Court Says Military Cannot Hold 'Enemy Combatant'

jfuh · 06-11-07, 05:06 PM

Quote:

In a stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration’s central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism, a federal appeals court ordered the Pentagon to release a man being held as an enemy combatant.
“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”
“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”
The ruling was handed down by a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., in the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar and the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant.
<snip>
Judge Motz wrote that Mr. Marri may well be guilty of serious crimes. But she said that the government cannot circumvent the civilian criminal justice system through military detention.

source

Anyone with half a sense of rational mind would've long realized that this was unconstitutional.

Well that is anyone that is not an apologetic or member of the bush admin.

You simply can not circumvent the justice system to suit your own interests regardless of intent.

AndrewC · 06-11-07, 05:31 PM

I bet they ship him outside the United States. That way our pesky laws won't get in the way.

jkille · 06-11-07, 05:44 PM

This was a truly criminal act by Bush. I just hope this al-Marri guy did SOMETHING to deserve the treatment he got, even though apparently no one can prove it.

RightinNYC · 06-11-07, 06:18 PM

Quote:

The two judges in the majority, Diana Gribbon Motz and Roger Gregory, were appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Judge Henry Hudson, who dissented, is a U.S. district judge, appointed by President George W. Bush, serving on the case by special appointment.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

It'll be heard by the court en banc and overturned within the next 3 or 4 months.

jamesrage · 06-11-07, 09:51 PM

Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This decision states:
“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. ”

Donkey1499 · 06-11-07, 10:36 PM

Just another example of activist judges legislating from the Bench. What they're doing is "unconstitutional".

Kasmos · 06-12-07, 10:00 AM

Quote:

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank god there is finally some common sense being seen in our government.