John Doe (United States Citizen held in military custody in Iraq) prevails at DC Circuit

Bill.in.PA · 2018-05-27T20:28:26.394Z

Not to worry; the Obama administration established that the President is free to kill anyone he wishes based on an internal review within the executive branch.

Based on that logic, all the President needs to do is to release John Doe and immediately order a drone strike to do him in.

For background see:

the Guardian – 15 Nov 16

How the US justifies drone strikes: targeted killing, secrecy and the law

For decades the US condemned targeted killings, characterizing them as assassinations – but it was unclear what distinguished America’s drone campaign from the killings it historically rejected as unlawful

SixFoot · 2018-05-27T20:33:00.906Z

He won’t survive the outcome.

biggestal99 · 2018-05-27T21:17:29.063Z

Once he is in us custody he cannot be released and droned. Lol

Too late to drone him.

Allan

Safiel · 2018-05-27T23:30:46.611Z

The correct outcome in this case would be that John Doe is granted his original habeas corpus prayer in full, which would see him returned to the United States and released from custody, unless the United States intends to charge him in the Article III Courts with a crime.

Even if Saudi Arabia has a legitimate charge against him, there is no extradition treaty between Saudi Arabia and the United States and thus there is no possibility of a transfer that comports with due process guarantees.

John Doe is a United States Citizen and there is simply no circumstance where a United States President may unilaterally and arbitrarily hand a United States Citizen over to another country without due process.

calirepub · 2018-05-28T11:39:16.260Z

Safiel:

John Doe is a United States Citizen and there is simply no circumstance where a United States President may unilaterally and arbitrarily hand a United States Citizen over to another country without due process.

When the president does it it’s not illegal.

biggestal99 · 2018-05-28T13:05:49.385Z

Except when he stopped by the courts.

Allan

Hellsbane · 2018-05-28T13:37:17.571Z

On the merits of the case/ruling, i agree with the courts decision… BUT… this could have consequences the courts and ACLU have not foreseen. The only reason this case arose is because Syria, after capturing John Doe in the field, turned him over to the US Military, who accepted him. Future consequence could be the US Military not accepting US citizens fighting for our enemies captured by foreign forces in combat. Not in US custody, not our problem.

biggestal99 · 2018-05-28T14:11:40.833Z

They shoulda just droned him, but cons here don’t like the obama ruling droning a United States citizen.

Allan

calirepub · 2018-05-28T16:06:06.363Z

biggestal99:

Except when he stopped by the courts.

Allan

Like he cares what the courts rule. What are the courts going do after he ignores them?

SpacemanSpiff · 2018-05-28T18:21:11.748Z

The Miranda warning didn’t exist back then.

biggestal99 · 2018-05-28T19:02:19.502Z

Lol. Won’t happen.

Allan

gooddad409 · 2018-05-28T21:27:05.385Z

Safiel:

John Doe is the unidentified United States Citizen held by the United States Military since last September. To this point, he has prevailed in District Court before United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has ruled that the military cannot transfer him to Saudi Arabia, where he holds dual citizenship.

The Trump administration has nothing to charge him with, but does not want to release him into the United States.

They appealed the District Court decision to the DC Circuit, which today ruled in favor of John Doe.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/BCF2012F570B5A5D85258286007164B0/$file/18-5032-sealed.pdf

The decision is under seal and we know little more than United States Circuit Judges Henderson, Srinivasan and Wilkins comprised the panel.

He should be released into the custody of those nit wit judges.

Gaius · 2018-05-28T22:02:44.317Z

In WW2 when we caught Americans who had joined the German army, we held them without charge just as we held the German POWs.

It was the right thing then,
and it’s the right thing now.

zantax · 2018-05-28T22:07:40.070Z

I disagree, the constitution says specifically what should be done with US citizens who wage war against us. There is hardly any point in Section 3 clause 1 if it can be nullified by simply accusing someone of treason and locking them up indefinitely.

SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.

Any US citizen accused of such is entitled to their day in court.

Safiel · 2018-05-28T22:27:54.546Z

We are neither in a State of War with ISIS/ISIL, nor has Congress enacted an authorization for the use of force against ISIS/ISIL, so there is not the remotest comparisons between the two situations

Safiel · 2018-05-28T22:32:09.393Z

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is the centerpiece of due process in this country. Considered so important that it was enshrined in the original text of the United States Constitution. An American Citizen, regardless of whether he is held within the United States or overseas has the absolute right to Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and have that petition heard by the courts.

It is the courts, not the President, who will decide whether his petition ultimately has merit.

I consider any attempt to interfere with habeas corpus to be a grave assault on due process.

gooddad409 · 2018-05-28T23:50:12.234Z

Turning this joker loose will lead to innocent deaths.

Hellsbane · 2018-05-29T04:24:03.293Z

I agree. The only response to this is to simply refuse to accept the return of US Citizens captured in the field of war by other countries. If they are not in US custody, they aren’t our problem and do not enjoy Constitutional protections.

Safiel · 2018-05-29T05:06:54.325Z

Hellsbane:

I agree. The only response to this is to simply refuse to accept the return of US Citizens captured in the field of war by other countries. If they are not in US custody, they aren’t our problem and do not enjoy Constitutional protections.

I think that is what will happen going forward. The U.S. will simply refuse to take custody of a captured United States Citizen, unless they have a clear path forward to prosecute the person. Instead, they will leave him to the custody of the capturing country.

(Nothing illegal or unconstitutional with that approach.)

But once the United States does take custody, they come under United States due process protections.

Gaius · 2018-05-29T06:44:30.119Z

Safiel:

Hellsbane:

I agree. The only response to this is to simply refuse to accept the return of US Citizens captured in the field of war by other countries. If they are not in US custody, they aren’t our problem and do not enjoy Constitutional protections.

I think that is what will happen going forward. The U.S. will simply refuse to take custody of a captured United States Citizen, unless they have a clear path forward to prosecute the person. Instead, they will leave him to the custody of the capturing country.

(Nothing illegal or unconstitutional with that approach.)

But once the United States does take custody, they come under United States due process protections.

I suppose there is ample precedent for that. Americans overseas are routinely arrested by local authorities for drug crimes barfights or other common crimes.

I suppose if an American travels to Syria (or wherever) and takes up with ISIL he could just be left to rot like a common criminal.

Something about it makes me uncomfortable though.