And the pendulum begins to swing back

[Oli]

Washington - President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered the indefinite military detention of an Arab computer-science student from Qatar on suspicion that he was an Al Qaeda sleeper agent.

In a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration's tactics in the war on terror, a panel of the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ordered the government to release Ali Saleh al-Marri after being held four years in a military brig.

"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," writes US Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz in the 2-to-1 decision.

"For a court to uphold a claim to such extraordinary power ... would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution," Judge Motz writes. "We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our republic."


http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0612/p25s02-usju.html

It's good to see the 4th Curcuit Court stand up for the Constitution against an over reaching administration.

[tsafficianado]

csm? hmmm? good to see you've found the way, chef
i guess we'll be seeing you at Jesus camp in august?

[Oli]

Having read some of your previous posts, maybe this is more to your liking.

RICHMOND, Virginia — The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an Al Qaeda sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court said sanctioning the indefinite detention of civilians would have "disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country."

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. Al-Marri is the only person being held as an enemy combatant on U.S. soil.

The court also ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

"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 panel said in its opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280592,00.html

[guyone]

Give me a break...

[White_Male_Canada]

Give me a break...

One break, coming up !

Look for this ruling to be overturned. Judges DO NOT get to set the parameters of war. Congress specifically removed the courts jurisdiction from the civilian courts and specifically gave it to the military court system.

DOJ has asked for an en banc review of this decision. If the decision remains the USSC will overturn it because Congress has not violated the Constitution in regards to military judicial review.

[trish]

It may or may not be reversed on appeal, but the following will remain true:

"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,"

[White_Male_Canada]

It may or may not be reversed on appeal, but the following will remain true:

"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 Constitution is not a suicide pact. Once again, Congress has specifically given the military tribunals jurisdiction. It will pass Constitutional muster and is not precedent. In Ex Parte Quirin/ In Re Territo US citizens were denied habeas corpus and in Quirin tried as German saboteurs and executed.

[trish]

Give me liberty or give me death.

[Cuchulain]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

"There never was a good war or a bad peace."

- Ben Franklin

[guyone]

Better safe than sorry.

[trish]

spoken like a true coward, safe IS sorry.

[guyone]

Glad to hear a progressive finally admit it.

[trish]

who's a progressive, i just call 'em as i see 'em. So does this mean you now agree freedom is better than the patriot act?

[guyone]

Better safe than sorry...

[Oli]

Better safe than sorry...

Which freedoms would you be willing to give up to feel safe?

Freedom of speech? Assembly? Privacy? Arms? Trail by Jury? Property? Habeas Corpus?

Which of these would you, Guyone, sacrifice to feel safe?

[guyone]

How about the freedom from being a terrorist target?

[trish]

How about the freedom from being a terrorist target?

That one's not in the constitution, and no amount of legislation will ever guarantee it, or assuage the coward's fear.

[guyone]

Oh I guess you told me off.

[trish]

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

[tsmandy]

How about the freedom from being a terrorist target?

Maybe you should move to Norway, or Amsterdam. The terrorists don't seem to have much interest in those places.

[trish]

I don’t really mind when people give up their freedoms for security. It’s done every day in a million ways (e.g. it’s one reason people find themselves stuck in boring jobs and relationships). What I hate and when people are willing to let others sacrifice for their own personal security. They ask others to fight and others to give up their individual freedoms for a promise of safety that cannot be guaranteed anyway.