The government must actually obtain a conviction before imposing a punishment or seeking automatic deportation premised on that conviction. It is a shocking feature of U.S. immigration law that such an obvious-seeming point needed any clarification. . . .
The government has finally asked for public comment on units for federal prisoners suspected of low-level links to terrorist groups. But the rules need to change to make these limited-communication units effective and fair.
Lawmakers have opened another front in their war on Obama’s war on terrorism—this time implying that political appointees in the Justice Department have their loyalties in the wrong place. Didn’t we abandon years ago the inane notion that there is something seditious about attorneys who advocate on behalf of terror detainees?
On Feb. 23, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, a first Amendment challenge to a Patriot Act section that bars support -- including speech -- that might be interpreted as unintentionally aiding organizations the U.S. deems terrorist.
Now that judges are calling for the release of Guantanamo detainees, what is going to happen to those who are acquitted? Moreover, what makes a detainee a terrorist? The answer so far has been this: the government saying so.
Last week, the detention policy task force declared that it needs more time to work on detainee issues. But as the task force's preliminary report demonstrates, they need not only time, but an entirely new perspective.
As President Obama seeks an executive order to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely and without charge, debates are flaring about the legality of preventative detention. Why is this idea so controversial, and what does the nature of warfare have to do with it?
