Don't those judges know we're at WAR?

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.

Mr. Marri, whom the government calls a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, was arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.

He has been held for the last four years at the Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C.

This fellow is the only person on the American mainland undergoing the rigors of our military confinement system who’s a citizen of another country (Qatar). In this instance, the court most likely acted correctly. He should be adjudged forthwith by whatever means permissible, and the matter adjudicated.

Ken who’s the news source? I appreciate the evenhandedness in tone (“In a stinging rejection …”), by the way.

Regards,

T.

This is just another of those very tough cases involving US citizens or, in this case, residents.

Scalia would probably look at this and say if you want to suspend habeus corpus the Constitution provides a way to do it. Either pull that trigger or get out of my courtroom. I wouldn’t want to argue with him about that.

The case with foreigners is completely different.

Sorry, forgot the attribution: Scurrilous Commie rag
.

Based on my initial read of the decision, it doesn’t sound like it was a “tough” case at all…