 WASHINGTON - Government attorneys said Monday that US courts have no authority to stop the military from transferring an American citizen to an Iraqi court to face charges he supported terrorists and insurgents. The case is the latest legal challenge to the Bush administrationÂ’s authority to keep terrorism cases, even those involving US citizens, out of American courts.
Shawqi Omar, a citizen of both Jordan and the United States who once served in the Minnesota National Guard, was captured in Iraq in 2004. He is being held at Camp Bucca, a prison in southern Iraq, where his family says he has not been charged or allowed to speak with a lawyer.
| So exactly which uniform was he wearing when he was captured? |
His family is demanding that Omar be brought before a US court, where prosecutors would have to show probable cause for detaining him and he could consult with an attorney. The military, which says Omar was harboring insurgents and had bomb-making materials at the time of his arrest, wants to transfer him to an Iraqi court. A judge blocked that transfer in February.
On appeal Monday before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, government attorneys said American courts donÂ’t have jurisdiction because Omar is being held by a multinational force, not the US military. Defense attorneys say that is a legal gimmick.
| And it's a damned good gimmick. |
A three-judge panel also expressed skepticism, saying the governmentÂ’s theory might allow the military to arrest someone inside the United States and hold him without due process _ all under the guise of a multinational force.
| No, because we wouldn't allow a MNF inside the States. |
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre said that wouldnÂ’t happen but the judges noted that it could. The judges also seemed wary of saying courts had no jurisdiction over a US citizen being held by his countryÂ’s military.
LetÂ’s assume he was in Iraq seeking a job,Â’ Judge David S. Tatel said. How can it be that the District Court lacks the ability to prohibit his transfer to Iraq?Â’
| Because he's in Iraq, a sovereign nations with a legal and judicial system, which is capable of judging the guilt or innocence of a man accused of a crime. The supposition that he can only be tried by Americans is an insult to the Iraqis. |
Judge Harry T. Edwards was even more pointed, saying the government was ignoring the Supreme CourtÂ’s 2004 ruling that an American in Afghanistan could challenge his detention in US courts.
Omar is described in court papers as a relative of former Iraq Al Qaida leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Authorities say Omar also plotted to kidnap foreigners from Baghdad hotels.
| Moral of the story: don't take prisoners. Is that what the Court of Appeals wants? |
Attorneys for OmarÂ’s family say he is innocent and likely to be tortured if handed over to the Iraqi government. They say he is a businessman who was seeking reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
Despite their skepticism for the governmentÂ’s argument, the three judges suggested OmarÂ’s familyÂ’s attorney, Aziz Huq, might be reading too much into the law. Even if the court sided with Omar, the judges said the military might only be required to release him, not to transfer him to a US court. That wouldnÂ’t prevent him from being arrested and charged by Iraqis.
"Here you go, Achmed, he's all yours now!"
"Thank you Tyrone. Would you like the cuffs back?" |
Separately, Omar was indicted in Jordan with Zarqawi and 11 others on charges they plotted a chemical attack against JordanÂ’s intelligence agency.
The court did not rule Monday. Rulings typically take months.
| During which Omar sits in a military prison in Iraq. Heh. |
|