[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Justice Department reportedly preparing to charge Wikileaks' Julian Assange

Billionaire Uses $25 Million Yacht to Bring Supplies to Fire Victims But Police Don’t Let Him Ashore

HereÂ’s Why the NRA is Silent After Cops Killed a Legally Armed Black Man for Stopping a Mass Shooting

Ohio skin cancer survivor ticketed for tinted windows despite explaining health reasons

Interesting...California wildfires map lines up with proposed high speed rail for California

Financial Times tool warns if articles quote too many men

Liberal freak article The Ohio professor who's suing for the right to violate his LGBTQ students' rights

Near the Mexican border. Citizen reporter MEXICANS WILL FIGHT BACK not letting people exit buses

Michael Avenatti Arrested for Felony Domestic Violence

Fox News backs CNN in lawsuit against Trump White House

Judiciary Committee processes Trump nominees over Democrats' objections

Google bias

DOJ OLC Memo Re Designating an Acting Attorney General (14 Nov 2018) (Matthew Whitaker)

Trump has reportedly 'retreated into a cocoon of bitterness and resentment' after mounting midterm losses

Red Flag Gun Laws: Yet Another Government Weapon for Compliance and Control

The Toad and his minions met Monday to answer Mueller's questions:

Merkel calls for creation of ‘European army,’ backing Macron in spat with Trump

In their attempt to help ... the homeless - support liberals - stand for almost nothing hard to stand for --- they have become what they wanted - nothing.

Self-induced DISASTER: California fires the direct result of shortsighted environmentalist policies that prohibit forest management

CNN sues President Trump and White House for banning reporter Jim Acosta

As the US Spent $1.5 Million a Day to “Fight” Afghan Heroin Production, Heroin Output Quadrupled

Black security guard killed by police while he was stopping a bar shooting

Professor sues university for being ‘punished’ after calling female transgender student ‘sir’

They Hacked Their School District When They Were 12. The Adults Are Still Trying to Catch Up.

UN Demands Ban on Trump-style “Nationalist Populism”

12 targets as House Democrats prepare to investigate

MICHELLE O: LIKE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, DUDE, YOU KNOW?

Jerry Brown: Climate-Change Deniers 'Definitely Contributing' to the 'New Abnormal' of Wildfires

Fastest growing religion is ‘none’

Giving Food to the Homeless Shouldn’t Be a Crime

Michelle Obama: ‘I stopped even trying to smile’ during Trump’s inauguration

114 warrants served across Maryland since ‘red flag’ law went into effect in October ('Take the guns first, go through due process second' )

The Toad Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal

What is the textbook definition of a democrat

Putin's Favorite Congressman Is A Loser

DOJ Charges Hotel with Discrimination for not Hiring Immigrant in Fraud-Infested Asylum Program

Matthew Whitaker is a crackpot

Larry King: "CNN Stopped Doing News A Long Time Ago"

THE MOST EVIL HUMAN ON EARTH!

AP NewsBreak: Michelle Obama rips Trump in new book

CNN's Jim Acosta Was Rude, but He Did Not Assault a White House Intern

Judge Nap: Whitaker Not 'Legally Qualified' to Be Acting Attorney General

Rick Scott Sues Broward County and Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections

Ocasio-Cortez: “Puzzling” That Anyone Would Ask How I’ll Pay for Agenda

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized After Fracturing Three Ribs

D.C. Bureaucrats Are Trying to Make Parents Get a License to Let Children Play Together

American Citizen Detained by Trump Admin Without Charge for More than a Year Finally Set Free

'You are not safe': Protestors sieged Fox News host Tucker Carlson's DC home in the middle of the night

New York Lawmakers Want Social Media History To Be Included In Gun Background Checks

CNN’s Jim Acosta Denied White House Entry After Trump Presser Dust-Up


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: American Citizen Detained by Trump Admin Without Charge for More than a Year Finally Set Free
Source: The Conscious Resistance
URL Source: http://theconsciousresistance.com/2 ... -than-a-year-finally-set-free/
Published: Nov 7, 2018
Author: Derrick Broze
Post Date: 2018-11-08 09:38:43 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 56
Comments: 3

A U.S. citizen illegally detained by the Trump administration for more than a year was finally set free thanks to the work of the American Civil Liberties Union.

I have been following the saga of the American citizen who was detained by the U.S. military in September 2017 while fleeing from violence in Syria. This story was reported on by a couple mainstream outlets, but for the most part was not given the time and attention it warranted. Here’s what we know…

An American man had reportedly traveled to research and document the ongoing conflict in Syria when he was seized by Kurdish forces and handed over to the U.S. military. The Trump administration labeled him an “enemy combatant” and held him without charges for more than a year without officially charging him with a crime. Now, thanks to help from the American Civil Liberties Union, that unidentified American is finally free. Unfortunately, he was set free and forced to go live in an unidentified country that is not his home.

“My case has shown the worst and the best of my country,” the man said in a statement issued by his lawyers to the Washington Post. “No one, no matter what they are suspected of, should be treated the way my government treated me. Once I got the chance to stand up for my rights, the Constitution and the courts protected me.”

The New York Times claim that his name is Abdulrahman Ahmad Alsheikh and that he has been released in Bahrain, where his wife and daughter are living. The government’s court filings state that he was born in the United States, and attended college and studied electrical engineering in Louisiana. The FBI claimed the man admitted to working for ISIS, but he claims he was a freelance journalist who agreed to work for ISIS to gain release after being captured.

The ACLU reported:

“Sunday’s release comes after months of continued litigation as we demanded that the government either charge or release our client. In response, the government claimed the power to imprison him indefinitely without charge, accusing him of being an ISIS fighter. Our client not only contested the allegations, but also maintained that the government had to prove its allegations in a trial if it wanted to continue holding him.”

The story of his illegal secret detainment would have been lost to the pages of history if not for the reporting of The Daily Beast which first revealed his existence to the public. The Washington Post later revealed that the man was captured in Syria on September 12, 2017. He reportedly surrendered to a rebel group in Syria before being give to the U.S. military. According to The Washington Post, as told by anonymous “officials familiar with the case,” the Justice Department did not believe they had enough evidence to bring charges against him. The ACLU eventually stepped in to represent the man, despite attempts by the government to prevent the man from gaining access to legal representation.

“From the moment the American was imprisoned, his own government tried to deny him his constitutional rights,” the ACLU wrote. “It kept his detention secret, denied his requests for a lawyer, and attempted to forcibly transfer him to a dangerous war zone.”

In December 2017 I reported the federal judge in the case challenged the U.S. government to justify the continued imprisonment of the man who had been denied access to a lawyer for four months. Despite the protests of the Trump Administration the ACLU gained access to the man and officially became his legal counsel. Throughout the case U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan expressed skepticism and frustration over the U.S. government’s arguments for detaining an American citizen without charge and with limited legal representation.

Although the government made claims of the man being connected to terrorism they were never able to prove these connections. The New York Times reported that the government planned to prosecute the man in a civilian court for allegedly providing material assistance to terrorist groups, “but the F.B.I. was unable to assemble sufficient courtroom-admissible evidence against him.” Once it was learned the man had family in Saudi Arabia the government made attempts to send him to Saudi Arabia and even back to Syria. The Times reported that there has been discussion around sending the man back to Saudi Arabia as part of a deal with the Saudi government and the Trump administration. The ACLU reported at the time:

the government won’t say whether it is considering requiring the detainee to relinquish his American citizenship in exchange for his release from U.S. detention. The filing also states that the government does not believe it is legally required to allow him to consult an attorney before renouncing his citizenship.

The Trump administration appealed the court’s decision to release the man. However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal, writing, “We know of no instance — in the history of the United States — in which the government has forcibly transferred an American citizen from one foreign country to another.” The courts statements related to the Trump Administration plan to send the American back to Syria. The Trump admin backed off after a legal challenge by the ACLU.

The ACLU correctly notes that this case highlights the important of judicial review of law and government action. “The landmark Supreme Court case vindicating the rights of another American citizen, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, established that basic rule, but this one expanded it to mean that the government cannot render citizens to another country against their will — especially to places where they face further detention or risk to personal safety.”

Most important to this write is the fact that the case also stands as an example of the importance of a free and independent press to call out government and corporate abuse. If the original report was never written by these hard working journalists this man might have been held much longer than a year or sent to a part of the world where he might be subject to violence. As the independent and alternative American media is currently under attack it’s never been more important to stand up and support those who fight to bring truth to light.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

He likely should have been tried for treason and executed. He should not have lived after he was detained. Sorry, he fought for our enemy.

THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2018-11-08   12:42:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard, jeremiad (#0)

I have been following the saga of the American citizen who was detained by the U.S. military in September 2017 while fleeing from violence in Syria.

[...]

An American man had reportedly traveled to research and document the ongoing conflict in Syria when he was seized by Kurdish forces and handed over to the U.S. military. The Trump administration labeled him an “enemy combatant” and held him without charges for more than a year without officially charging him with a crime.

The author seems confused about how Abdulrahman Ahmad Alsheikh came to be in U.S. custody.

Dual citizen American and Saudi.

“The landmark Supreme Court case vindicating the rights of another American citizen, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, established that basic rule, but this one expanded it to mean that the government cannot render citizens to another country against their will — especially to places where they face further detention or risk to personal safety.”

Yaser Esam Hamdi relinquished his U.S. citizenship as part of his release deal in 2004.

Hamdi was detained in the Norfolk Navy Brig in Virginia and the Charleston Navy Brig in South Carolina. Hamdi was detained on American soil.

Doe v. Mattis 1:17-cv-02069 was a District Court opinion rendered June 7, 2018. A grant of temporary injunction was appealed to the Circuit court, resulting in an opinion of 7 May 2018.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2F0BD717C260711D85258288006F69C0/$file/18-5032-1730182.pdf

Doe v. Mattis, 18-5032 (4th Cir., 7 May 2018)

[79 pp. total, 39 pp. Opinion of the Court]

At 2-7:

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN, with whom Circuit Judge Wilkins joins.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge This case involves a United States citizen who has been detained by the United States military in Iraq for several months. He seeks release from military custody in a habeas corpus action brought under the pseudonym John Doe. Doe is a citizen not only of the United States but also of Saudi Arabia.

Doe was initially captured in Syrian territory controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The Department of Defense determined that he is an enemy combatant for ISIL, and the Department has been detaining him at a military facility in Iraq. Doe's habeas petition contends that he must be released because, he claims, ISIL combatants do not come within any existing authorization for use of military force. He also contends that he is not in fact an ISIL combatant. At this stage of the proceedings, no court has addressed the merits of those claims.

This appeal instead concerns a separate claim by Doe: that the government, while his habeas petition remains pending, cannot forcibly—and irrevocably—transfer him to the custody of another country. Transfer of Doe to another country's custody would, naturally, obviate any occasion to seek release from physical custody at the hands of the United States. In connection with the possibility of Doe's forcible transfer to the custody of another country, the district court has entered two orders we now review.

3

In the first order, the court required the government to give 72 hours' notice before transferring Doe to the custody of any other country. The notice period was meant to afford the court an opportunity to review the circumstances of a planned transfer before it takes place. The government seeks to set aside any obligation to give advance notice with regard to two specific countries. We will refer to those countries as Country A and Country B because of the government's desire to withhold public release of their identities due to apparent sensitivities associated with ongoing or future diplomatic discussions.

The district court's second order came about after the government reached an agreement with Country B to transfer Doe to its custody. The government gave the district court the requisite notice of its intent to transfer Doe to that country. The court then enjoined the government from effecting the transfer. in the court's view, the government had failed to demonstrate the necessary legal authority (specifically, a statute or treaty) for the transfer.

We sustain both of the district court's orders. In claiming the authority to forcibly transfer an American citizen held abroad to the custody of another country, the government ultimately relies on two species of argument. Neither, in our view, gives the government the power to effect its desired handover of Doe to Country B, at least as things currently stand.

The first rationale advanced by the government has no necessary grounding in Doe's designation as an enemy combatant or in the military's authority under the law of war. Rather, the government relies on Supreme Court decisions recognizing that, when a foreign country wants to prosecute an American citizen already present in its territory for a crime

4

committed within its borders, the Executive can relinquish her to that country's custody for purposes of criminal proceedings. See Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008); Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524 (1957). Those decisions, on the government's reading, extend past their facts in two ways: (i) they enable a forcible transfer of a U.S. citizen to a different foreign country than the one in which she is already present, and (ii) they enable a forcible transfer as long as the receiving country has some legitimate sovereign interest in her (whether or not related to criminal prosecution). No. 18-5032, Gov't Opening Br. 23-25. We cannot accept the government's argument. We know of no instance—in the history of the United States—in which the government has taken an American citizen found in one foreign country and forcibly transferred her to the custody of another foreign country. Under the logic of the government's position, it could pick up an American traveling in Europe and involuntarily relinquish her to, say, the custody of Afghanistan, as long as Afghanistan is thought to have some cognizable sovereign interest in her. We cannot conclude that the government possesses that kind of authority over a U.S. citizen, at least without a statute or treaty specifically providing for it.

The government's second line of argument differs from its first in an important respect: the second argument turns on Doe's status as an alleged enemy combatant and on the military's attendant authority in a time of war. We agree with the government that, if Doe is an enemy combatant, the military can transfer him to the custody of Country B, a partner in the campaign against ISIL. But under the precedents of the Supreme Court and our court, two conditions must exist for an American citizen to be subject to military transfer or detention as an enemy combatant: (i) there must be legal authority for the Executive to wage war against the enemy, and (ii) there must be an opportunity for the citizen to contest the factual

5

determination that he is an enemy combatant fighting on behalf of that enemy. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 517, 533 (2004) (plurality opinion); Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Neither the legal inquiry nor the factual inquiry has taken place in this case. In the absence of those inquiries, we see no basis to set aside the district court's injunction barring the forcible transfer of Doe to Country B.

What about the district court's order requiring the government to give 72 hours' notice before transferring Doe to either Country A or Country B? Because the government gave notice of the proposed transfer to Country B, the government's appeal of the notice order as it applies to Country B is now moot. With regard to Country A, the government has yet to come forward with any information about the circumstances of a prospective transfer to that country, including the specific purpose or interest that will give rise to the transfer. The government instead seeks ex-ante, carte-blanche authorization to transfer Doe to Country A, regardless of the particular circumstances or reasons, and without any opportunity for judicial review. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the government that sort of blanket preapproval.

While we sustain the district court's orders, we do so respectful of—and with appreciation for—the considerable deference owed to the Executive's judgments in the prosecution of a war. That latitude of course extends to military decisions about what to do with enemy combatants captured overseas in a zone of active hostilities. Virtually all such decisions will be unaffected by our decision today.

But when an alleged enemy combatant—even one seized on a foreign battlefield—is an American citizen, things are different. See Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 532-33, 535-37 (plurality); id. at 558-59 (Scalia, J., dissenting). In that "surely . . . rare"

6

circumstance, id. at 571 n.3 (Scalia, J., dissenting), the Executive's authority to wage war as it sees fit is cabined by the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi, which requires that a citizen be afforded certain guarantees before the military detains or transfers him under the law of war. Id. at 517, 533 (plurality); Omar, 646 F.3d at 24. That precedent, in our view, governs the disposition of this appeal.

I.

A.

In September 2017, Syrian Democratic Forces encountered Doe at a screening point on an active battlefield in Syrian territory controlled by ISIL. Doe surrendered, informed the Syrian Democratic Forces that he was an American citizen, and asked to speak to U.S. officials. The Syrian Democratic Forces transferred Doe to the custody of U.S. military forces in the region. The military reached a preliminary determination that Doe is an enemy combatant, and has detained him at a U.S. facility in Iraq for the past seven months.

The military's preliminary determination that Doe is an enemy combatant is based on evidence that he is a member or substantial supporter of ISIL. The evidence against Doe includes the following: the circumstances of his surrender, his statements upon surrender and during detention, and records of his ISIL membership.

ISIL, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has been designated as a terrorist group. It controls territory in Iraq and Syria, and has perpetrated and aided terrorism there and around the world, killing several thousand civilians, including American aid workers and journalists. See U.S. Dep't of State, Bureau of Counterterrorism, Country

7

Reports on Terrorism 2016: Chapter 6, Terrorist Organizations (July 2017). Since September 2014, the United States has pursued a counterterrorism strategy against ISIL, and is an active member of a 75-country coalition working to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.189964/gov.uscourts.dcd.189964.125.0_1.pdf

Doe has been identified as Abdulrahman Ahmad Alsheikh.

On October 28, 2018, the parties submitted an agreed stipulation of DISMISSAL with prejudice.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

The parties hereby give notice that, with Petitioner’s consent, the U.S. Department of Defense released Petitioner in Bahrain on October 28, 2018. Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the parties, that this action shall be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and fees.

November 7, 2018

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-08   16:23:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

Fiddle around in vile, defective, murderous Mooslum (pigpiss be upon them) shiiteholes, suffer the consequences.

Moos are useless and a cancer upon the world. SHUN THEM.

Hank Rearden  posted on  2018-11-10   13:15:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com