Once he is in us custody he cannot be released and droned. Lol
Too late to drone him.
Allan
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.
1 Like
When the president does it itās not illegal.
Except when he stopped by the courts.
Allan
On the merits of the case/ruling, i agree with the courts decisionā¦ BUTā¦ 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.
They shoulda just droned him, but cons here donāt like the obama ruling droning a United States citizen.
Allan
Like he cares what the courts rule. What are the courts going do after he ignores them?
The Miranda warning didnāt exist back then.
Lol. Wonāt happen.
Allan
He should be released into the custody of those nit wit judges.
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 itās the right thing now.
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.
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
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.
Turning this joker loose will lead to innocent deaths.
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 arenāt 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.
While I agree he is entitled to his day in court, I have to point out the courts have repeatedly ruled that congress authorizing funds to fight someone constitutes an authorization for the use of force. There is no specific wording required to place us in a state of war with someone. And they have specifically ruled that the fight against ISIS and whether they are covered under the 2001 AUMF is non-justiciable, see Smith V Obama.
