Powell Says Close Gitmo

McGentrix wrote:

Seemed obvious to me Okie.

It is to the reasonable. Reason only works with the reasonable.

Cyclops, the rule of law does not work in war. This again should be obvious. I suppose you would read a guy his rights to call a lawyer before you shot him? And oh yes, also call the forensics expert or crime scene investigator to collect evidence after the crime. He would probably be collecting it from your body, cyclops.

And by the way, we try to follow the laws of war, but terrorists are inventing new and bizarre ways to wage war, that even breaks those previous laws, if you can call them that.

Cyclops, the rule of law does not work in war.

Court rules in favor of enemy combatant

By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida 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 and the only person being held as an enemy combatant on U.S. soil, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

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.

"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.

Al-Marri's lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus ?- defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.

This is a breaking news update. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Even military judges are agreeing that Bush's overreach of the Constitution is illegal and immoral, and that it "would have disastrous consequences for the constitution ?- and the country."

Decisions like that boost my confidence in our judicial system.

Good and bad news for Al-Marri, then.

Good news that he's entitled to constitutional protections as a legal resident. Bad news that the Constitution does have a specific treason clause.

FreeDuck wrote:

Decisions like that boost my confidence in our judicial system.

Come to think of it -- isn't Atlanta in the 4th district?

You are awfully handy to have around, Thomas.

Decisions like that boost my confidence in our judicial system.

FreeDuck wrote:

You are awfully handy to have around, Thomas.

Thanks. But I have to be more careful with this stuff. We sleeper cell operatives shouldn't flaunt that we know some of this American civics stuff. It makes us stand out among Americans, who don't.