Court Backs Bush on Military Detentions

[depakid]

Source: NY Times

...Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled on Tuesday in a fractured 5-to-4 decision.

But a second, overlapping 5-to-4 majority of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, ruled that Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar now in military custody in Charleston, S.C., must be given an additional opportunity to challenge his detention in federal court there. An earlier court proceeding, in which the government had presented only a sworn statement from a defense intelligence official, was inadequate, the second majority ruled.

The decision was a victory for the Bush administration, which had maintained that a 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force after the Sept. 11 attacks granted the president the power to detain people living in the United States.

The court effectively reversed a divided three-judge panel of its own members, which ruled last year that the government lacked the power to detain civilians legally in the United States as enemy combatants. That panel ordered the government either to charge Mr. Marri or to release him. The case is likely to reach the Supreme Court.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/washington/16combatant.html?hp

[Mojorabbit]

1. This is an awful ruling.

I am surprised by it. It seemed the courts were starting to put a stop to his power grabbing.

[tularetom]

2. Precisely why John S. McAnus must never be in a position to appoint judges

This shit would be swept so far back under the rug it'd never see daylight.

An international court could still make things real uncomfortable for any of these criminals if they tried to flee the US. But they could continue to give the law the finger as long as they stayed here.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Is there any evidence that Obama will voluntarily give up such power?

Or does his running with a D after his name exempt him from such a question, much less from our demanding an unambiguous answer?

[Kelvin Mace]

10. As I see it

even if Obama wins, the Dems will continue to approve Alito clones. After all, just because we control the White House, the House and the Senate, that's no reason to stop rolling over to the extreme Right.

:sarcasm:

[GOPNotForMe]

3. The 4th Circuit is traditionally the most conservative in the nation.

I'm not surprised that it came from them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Habeas corpus is finally mortus

Sorry for the bad Latin, but that is the effect: The constitutional right to habeas corpus has been killed. All it takes is for the President to issue an order, and off you go with no rights, no protections, no recourse.

This is the sort of thing that Pinochet did, and Hitler, and Mao, and Stalin. Even so, the Freepers are no doubt in ecstacies of joy.

Good bye, Lady Liberty: It's been swell knowing you. :cry:

[struggle4progress]

6. Ali Saleh Kalah Al-Marri &c v. Commander John Pucciarelli (No. 06-7247)

<link to pdf:> http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/067427A.P.pdf

[Kaleko]

7. What happened to the Supreme Court ruling of June 12, 08 ???

From an email by Senator Patrick Leahy:

Today the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a stinging rebuke to the Bush-Cheney Administration's handling of military detainees at Guantanamo Bay – while vindicating you, me, and thousands of others who have spoken out against the Administration's unwise and unconstitutional policies from the very beginning.

In today's 5-4 Boumediene v. Bush decision, the Court ruled that stripping habeas corpus rights from detainees at Guantanamo Bay was unconstitutional. In so doing, the Court reaffirmed the fundamental right of habeas corpus – the right that all Americans, and those prisoners under American control, have to challenge the government's reasons for imprisoning them – a fundamental American right that underpins our individual freedoms and liberty.

Now, in three separate decisions, the Supreme Court has rejected the Bush-Cheney Administration's erosion of fundamental rights. It is these very protections and rights that set America apart from our enemies and make our nation a beacon of freedom and justice for the rest of the world.

It's time to repair the damage that the Bush-Cheney Administration has done in rolling back essential rights that have long guided America's conscience – and the Supreme Court's ruling is yet one more step in that important process. It's another signal that – at least in this instance – we will not cringe in fear and walk away from bedrock American values.

Today's decision is a huge victory for justice, for the Constitution, and for the rule of law. Thank you so much for continuing to stand with me and fight for the rights and freedoms we hold dear.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

[DCKit]

8. No concept of the definition of "Supreme".

If one court doesn't give them the answer they want to hear, they'll go to another - and another, and another.

The courts are all the same, right?

[LynnTheDem]

9. "indefinite military detention". What George W. bUsh accused Saddam Hussein of.

It was legal, under Iraqi law, for Hussein to do so.

George W. bUsh says it's legal under US law for him to do so.

And the Richmond federal appeals court agrees.





And deeply stupid Americans still can't figure out why the world despises us.