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
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.