This argument argues against the Supreme Court’s decision, asserting that detaining a person without charges requires explicit Congressional authorization, not just broad authorization for the use of military force (AUMF).

Reasons:

• Fifth Amendment Protections: The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees basic rights, including the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against someone being held. Detainment without charges denies this right.
• Non-Article III Tribunals: Detaining someone indefinitely without criminal trial removes them from the oversight of Article III courts, a cornerstone of American jurisprudence.
• Lack of Clarity in AUMF: The AUMF is a broad authorization for military action, not a clear statutory authorization for indefinite detention without charges. It doesn’t specify procedures for detaining enemy combatants.
• Risk of Abuse and Erosion of Habeas Corpus: Without clear limitations, the ability to detain indefinitely undermines the principle of habeas corpus, the right to challenge the lawfulness of imprisonment.

Supporting Precedent:

• Ex Parte Quirin (1903): This case established that the President has inherent authority to detain enemy combatants during wartime, but it did not address the issue of indefinite detention without charges.

Alternative Solutions:

• Military Commissions: Congress could authorize a system of military commissions with fair and transparent procedures for prosecuting enemy combatants.
• Detention with Habeas Corpus Review: Detained individuals could be held, but with the right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions before Article III courts.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision undermines fundamental legal principles and lacks clear Congressional authorization. Detention without charges requires explicit statutory authorization to balance national security concerns with individual liberties.