said the US Government only moved him into military custody after failing to provide any evidence to keep him detained in the civilian legal system.
Al Mujahir's access to a lawyer is also expected to be severely restricted now that he is in military custody.
It is the latest controversy surrounding the American treatment of al Qaida and Taliban suspects.
The US Government came under fire from civil rights groups across the globe when plans for military tribunals were first released last year.
Under the initial proposals, defendants would in some cases not get to hear the evidence against them.
The revised plan for the tribunals, released by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in March, give the accused many of the rights enjoyed by defendants in a normal trial.
But they will have limited right of appeal, and standards for evidence will be more relaxed.
Evidence which a "reasonable person" would consider relevant will be allowed to be heard in the commissions. This is a looser standard than US military and civilian courts, and is likely to give prosecutors more room for manoeuvre.
Hearsay evidence will be permitted, as will materials where the chain of custody cannot be fully established. US authorities said this was necessary due to the special circumstances of the war.
Suspects brought before the tribunals will have the right to a civilian lawyer as well as the military one assigned to them at the cost of the government.
They face the death penalty if convicted.
Mr Rumsfeld's promised that the tribunals will be "fair, balanced and just".
But William Shulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said: "We fear that in the proceedings undertaken by military commissions, justice may neither be done, nor seen to be done."
No tribunals have yet been scheduled. U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Amendment Text | Annotations
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
If they consider his family to be the El Rukn street gang in Chicago (which he was supposedly tied to), maybe...
The Folks and the El Rukn gangs are the most notorius in Chicago in recent times. The alleged leader, Jeff Fort, is a "guest" of the judicial system, and has been there for at least ten years. Rumor has it that Fort has been (and is still) running the gang from inside. Ties to black politicians and clergy have been alleged before, but with no solid proof beyond rumor and innuendo, no one has been able to pursue anything.
Doesn't the government have to show that the guy is an "enemy soldier"? They can just finger someone and then hold him indefinitely, or what? This is pretty weird.
A U.S. citizen who is a resident or citizen of a foreign country may be subject to compulsory military service in that country. Although the United States opposes service by U.S. citizens in foreign armed forces, there is little that we can do to prevent it since each sovereign country has the right to make its own laws on military service and apply them as it sees fit to its citizens and residents.
Such participation by citizens of our country in the internal affairs of foreign countries can cause problems in the conduct of our foreign relations and may involve U.S. citizens in hostilities against countries with which we are at peace. For this reason, U.S. citizens facing the possibility of foreign military service should do what is legally possible to avoid such service.
Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of foreign military service originating within the United States. The current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S., 163 U.S. 632 (1985), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army; however, when someone has been recruited or hired in he United States, a violation may have occurred. The prosecution of persons who have violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960 is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.
Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.
The rest is Here
The Taliban. Bin Laden was the defense minister for Afghanistan. However; the definition is not precise but it does not take a large leap in logic to be applicable.
As noted on another thread, there's more than a passing resemblance between our boy and the “Arab” John Doe sketch from the OKC bombing.
How do you know that he joined the Taliban armed forces?
The US government has arbitrarily declared a US Citizens rights null and void by assigning him "enemy combatant" status.
Poof there went the Bill of Rights for this man, however low he may be.
Does anyone think that if Clinton's crew had this power they would have used it against say "militia" members after the OKC bombing ?
A terrible precedent has just been set, and fascist, liberals are sure to have noticed.
What the hell was this guy doing free? He was part of a homicide for crying out loud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.