A complete and utter embarrassment of a ruling by The Fourth Circuit today:
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.
I’m sure the lefties are jumping for joy, and if I felt up to it I would probably go visit DummiesU for a round of laughter but their stupidity wears on you after awhile.
Anyways, they can jump for joy, clap their hands and sing "the wicked Bush is dead", but this decision will be reversed. While the Administration was told to make a distinction between enemy combatants and illegal enemy combatants last week this case has none of that. Al-Marri was not caught on the battlefield, no doubt about that. But he is most definitely a illegal enemy combatant since he was plotting acts of terrorism on civilians inside this country. He is a member of the enemy, and plotted violence against our country while inside our borders. He has no more right to Habeas Corpus or a civilian trial as do the scum currently visiting Gitmo.
Kind of funny how this court made a distinction between Padilla and Al-Marri. Al never set foot in Afghanistan so he shouldn’t be considered an enemy combatant. Al was never a member of the Taliban so he shouldn’t be considered an enemy combatant. Instead all Al was is a member of a non-government entity called al-Qaeda.
Make sense?
Of course you could make the case that Osama help fund the Taliban while the Taliban helped keep Osama safe, so…one and the same? Or you could make the case that since no foreign government recognized the Taliban as a valid government themselves then why use them as a measuring stick?
So if the Taliban is a valid government entity, why isn’t al-Qaeda?
What kind of loony court holds that as long as someone can sneak across our borders to blow up civilians they then get access to our civilian rights?
Take a look at an important case:
In 1942, eight Nazi saboteurs crossed the Atlantic by submarine in a plot to blow up several New York bridges. When apprehended, they claimed the right to a civil trial. In its Ex Parte Quirin decision, the Supreme Court rejected their plea. Citing several other cases—including the hanging of a Confederate arsonist in New York City—the Court found that an "enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property" was "subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Today, it is argued that al Qaeda terrorists are not technically "enemy combatants" because the U.S. has not officially declared war. Yet this semantic argument betrays the spirit of the law, as well as common sense. War has been declared on us— and the absence of a viable state against which to serve a counter-declaration does not mean that a war doesn’t exist.
The Supreme Court will strike this down.
See author page
It will be poetic justice when the terrorists released by idiots playing judge go on a ‘judge’ killing spree, and they will the first time a judge puts one of their leaders in prison. It’ll be more comedy at the democrats expense, like the failure of the democrat led congress to accomplish one thing in 5 months other that go on a crime spree themselves.
Edmund Burke, writing in 1777, would approve of the court’s decision:
This act, therefore, has this distinguished evil in it, that it is the first partial suspension of the Habeas Corpus that has been made. The precedent, which is always of very great importance, is now established. For the first time a distinction is made among the people within this realm.
Before this act, every man putting his foot on English ground, every stranger owing only a local and temporary allegiance, even negro slaves who had been sold in the colonies and under an act of Parliament, became as free as every other man who breathed the same air with them.
http://pintday.org/ebooks/gutenberg/files/15198/15198-h/15198-h.htm#SHERIFFS_OF_THE_CITY_OF_BRISTOL
I’m coming to the conclusion that the Liberals see Al Queda not as “Freedom Fighters” per se, but rather as “Oppression Fighters”. They are a natural reaction to our conduct and we deserve their attacks. Of course instead of saying that directly, they call it “blowback” and get incensed that you call them on it.
So in their minds, using any other tool but appeasement to stop terrorists is wrong and we shouldn’t have it.