Court smacks down Bush

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jun 11, 2007.

  1. Soooooo, is this a victory for the "evil doers" or is this a victory for the Constitutional rights of Americans?


    Court Rules in Favor of Enemy Combatant
    Jun 11 03:44 PM US/Eastern
    Associated Press Writer
    RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said Monday.

    The ruling was a harsh rebuke of one of the central tools the administration believes it has to combat terror.

    "To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution—and the country," the court panel said.

    In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court. It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

    The government intends to ask the full 4th Circuit to hear the case, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

    "The President has made clear that he intends to use all available tools at his disposal to protect Americans from further al-Qaida attack, including the capture and detention of al-Qaida agents who enter our borders," Boyd said in a statement.

    Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.

    "This is a landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power," al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, said in a statement. "It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals—citizens and immigrants—in the United States."

    The court said its ruling doesn't mean al-Marri should be set free. Instead, he can be returned to the civilian court system and tried on criminal charges.

    "But the government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention," the opinion said. "For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians—let alone imprison them indefinitely."

    Al-Marri is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.

    Jose Padilla had been held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.

    Federal investigators found credit card numbers on Al-Marri's laptop computer and charged him with credit card fraud. Upon further investigation, the government said, agents found evidence that al- Marri had links to al-Qaida terrorists and was a national security threat. Authorities shifted al-Marri's case from the criminal system and moved him to indefinite military detention.

    Al-Marri has denied the government's allegations and is seeking to challenge the government's evidence and cross-examine its witnesses in court.

    Lawyers for al-Marri argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus—defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.

    If the government's stance was upheld, civil liberties groups said, the Justice Department could use terrorism law to hold any immigrants indefinitely and strip them of the right to use civilian courts to challenge their detention.

    The Bush administration's attorneys had urged the federal appeals panel to dismiss al-Marri's case, arguing that the act stripped the courts of jurisdiction to hear cases of detainees who are declared enemy combatants. They contended that Congress and the Supreme Court have given the president the authority to fight terrorism and prevent additional attacks on the nation.

    The court, however, said in Monday's opinion that the MCA doesn't apply to al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident who wasn't captured outside U.S. soil, detained at Guantanamo Bay or on other foreign soil, who has not received a combatant status review tribunal.

    "The MCA was not intended to, and does not apply to aliens like al- Marri, who have legally entered, and are seized while legally residing in, the United States," according to the court's majority opinion, written by Judge Diana G. Motz.

    The court also said that the government failed to back up its argument that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted by Congress immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, gives the president broad powers to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant. The act neither classifies certain civilians as enemy combatants, nor otherwise authorizes the government to detain people indefinitely, the court ruled.

    The case, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court, could help define how much authority the government has to indefinitely detain those accused of terrorism and to strip detainees of their rights to challenge the lawfulness or conditions of their detention.


    The case is al-Marri v. Wright.

    Okay, now all you right wing authoritarian totalitarian ET klan can pitch your fits...

    Will members of the Ron Paul cult salute the flag? Or will they complain that the "liberals" have weakened America during a time of "war."
  2. for you to ask this question makes me think you haven't listened to his message yet.

    what policies do you disagree with so strongly that you would refer to Ron Paul supporters as "cult" members?
  3. Look, cult members and groupies are not necessarily the product or design of the object of their affections...

    I have nothing against Paul, beyond the fact that he is too old, dry as burnt toast, pretty much out of touch with the center and pulse of the majority of Americans, and of course, is completely unelectable...oh, yeah, and he is a Texan. We have had enough of Texas based politicians for now...

    It is the cult members and worshipers like you that I find to be outrageously zealous and bloated from too much Kool aid drinking...

  4. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    Ali al-Marri from Qatar ..... Al-Marri is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.

    They should have cut off his genitals and fed them to a wolf. It's fairly certain he'd do the same to us infidels given the chance.
  5. Charge him with a crime, or let him go.

    No way we can talk to the world about justice and the American way if we don't practice our own justice system here at home...

  6. this coming from a member of the Hillary brigade. enjoy her koolaid and whatever else she finds in there, bon appetit.. i got a new name for her... Digger!!!

  7. achilles28


    And its the socializt Liberals like yourself that pose a direct threat to the Constitution of this Country.

    Paul is a Constitutionalist. You may not happen to believe in the sanctity of this Countrys Founding Principles. But I do. And a great many with me.

    You would rather point fingers and call names than debate facts.

    On the issues - where is Paul wrong? Where is the Constitution wrong?

    If you want to get real, lets start there.
  8. Guess you dont know that much about Ron Paul`s views....
  9. i tried to ask him seriously and he attacked. i think he is infatuated with Hillary and real issues are secondary. bottomline, these granolas are just as brainwashed as the neocons.

  10. achilles28


    Lol. its true. The Libs and Neocons INVENTED KOOLAID.
    #10     Jun 12, 2007