U.S. forces in Iraq are holding an associate of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who holds joint American-Jordanian citizenship, defense officials said yesterday.According to Reuters:
The man was snared in a raid by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq late in 2004, according to a Pentagon spokesman, who said weapons and bomb-making materials were in his residence.
The man was described as a personal associate of Zarqawi and an emissary to insurgent groups in several cities in Iraq.
The officials said that the man holds joint U.S.-Jordanian citizenship, but declined to provide his hometown or otherwise identify him.
After his capture, a panel of three U.S. officers determined that he was an enemy combatant and therefore not entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention, the spokesman said.
He is still being held as a security threat but has been visited by representatives of the International Committee on the Red Cross.
He is the first American known to be captured fighting for the insurgency in Iraq.
He is being held at an internment facility in Iraq," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, spokesman for detainee affairs. "He's being held along with other detainees."I'm sure the suicide-by-civil-rights ACLU's working weekends to extend the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to terrorists--albeit not to their victims. But by battling U.S. forces in Iraq, why is the terrorist still an American citizen? The Immigration laws, 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a), provide:
Rudisill said he had no details on the man's age or where he was from in the United States. He said he was born in Jordan and received U.S. citizenship later, but it was not known when. He has been interrogated by U.S. forces.
"We do know from interrogation that he has strong ties to the al-Zarqawi network," Rudisill said.
Legal action against the detainee will be taken in coordination with the Iraqi government, he added, leaving open the possibility that he could be handed over to the U.S. Justice Department.
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality - . . .Importantly, Section 1481(b) also says (emphasis mine) that anyone "who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily." See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 264-70 (1980); see also 22 C.F.R. § 50.40(c) (authorizing U.S. diplomats to recommend renouncement determination).
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States. . .
So I agree with Hyscience:
There's not much about our justice system that I have any faith in anymore . . . Better leave the guy there for the Iraqis to deal with. As for his punishment, I suggest starvation and dehydration, the new American way.(via The Jawa Report)
5 comments:
Well, once could say people fighting against the US in Iraq aren't actually trying the overthrow the Washington-based US government, though I'm sure you'd call 'nitpicking!' on that.
But what's the point of being free it we only extend it to people we like?
If this blog ever gets attacked by enemies of free speech, the ACLU will be the first group to defend it.
Two points, Larc/Loyal:
1) I was relying on the "bearing arms against" clause, not the "overthrow" clause, of Section 1481.
2) Your question "what's the point of being free it we only extend it to people we like?" is irrelevant. The Constitution covers what it covers: Americans, whether we like them or not. You can gain Constitutional protection by lawful immigration. Your can also relinquish it, as I suggest this terrorist did. But Constitutional protections, and ALCU busybodies, have nothing to do with, say, an Estonian.
If it’s any consolation, your mistake is a common one: The law is what it says, not what one wishes it says. Put differently, the fact that you think something is wrong does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.
The 1st Amendment protects me from being prosecuted for my blog posts (with narrow exceptions not relevant here). But the Constitution doesn't protect me from punching your lights out. Nor does it cover a former citizen turned terrorist captured while attacking the U.S. military. No matter what the ACLU thinks.
It doesn't protect him from prosecution under the law, but it does protect him from not receiving a fair trial and not being justly represented. That's all the ACLU is saying.
Neither the laws of war nor the Geneva convention provide for a "fair trial and representation" before detention for hostile combatants, even those entitled to POW status. Those unentitled to POW status because they are illegal combatants are certainly not entitled to more procedure than POWs. I don't understand why American citizenship should change that.
I would agree that some procedure is necessary before some sanction other than detention is applied, such as penalties for war crimes or forfeiture of citizenship. But miliary tribunals are best suited to such procedures. U.S. civil courts should have no jurisdiction over battlefield combatants.
Uh Loyal/Larc/Noah, can you (or the ACLU) point to any law governing how this terrorist should be tried, the procedural protections necessary to be considered "fair," and any right to counsel?
Again, what you're missing is the origin, a source, for your assertion. The law isn't what you say it is. It's what it actually says. And there is no Constitution, statute or treaty dictating the trial procedures for a former citizen, now terrorist, who was neither an enemy combatant nor a prisoner of war, captured fighting US forces in Iraq.
Post a Comment