U.S. Government reasoning for not bringing Al Qaeda sympathizers to trial. Reasoning approved by U.S. judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner – Appellee,
C. T. HANFT, U.S.N. Commander, Consolidated
Respondent – Appellant.
Argued: July 19, 2005 Decided: September 9, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Equally important, in many instances criminal prosecution would impede the Executive in its efforts to gather intelligence from the detainee and to restrict the detainee’s communication with confederates so as to ensure that the detainee does not pose a continuing threat to
national security even as he is confined ?- impediments that would render military detention not only an appropriate, but also the necessary, course of action to be taken in the interest of national security. The district court acknowledged the need to defer to the President’s determination that Padill detention is necessary and appropriate in the interest of national security.
These facts unquestionably establish that Padilla poses the requisite threat of return to battle in the ongoing armed conflict between the United States and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and that his detention is authorized as a “fundamental incident of waging war,” id., in order “to prevent a combatant’s return to the battlefield,” id. Congress “clearly and unmistakably,” id., authorized such detention when, in the AUMF, it “permitt[ed] the use of “necessary and appropriate force,”? id., to prevent other attacks like those of September 11, 2001.