FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
OPA
(202) 616-2777
TDD (202) 514-1888
STATEMENT OF MARK CORALLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGARDING THE ENEMY COMBATANT CASES:
"The Justice Department is pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens. This authority is crucial in times of war whether the enemy combatants are individuals who join our enemies on the battlefield to fight against America and its allies, or whether they are individuals who infiltrate our border to commit hostile and war-like acts against our nation.
“This power, which was contested by lawyers representing individuals captured in the war on terror, is one of the most essential authorities the U.S. Constitution grants the President to defend America from our enemies. The military detains enemy combatants to prevent them from continuing to wage terror and war, as well as to gather intelligence to thwart further terrorist assaults. Without the ability to detain these dangerous individuals, the American people and our soldiers in combat would face even greater danger from our terrorist enemies. As the Court opinion said, this authority “is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the ‘necessary and appropriate force’ Congress has authorized the President to use.”
“The Court also held that individuals detained by the United States as enemy combatants have certain procedural rights to contest their detention. But the Court recognized that those procedures must reflect the unique context of the detention of enemy combatants and the need of the executive to prosecute the war. We are reviewing the Court’s decision to determine how to modify existing processes to satisfy the Court's rulings.
“Furthermore, we are gratified the Court accepted our jurisdictional argument in Padilla and reversed the Second Circuit. The Court reaffirmed the traditional rules governing where to file a habeas petition.
“We will continue to review the Court's ruling in all three cases.
###
04-455