Veterans Organizations Fight Court Decisions on Battle Field Combatants

Interesting how things go when we all fall asleep at the wheel - the insanity is so perverse that it almost seems beyond comprehension.

Much to learn here.


Corporate Disclosure Statements, Rule 26.1Amicus Curiae Special Forces Association is a nonprofit corporation that operates under § 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code.

It is a veterans organization dedicated to the welfare and traditions of the U.S. Army Special Forces. It has no parent corporation and no publicly-held company owns 10% or more of its stock.

Amicus Curiae U.S. Army Ranger Association is a nonprofit corporation that operates under § 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is a veterans organization dedicated to the welfare and traditions of the U.S. Army Rangers. It has no parent corporation and no publicly-held company owns 10% or more of its stock. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF AMICI.1 BACKGROUND.6 ARGUMENT 9I. The District Court Erred In Its Consideration Of The“Site Of Apprehension” Factor.9A.

The “Battlefield” Extends Beyond Afghanistan. 9B. The District Court’s Decision Creates Legal Sanctuaries For Enemy Forces. 13C. It Is Not The Role Of The Judiciary To Define The“Battlefield.” 15II. The District Court Underestimated The “Practical Difficulties” Of Making Habeas Corpus Proceedings Available To Bagram Detainees. 17A. Preponderance Of The Evidence Is A High Standard In The Context Of Ongoing Combat Operations. 17B.

Special Operations Missions Are Not Suited ToThe Collection Of This Kind Of Evidence. 221. SOF Do Not Have The Time To SafelyGather Evidence. . 232. Gathering Evidence To Satisfy Habeas Courts Will Impair SOF Operations 243. It Is All-But-Impossible To Collect Useful Or Admissible Evidence In The Midst Of Combat. 27

Case: 09-5265 Document: 1207314 Filed: 09/21/2009 Page: 3-ii-4. The District Court’s Decision Will Have AChilling Effect On Intelligence Gathering. 28C. The District Court’s Decision Will Make It All But Impossible To Hold Enemy Combatants Seized ByAllied Forces.. 29III. CONCLUSION.32Case: 09-5265 Document: 1207314 Filed: 09/21/2009 Page: 4III.

CONCLUSION The District Court failed in its analysis of the “site of apprehension” and “practical obstacles” factors as articulated in Boumediene. Its decision should be reversed. Respectfully submitted,