Center for National Security Studies v. Department of
Justice
Issue: Does the Freedom
of Information Act prohibit the Justice Department from
concealing the names of the roughly 750 people it detained in
post-Sept. 11 sweeps?
Result: A district court
judge ordered the government to release the names of detainees
and their attorneys. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed that decision and dismissed the case.
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft and North Jersey Media Group
v. Ashcroft
Issue: Do the First and
Fifth Amendments prevent Justice from enacting a blanket secrecy
policy barring the public and the press from all post-Sept. 11
detainee immigration hearings?
Results: In the Detroit
case, a judge granted an injunction against the policy. The
Sixth Circuit voted 3-0 to affirm -- a rare defeat for the
government. In the New Jersey case, a judge also rejected the
policy. But the Third Circuit reversed in favor of the
government.
Padilla v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, etc.
Issue: Under what
circumstances may the president designate someone on U.S. soil
an ''enemy combatant'' and indefinitely detain him without
charges or access to a lawyer?
Results: The case of
Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago and accused of
a plotting a dirty bomb attack, was split: a judge agreed with
the government that it must make only ''some showing of
evidence'' to designate someone an enemy combatant, rather than
a higher standard of proof.
But he also ruled against the government in finding that
Padilla should be allowed to meet with a lawyer to challenge
that status. A Second Circuit appeal is pending.
In the case of Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen detained in
Afghanistan, a judge ordered the government to produce
additional evidence to support the enemy combatant status beyond
the mere fact that Hamdi was picked up on the battlefield. The
Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that this was enough.
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a Qatari citizen arrested in
Illinois and accused of helping al-Qaeda operatives settle in
the U.S., was initially charged in federal court but later named
an enemy combatant and cut off from his lawyer.
Other high-profile cases stayed in the federal court system.
John Walker Lindh, a U.S. citizen detained in Afghanistan, pled
guilty to serving the Taliban and received 20 years. Richard
Reid, a British citizen arrested after he tried to ignite a shoe
bomb on a flight from Paris to Miami, was sentenced to life
without parole.
Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen accused of being the
''20th hijacker,'' has also been prosecuted in federal court.
His case is now on hold while the government appeals a judge's
order that he be allowed to interview members of al--Qaeda in
U.S. custody whom he says can exonerate him from involvement in
the plot.
Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, Rasul v. Bush, and Al Odah v.
Bush
Issue: May non-U.S.
citizens being indefinitely held by the U.S. military as ''enemy
combatants'' -- without charges or Geneva Convention status --
on Guantαnamo Bay Naval Base challenge their detention in
federal court?
Results: A judge
dismissed the Coalition of Clergy case and the Ninth Circuit
agreed, because the activists were not the plaintiffs'
next-of-kin and so did not have standing to sue on their behalf.
In Rasul and Al Odah, filed by the families of Australian,
British, and Kuwaiti detainees, both district judges dismissed
both cases solely on the jurisdictional grounds. The D.C.
Circuit Court agreed.
In Re Awadallah, etc.
Issue: One of the tools
Justice has used most frequently since Sept. 11 has been
indefinitely holding people without charges -- sometimes for
months -- as ''material witnesses'' to its anti-terrorism
investigations. Since that 1984 statute was written for trial
witnesses deemed likely to flee, has the government stretched it
too far and exceeded its authority?
Results: In Awadallah, a
judge found the government had abused the statute. But in the
second case, a judge came to the opposite conclusion. Both cases
arose in the same district under the Second Circuit, which has
yet to resolve the split.
Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v. Ashcroft
Issue: The USA Patriot
Act allows government agents to obtain an order to secretly
enter a home or business and remove documents, without telling
the owner, if they say the search is part of an intelligence or
terrorism investigation. Does this violate the constitutional
right to privacy and due process?
Result: The case has not
yet been heard.
In re Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Issue: The USA Patriot
Act removed a longstanding wall that kept information obtained
from national security search and wiretap warrants, which are
easier to obtain than criminal activity warrants, from being
used in criminal prosecutions. Does this violate the Fourth
Amendment's protection against of unreasonable search and
seizure?
Results: The Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court found this change
unconstitutional and pointed to at least 75 prior examples where
the FBI lied about evidence to obtain FISA warrant. But a review
court reversed that decision. Information gathered from such
warrants have now been used in prosecutions including Tampa
professor Sami al-Arian and alleged terrorist cells in Buffalo,
N.Y., and Portland, Ore.
Holy Land Foundation v. Ashcroft, Benevolence International
Foundation v. Ashcroft, etc.
Issue: The USA Patriot
Act expanded the government's power to freeze the assets of
groups it suspects are funding terrorists by allowing it to do
so prior to its investigation and allowing secret evidence to be
used. Is this constitutional?
Results: These and other
charities have unsuccessfully challenged the government's
designation of them as terrorist organizations. The Holy Land
Foundation's request for an injunction was denied by the D.C.
Circuit Court, which concluded that ``blocking orders are an
important component of U.S. foreign policy, and the president's
choice of this tool to combat terrorism is entitled to
particular deference.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6746296.htm
