Hey...activist judges really ARE a threat

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Bush said something right! Those last couple hundred years of requiring, you know, trials and evidence and such, have been overturned by those nasty progressive judges with no respect for the constitution! Whatever shall he do?

Oh yeah, that's right, one of these judges is rumored to be getting a supreme court nomination. Guess that's what he'll do...get rid of them through promotion!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9268598/

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with al-Qaida.

“The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war,” Judge Michael Luttig wrote. “We conclude that the president does possess such authority.”

[chequita guevara]

[Lefty Scaevola]

Not activist here, since the panel is following precedent, it was the lower court whoses ruling was reversed that was 'activist".

[Ecthy]

So your head of state can now single handedly arrest people without using the judicial system?

And some people complain about Russia...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ecthy
So your head of state can now single handedly arrest people without using the judicial system?

It is not an arrest, not in the relm of crimminal law, it is a capture of a combatant under the law of war, the same law as on the battlefield.
What I am concered about is the rather feeble level of due process that comes at the madated subsequent hearing to confirm/overule his status as a combatant.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Not activist here, since the panel is following precedent, it was the lower court whoses ruling was reversed that was 'activist".

There was a distinction to be made that it could happen on U.S. soil, though. Until now, it only applied to people who were captured on the 'battlefield'...such as it is. This is a US citizen, arrested on US soil, who is being held indefinitely without charges. There's nothing stopping Bush from declaring any random person on the street a combatant and dropping them in a hole, never to be heard from again.

I hope somebody's keeping an eye on Michael Moore...

[Ecthy]

Get a shave, man.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
There was a distinction to be made that it could happen on U.S. soil, though.

Not so, there was precedent (at the distric level only, IIRC) from as recently as WW2, regarding a citizen who had assisted some German sabateours who landed in NY. There is mounds of precedent from earlier, mostly in the Amercian Civil War.

[GePap]

That is why I think the anglo-saxon system of law is a bit bent. How can one seriously compare a situation under which Congress had declared war, or one in which the nation was facing clear insurrection, to the amorphous and opaque "war on terror"?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Not so, there was precedent (at the distric level only, IIRC) from as recently as WW2, regarding a citizen who had assisted some German sabateours who landed in NY. There is mounds of precedent from earlier, mostly in the Amercian Civil War.

If you're talking about Ex parte Quirin, only one of them was a US citizen, and he was given over to a military tribunal and subsequently charged.

In any case, as GePap says, there's a bit of a difference involved.

[Sava]

due process

Bush

4th Circuit Cracker Court

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

There was a distinction to be made that it could happen on U.S. soil, though. Until now, it only applied to people who were captured on the 'battlefield'...such as it is. This is a US citizen, arrested on US soil, who is being held indefinitely without charges. There's nothing stopping Bush from declaring any random person on the street a combatant and dropping them in a hole, never to be heard from again.

Drawing a bit of conclusion here aren't we. Since when does detainment preclude the remainder of due process, especially considering the precedent the supremes established granting hearings to the enemy combatants at Gitmo..

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He's been in solitary for three years without charges..you tell me.

[DanS]

I don't like this at all, but there does appear to be ample precedent for it. The only saving grace here is that Bush appears to be just protecting presidential perogatives with this test case rather than going hog wild locking people up.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Not so, there was precedent (at the distric level only, IIRC) from as recently as WW2, regarding a citizen who had assisted some German sabateours who landed in NY. There is mounds of precedent from earlier, mostly in the Amercian Civil War.

It was in Florida, not far from where I used to live, interestingly enough. The American in question turned himself in as soon has he hit the beach and alerted authorities to the presence of the other sabetuers. In recognition of his service to the Republic, the Feds prompty executed him.