There Is No such Category
In American Law As Enemy Combatant
President Obama cannot undo the mess his
predecessor created by his fixation on
torture.
By Andrew Napolitano
January 29, 2015 "ICH"
- Ali Saleh al-Marri is a convicted
conspirator who entered the United States
before 9/11 in order to create a dreaded
sleeper cell here that might someday launch
an attack on Americans similar to what we
witnessed earlier this month in Paris. When
the feds woke from their slumber on 9/11,
they wisely began to search immigration
records for persons who came here with no
discernible purpose from places known to
spawn terrorist groups and who had
overstayed their visas. Al-Marri was one
such person.
The feds arrested him,
originally on the visa violation, and then,
after connecting the dots, on a series of
conspiracies to aid terrorist organizations
here and elsewhere.
After he was arrested by
the FBI in Peoria, Illinois, and while he
was being held in federal custody, he was
kidnapped by U.S. military officials who
arrived at the lock-up purporting to possess
the lawful authority to seize him,
authorized by President George W. Bush
himself.
Bush had signed an order
declaring al-Marri an enemy combatant and
directing the military to seize him from the
custody of federal prosecutors and bring him
to a Navy brig. In several of the numerous
cases it lost, the Bush administration
argued to federal courts that once it
declared a person an enemy combatant, the
person was stripped of all rights.
There was and is no such
category in American law as enemy combatant.
The Bush administration made it up from
historical terminology. But the post-9/11
era was a fearful time, and most folks
accepted Bush's unconstitutional stripping
of rights from detained persons as a route
to safety. Al-Marri would soon be stripped
of more than his rights, and that would lead
to less safety for the rest of us.
Al-Marri is in the news
this week because he was recently released
from a federal prison and returned to his
native Qatar. He was involved in a prisoner
swap for an innocent American couple
wrongfully imprisoned there. The release of
al-Marri has the neocons accusing President
Obama of "letting free a known terrorist."
In our system, the
president wears many hats. One is the chief
federal law enforcement officer and another
is the chief diplomat. In the former, he is
subject to the laws Congress has written; in
the latter, he is subject only to the
Constitution. In the execution of foreign
policy, he cannot commit a crime, of course,
but if he did, he probably would not be
prosecuted.
He recently secured the
release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl by
swapping him for five known al-Qaida leaders
who had been held for 11 years without
charges at the prison camp at Gitmo. Obama
arguably provided aid to a terrorist
organization by sending al-Qaida leaders
back to their organization—a felony for
which his Department of Justice has
successfully prosecuted Americans whose
behavior was far more benign than his own.
Yet, the courts have been
loath to interfere with any president's
execution of foreign policy, no matter its
apparent lawlessness. The courts permitted
Abraham Lincoln to use troops to rob
American banks, rape American women, and
burn state and federal courthouses; they
permitted Woodrow Wilson to prosecute those
who sang German beer hall songs in public
during World War I; and they permitted FDR
to execute unsuccessful German saboteurs in
the U.S. without any meaningful trial.
Because al-Marri was
tortured by the U.S. Navy for two years, he
pleaded guilty to one low-level crime,
instead of to the true conspiracies with
which he was involved—and he received a
reduction in his sentence commensurate with
the number of days he endured the torture.
The feds agreed to this because they were
fearful of revealing what the Navy had done
to him. He had served 87 percent of his
federal sentence by the time of his release
last month. The standard period of sentence
service in the federal system before release
is 85 percent.
The feds shot themselves
in the foot on this al-Marri case. They had
much evidence against him. They needn't have
kept him naked, blindfolded, shackled and
wearing earplugs for months. He should have
been prosecuted aggressively and humanely in
a federal court in Chicago or New York City,
where the feds have yet to lose terror
prosecutions and the trials are basically
fair. Instead, after he was arrested by the
FBI, kidnapped by the military and brought
to a Navy brig in South Carolina, he endured
a systematic, fruitless,
detrimental-to-justice,
rarely-heard-of-in-modern-American-history
authorized prisoner abuse.
The troops who tortured
al-Marri are lucky; they could have and
should have been court-martialed. The
authorities who ordered it should have been
prosecuted. If this had been the other way
round—if the FBI had kidnapped him from
military custody and tortured him (this is
unthinkable today)—the FBI agents would have
been fired and prosecuted.
Under federal law, all
convicted federal prisoners are in the
custody of the president. He can pardon,
release, trade, or commute a sentence for
any prisoner as he sees fit. But he cannot
undo the demonstrable legal mess a
predecessor created by his fixation on
torture.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a
former judge of the Superior Court of New
Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at
Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has
written nine books on the U.S. Constitution.
The most recent is Suicide
Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential
Powers and the Lethal Threat to American
Liberty.