Thought I had the rule for this, but apparently not. I though that the case held if a US Citizen is captured on a battlefield then they get at least some due process, and the case implied that a non-us citizen would get at least something based off Geneva, all kind of balanced against if there was some sort or urgent emergency going on that could delay it (like 9/11).
But my prof today in a Q&A said the case held four classifications: 1) US Citizen on foreign soil; 2) US citizen captured on U.S. soil; 3) non-citizen caught on foreign soil; and 4) non-citizen caught on U.S. soil.
So, where is he getting the bit about captured in US, and what status would they get? I assume they would get full due process, but I'm late in the game and hope someone can clear it up for me without me having to reread the whole case. I know that Scalia in his dissent mentioned a non-citizen on foreign soil was potentially beyond the reach of the courts, but don't know why the prof would pull this into the majority opinion. Thanks
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:28 pm
I haven't read this case in a while, but if I remember correctly these distinctions were implied because you have to balance the various interests. It is not the same hardship on the government to give the person an evidentiary hearing if the person is captured on the battlefield as if captured in the United States. As for the citizen/non-citizen distinction, the question of the case is framed in terms of what due process is due a citizen, not just any person. The holding itself specifies due process due to citizen-detainees.