X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Atlanta�In his first public comments about last week’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings limiting the government’s power to detain enemy combatants, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft suggested that the due process demanded by the court might be provided outside the civilian justice system. Asked if military tribunals might be one alternative, Ashcroft indicated that not all of what the Supreme Court identified as constitutional due process for individuals detained as enemy combatants would have to be “judicial processes.” Other processes, about which he declined to elaborate, “can be respective of rights,” he said. Ashcroft was in Atlanta last week to meet with the Northern District of Georgia Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, a task force composed of local law enforcement officials and headed by the U.S. attorney there. Ashcroft’s remarks focused on a warning that al-Queda intends to strike somewhere in the United States this summer or fall. He also called for expansion of the USA Patriot Act. He briefly fielded questions about Monday’s Supreme Court rulings in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03-6696, and Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334. Ashcroft said he was “pleased” that the Supreme Court had sustained presidential authority to detain enemy combatants, and he declined to characterize the decisions as a setback for the White House. “We are studying the decisions to make sure those powers are used appropriately,” he said. “The court held that individuals detained by the U.S. have certain procedural rights. We are working to . . . determine how we will adjust our procedures.” Last week’s opinions overturned a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirming that uncharged enemy combatants who were American citizens could be detained indefinitely without federal judicial review. In a majority opinion in Hamdi, the court concluded that while Congress had authorized the detention of combatants in certain “narrow circumstances,” citizens must be given a meaningful opportunity to contest their detention before a neutral decision-maker. The court also reversed a D.C. Circuit ruling that had upheld the indefinite detention, without formal charges, of suspected enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In that case, the high court determined that federal courts have the jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of detaining foreign nationals captured abroad in the war on terrorism.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.