What should we do with American jihadists?

The Associated Press

An American soldier stands guard in an Iraqi jail.

Featured Topic | Posted 35 weeks 16 hours ago

What should we do with American jihadists?

Six years into the war on terrorism, and the courts are still trying to sort out what to do with jihadists who possess U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court last week heard the cases of Iraqi-American Mohammad Munaf and Jordanian-American Shawqi Ahmad Omar. The two men are being held in a jail just outside Baghdad, guarded by U.S. military police.

The dispute is somewhat arcane, but a decision by the high court could alter how the United States wages the war on terrorism and, in particular, the rights of American citizens held on international battlefields. Munaf and Omar say their jailers at Camp Cropper are under U.S. Army command, and therefore they are entitled to challenge their detention under U.S. law. But the Bush administration has argued in court that the prison belongs to the international military coalition called Multi-National Force-Iraq and that Munaf and Omar are, therefore, beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

Has the Bush administration overstepped constitutional bounds in detaining jihadists who have U.S. citizenship? Or should there be a different set of legal standards for international terrorists? Should the precedents of World War II guide U.S. courts today?

Ben likes: Justice for Iraq

David Rivkin and Lee Casey/Wall Street Journal

The choice before the Supreme Court is clear. It should respect international law and recognize Iraq's sovereign right to try and punish criminal defendants within its own territory. The U.S. has chosen not to seek (as a diplomatic matter) special treatment for these individuals because of their American citizenship, a decision properly within the executive branch's discretion. Even if the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider the habeas petitions, it should reject them and let Shawqi Ahmad Omar (a dual U.S./Iraqi national) and Mohammad Munaf (a dual U.S./Jordanian national) have their day in the Iraqi courts.

Joel likes: Jail of two cities

Dahlia Lithwick/Slate

The Bush administration's main argument in this case is a simple one—a variation of which you may remember from the golden days of lawlessness at Guantanamo: Sure, the military authority in Iraq might look like it's composed of U.S. soldiers, the prisons may appear to be U.S. military jails, the whole effort may seem to be led by the U.S. president, but really these "enemy combatants" are not under U.S. jurisdiction. Why? Well, just as American troops are merely renting out Gitmo from the Cubans, the authorities that captured and held Omar and Munaf are actually just part of a U.N.-mandated international force.

Never is the president's respect for foreign nations greater than when they're holding the legal bag for him. Under this theory, as long as a French chef serves up some crepes in Baghdad once in a while, it's a multinational, not a U.S., army. Oh. And the reason we must allow the Iraqi courts to have their way with U.S. citizens captured there? Because the president worries that if American courts intervene, "other nations would inevitably take offense."Wouldn't want to offend other nations.