"Feindlicher Kämpfer" in regulärer Haft

Am 26. Februar verfasste eine Bundesjury in Illinois eine Anklageschrift mit zwei Anklagepunkten gegen Ali al-Marri und beschuldigte ihn, einer ausländischen Terrororganisation, namentlich Al-Qaida, Material und Mittel zur Verfügung gestellt zu haben. Als der US-Justizminister Eric Holder diese Entwicklung am 27. Februar bekannt gab, sagte er: "Die Anklageschrift zeigt unsere Entschlossenheit, das amerikanische Volk zu schützen und vermeintliche Terroristen im vollen rechtlichen Umfang zu verfolgen." Ein Bundesstaatsanwalt sagte, dass al-Marri sich nun der US-Strafjustiz stellen muss, wo eine Jury in einem offenen Verfahren über seine Schuld oder Unschuld entscheidet. Beide Anklagepunkte könnten jeweils 15 Jahre Gefängnis nach sich ziehen.

Ali al-Marri, ein in den USA lebender Staatsbürger Katars, wurde im Dezember 2001 in Illinois festgenommen und sollte vor einem Bundesgericht ein Verfahren erhalten. Zu diesem Verfahren kam es nie, da Ali al-Marri am 23. Juni 2003 durch eine Anordnung des Präsidenten zu einem "feindlichen Kämpfer" erklärt wurde, in den Gewahrsam des US-Verteidigungsministeriums kam und in einer Militäreinrichtung in Charleston in South Carolina eingesperrt wurde. Seitdem befindet er sich dort. Mit der Überstellung Ali al-Marris vom zivilen in den militärischen Gewahrsam schien die Regierung Bush die Absicht zu verfolgen, ihn außerhalb des Schutzes rechtsstaatlicher Verfahren verhören zu können. Während der ersten 16 Monate seiner Militärhaft hielt man ihn ohne Kontakt zu Außenwelt fest und er soll gefoltert oder in anderer Weise misshandelt worden sein. Haft ohne Kontakt zur Außenwelt von dieser Dauer ist selbst als grausame, unmenschliche oder erniedrigende Behandlung oder sogar als Folter anerkannt.

Weitere Aktionen sind derzeit nicht erforderlich. Vielen Dank allen, die Appelle geschrieben haben.

Mehr auf Englisch:
Ali al-Marri challenged his indefinite military detention in court. After the US District Court dismissed his habeas corpus petition, the full Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on his case in a split decision (see USA: Many words, no justice: Federal court divided on Ali al-Marri, mainland 'enemy combatant’, August 2008, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/087/2008/en). By five votes to four, the court held that "if the Government’s allegations about al-Marri are true, Congress has empowered the President to detain him as an enemy combatant". This referred to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), a resolution passed by US Congress in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001 authorizing the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone involved in the attacks "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States".

The US Supreme Court agreed to hear Ali al-Marri’s appeal against the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, to consider the question of whether the AUMF had authorized, and the US Constitution allowed, such a detention. The new administration was due to file its brief on 23 March 2009 and the Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments on 27 April. However, since the indictment was handed down in Illinois the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the basis that there was no "live controversy" left to resolve because the government had granted all that Ali al-Marri’s habeas corpus petition had sought.

The administration’s motion to dismiss the case cited the fact that President Obama had on 27 February ordered Ali al-Marri to be transferred to civilian custody to face criminal charges, which would end his military detention as an "enemy combatant". President Obama’s memorandum to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that "upon Mr al-Marri’s transfer to the control of the Attorney General, the authority to detain Mr al-Marri provided to the Secretary of Defense in the June 23, 2003, order shall cease".
At the same time, the administration has filed an application in the US Supreme Court seeking an order acknowledging Ali al-Marri’s release from military custody and his transfer to civilian custody, or, "to the extent that any judicial authorization is necessary", an order from the Court "granting authorization to execute the transfer". By the morning of 3 March, Ali al-Marri’s transfer to civilian custody had not yet taken place.
Lawyers for Ali al-Marri, while welcoming the decision to release him from military custody, are asking the Supreme Court not to dismiss the case as to do so would leave a fundamental question of constitutional law and executive power unanswered and would allow the Fourth Circuit’s 2008 decision to stand.

In its brief asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the al-Marri case, the new administration does not reject the Bush administration’s position that Ali al-Marri could be detained indefinitely as an "enemy combatant". The Justice Department instead argues that if even there were a "theoretical possibility that [al-Marri] could be re-designated an enemy combatant sometime in the future", any such threat of re-designation was not immediate due to his looming trial, and this "hypothetical contingency cold not prevent this case from being moot". Furthermore, even if Ali al-Marri were to be re-designated, the new administration argued, "it is very likely" that that re-designation "would occur in a much different posture, under different circumstances". For instance, evidence adduced during Ali al-Marri’s trial "could affect the factual basis for any future detention". The government has argued that under US law, "it is well settled that where a dispute might recur, if at all, under different circumstances, the Court should address any future dispute only if and when it arises."

Amnesty International welcomes the administration’s decision to end Ali al-Marri’s indefinite military custody and to bring him to trial in an ordinary civilian court. The organization, which has campaigned since 2003 for Ali al-Marri to be brought to trial in federal court or released, considers that his indefinite military detention violated the international prohibition of arbitrary detention. It also considers that the AUMF was hastily passed, is open to dangerously expansive interpretation, and was exploited by the Bush administration which did not consider it needed congressional approval for its actions anyway. Amnesty International has previously called for revocation of the AUMF and will continue to call on the new administration to clarify that it will not interpret it as representing any intent on the part of Congress to authorize violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, to extend authority for detention under the law of war to individuals to whom the law of war would not otherwise apply, or as otherwise providing justification for such violations.

Amnesty International emphasizes that, presuming that Ali Al-Marri is soon transferred for trial in an ordinary civilian court, the trial must comply with international standards of fairness and due process, and that under international treaties to which the USA is a party, victims of torture or other ill-treatment have the right to redress including rehabilitation and compensation, and victims of unlawful detention have the right to compensation.

Amnesty International remains concerned that the US government has not yet rejected explicitly the global war framework developed and relied upon by the Bush administration under which the USA has systematically disregarded human rights law protections in the case of those designated as "enemy combatants".