executive detention

The power to introduce executive detention remains on the statute book and is capable of being exercised by the Government.

The Government have received a number of representations calling for the reintroduction of executive detention.

The historical core of habeas corpus is to challenge extrajudicial executive detention.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the powers of executive detention are on the statute book and are available for use.

For its part, Congress in 1971 barred executive detention without explicit statutory authorization - but applied the prohibition only to citizens.

"Indefinite executive detention without judicial review is inimical to the United States' commitment to the rule of law and its international obligations," the brief says.

Conversely, while the ability to detain avoids many of the problems inherent in the criminal justice system, the threat to liberty presented by executive detention commands that it be carefully circumscribed.

The fact that the Government retained executive detention on the statute book by a free act last year is an indication that the Government believe it to be important that the instrument should be available.

Human-rights groups and civil-liberties lawyers are watching the situation closely, as an indicator of whether the Obama Adminstration will support the Bush Administration's aggressive claims to executive detention powers in the war on terror.

Mr. Dunham said if the resolution was interpreted to authorize "indefinite executive detention" at the president's discretion, "we could have people locked up all over the country tomorrow without any due process, without any opportunity to be heard."

He said: 'I give the House a full assurance that, in the event of the introduction of executive detention, it would be carried out by Her Majesty's Government in line with legislation passed by this House.'

And, while the Constitution assigns courts the duty generally to review executive detentions that are alleged to be illegal, the Constitution does not specifically contemplate any role for courts in the conduct of war, or in foreign policy generally.

Consistent with the historic purpose of the writ, this Court has recognized the federal courts' power to review applications for habeas relief in a wide variety of cases involving Executive detention, in wartime as well as in times of peace.

The question now before us is whether the habeas statute confers a right to judicial review of the legality of Executive detention of aliens in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not "ultimate sovereignty."

Hafetz wants the Supreme Court to rule that indefinite executive detention is illegal, and he hopes that Obama will withdraw Bush's executive order labelling Marri an enemy combatant, and issue a new one classifying him as a civilian.

As I wrote in last week's issue, Marri has been held for the past five years in indefinite executive detention in the U.S. Naval Consolidated brig in Charleston, South Carolina-despite having never stood trial or been convicted of any crime.

In urging the appeals court to let Judge Bates's decision stand, lawyers for the detainees argued that reversing it would mean that the government would be able "to evade judicial review of executive detention decisions by transferring detainees into active combat zones, thereby granting the executive the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will."