ACLJ Asks Federal Appeals Court to Uphold the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorism Combatants.

WASHINGTON -- The American Center for Law and Justice, specializing in constitutional law, today filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asking the court to uphold the constitutionality of using military commissions to try suspects charged with terrorism. The ACLJ filed its position in support of the Department of Justice in the case of Rumsfeld v. Hamdan.

"The Constitution gives the President the authority to use military commissions to try these very dangerous combatants," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which has filed briefs in support of the Department of Justice in terrorism cases before. "Unlawful enemy combatants do not qualify for the numerous protections enumerated in the Geneva Conventions given to captives who obey the law. The President has the authority to use military commissions to try these combatants for their crimes. Because of the separation of powers, the judiciary should tread lightly in cases like this one. We are hopeful the appeals court reverses the district court and permits military commissions to proceed."

The case centers on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who has been accused of being a trained al-Qaeda terrorist who delivered weapons and ammunition and served as a driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden.

The ACLJ today filed its brief in the case of Rumsfeld v. Hamdan. (http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/041208_Rumsfeld_v_Hamdan_ Amicus_Brief2.pdf) The U.S. Supreme Court refused to act on the case last week - rejecting a request by Hamdan's attorneys to take the case on an expedited basis. (Due to its length, this URL may need to be copied/pasted into your Internet browser's address field. Remove the extra space if one exists.)

In the brief, the ACLJ contends that the President has the constitutional authority to make the determination on when to use military commissions. The brief states: "Part and parcel of any resort to war is the issue of what to do with the enemy combatants who may fall into the hands of United States armed forces. That political question implicates a whole host of matters, such as: how to ensure that persons are no longer able to take up arms against United States forces or harm their captors, how to ensure that perpetrators of war crimes are properly identified, tried and punished, how to ensure that information of intelligence value is timely obtained, and so forth. Moreover, it falls to the President to orchestrate national policy and balance benefits and risks. He both needs and deserves the latitude to develop such policies without undue interference by the Judiciary."

The ACLJ has consistently supported the President's constitutional authority during the war on terrorism and filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court last term in support of the Department of Justice's position on the terrorism cases.

The American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.