SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Lawyers for Muktar Yahya Najee al-Warafi argued that his detention was unlawful under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which provided the legal justification for the imprisonment of foreign fighters captured on overseas battlefields. (Photo: AP)
Afghan War Is Not Over, Says Judge, So Indefinite Detention Can Continue
Though President Obama has publicaly championed end of combat operations in Afghanistan, that doesn't mean prisoners of war can be released
Jul 30, 2015
A federal judge on Thursday rejected the petition of a Guantanamo detainee who had requested to be freed after spending nearly a decade and a half in the U.S. offshore prison without trial.
As the Associated Press reports:
Muktar Yahya Najee al-Warafi has said his detention was illegal in light of President Barack Obama's statements that active hostilities in Afghanistan had ended.
The Yemeni was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Courts have upheld his detention on grounds that he likely aided Taliban forces.
His lawyers argued that his detention was unlawful under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which provided the legal justification for the imprisonment of foreign fighters captured on overseas battlefields. The Supreme Court has said such detention is legal as long as "active hostilities" continue.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said in a 14-page opinion issued Thursday that it was clear that hostilities still persist.
For many, however, the very existence of the offshore prison remains an absurdy and affront to the U.S. Constitution, international theories of jurisprudence, and recognized humamn rights standards.
As Noah Feldman, a columnist for Bloomberg wrote on Thursday, "more than 50 [prisoners] remain in legal limbo, treated as permanent prisoners of war in a conflict that has no way to end. Their detention calls into question the basic ideas of due process, no matter what legal justification the federal government gives for it."
In the long run, continues Feldman, the legal system that has enabled the U.S. government to hold these men not only defies logic, but actually undermines the legitimacy of the entire justice system. He concludes:
The U.S. government says it's within its rights to keep them as prisoners of war in the conflict with al-Qaida. But the POW rules assume a conflict between international parties that might conceivably be ended by a peace treaty. There will be no such end to the legal conflict between al-Qaida and the U.S. That means the detainees can be held forever.
This situation emphasizes how unsatisfying it is to rely on wartime detention power, as the administration has done with the Guantanamo inmates. Deep down, the legal system knows the reasoning is doubtful, based as it is on a creative theory of unilateral war. As long as the detention persists -- which could be indefinitely -- it'll remain a stain on the rule of law.
If Obama fails to close Guantanamo, it won't just be a defeat for him. It's a defeat for law itself.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A federal judge on Thursday rejected the petition of a Guantanamo detainee who had requested to be freed after spending nearly a decade and a half in the U.S. offshore prison without trial.
As the Associated Press reports:
Muktar Yahya Najee al-Warafi has said his detention was illegal in light of President Barack Obama's statements that active hostilities in Afghanistan had ended.
The Yemeni was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Courts have upheld his detention on grounds that he likely aided Taliban forces.
His lawyers argued that his detention was unlawful under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which provided the legal justification for the imprisonment of foreign fighters captured on overseas battlefields. The Supreme Court has said such detention is legal as long as "active hostilities" continue.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said in a 14-page opinion issued Thursday that it was clear that hostilities still persist.
For many, however, the very existence of the offshore prison remains an absurdy and affront to the U.S. Constitution, international theories of jurisprudence, and recognized humamn rights standards.
As Noah Feldman, a columnist for Bloomberg wrote on Thursday, "more than 50 [prisoners] remain in legal limbo, treated as permanent prisoners of war in a conflict that has no way to end. Their detention calls into question the basic ideas of due process, no matter what legal justification the federal government gives for it."
In the long run, continues Feldman, the legal system that has enabled the U.S. government to hold these men not only defies logic, but actually undermines the legitimacy of the entire justice system. He concludes:
The U.S. government says it's within its rights to keep them as prisoners of war in the conflict with al-Qaida. But the POW rules assume a conflict between international parties that might conceivably be ended by a peace treaty. There will be no such end to the legal conflict between al-Qaida and the U.S. That means the detainees can be held forever.
This situation emphasizes how unsatisfying it is to rely on wartime detention power, as the administration has done with the Guantanamo inmates. Deep down, the legal system knows the reasoning is doubtful, based as it is on a creative theory of unilateral war. As long as the detention persists -- which could be indefinitely -- it'll remain a stain on the rule of law.
If Obama fails to close Guantanamo, it won't just be a defeat for him. It's a defeat for law itself.
A federal judge on Thursday rejected the petition of a Guantanamo detainee who had requested to be freed after spending nearly a decade and a half in the U.S. offshore prison without trial.
As the Associated Press reports:
Muktar Yahya Najee al-Warafi has said his detention was illegal in light of President Barack Obama's statements that active hostilities in Afghanistan had ended.
The Yemeni was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Courts have upheld his detention on grounds that he likely aided Taliban forces.
His lawyers argued that his detention was unlawful under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which provided the legal justification for the imprisonment of foreign fighters captured on overseas battlefields. The Supreme Court has said such detention is legal as long as "active hostilities" continue.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said in a 14-page opinion issued Thursday that it was clear that hostilities still persist.
For many, however, the very existence of the offshore prison remains an absurdy and affront to the U.S. Constitution, international theories of jurisprudence, and recognized humamn rights standards.
As Noah Feldman, a columnist for Bloomberg wrote on Thursday, "more than 50 [prisoners] remain in legal limbo, treated as permanent prisoners of war in a conflict that has no way to end. Their detention calls into question the basic ideas of due process, no matter what legal justification the federal government gives for it."
In the long run, continues Feldman, the legal system that has enabled the U.S. government to hold these men not only defies logic, but actually undermines the legitimacy of the entire justice system. He concludes:
The U.S. government says it's within its rights to keep them as prisoners of war in the conflict with al-Qaida. But the POW rules assume a conflict between international parties that might conceivably be ended by a peace treaty. There will be no such end to the legal conflict between al-Qaida and the U.S. That means the detainees can be held forever.
This situation emphasizes how unsatisfying it is to rely on wartime detention power, as the administration has done with the Guantanamo inmates. Deep down, the legal system knows the reasoning is doubtful, based as it is on a creative theory of unilateral war. As long as the detention persists -- which could be indefinitely -- it'll remain a stain on the rule of law.
If Obama fails to close Guantanamo, it won't just be a defeat for him. It's a defeat for law itself.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.