I’ve been WONDERING when and if that once “Separate But Equal” branch of our Government we call the “Judicial Branch” would ever grow a pair and stand up for its eroding powers under this Administration, thanks to the partisan courts themselves. While over the last six-plus years, the courts have, again and again, ruled against themselves by handing over their Constitutionally granted, and exclusively held powers to the President and his Executive Branch, those of us who favor the THREE “Separate But Equal” branch theory of our Founding Fathers finally have something to cheer about again…
From The [often rumored to be "traitorous"] New York Times:
Court Says Military Cannot Hold ‘Enemy Combatant’
By ADAM LIPTAKIn 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.
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. …”
(Snip!)
“… Writing for the majority, Judge Motz ordered the trial judge in the case to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Pentagon “within a reasonable period of time” to do one of several things with Mr. Marri. He may be charged in the civilian court system; he may be deported; or he may be held as a material witness; or he may be released.
“But military detention of al-Marri,” Judge Motz wrote, “must cease.”
They got it right. Our President, though he may strongly disagree, is NOT a “King”. He cannot simply go around, pointing his finger at U.S. Persons and Citizens and tell his military to grab them and toss them into the nearest brig until further notice in the name of “security”. We have an FBI, a CIA, and other civilian law enforcement agencies we tax payers finance to do this very thing and we have courts to try the detainees with a SPEEDY trial. “Terr’ists”, if that really IS what they turn out to be before a jury of their peers, will be deemed to be such and punished accordingly. And that, folks, is the way our Founding Fathers said it is supposed to work no matter how tyrannical one President may aspire to be.
Kudos to the courts on this one. It isn’t very often these days where they actually get one right, but this time they did, which I heartily applaud.
Loading ...
7:46 pm on June 11th, 2007 1
” He cannot simply go around, pointing his finger at U.S. Persons and Citizens and tell his military to grab them and toss them into the nearest brig until further notice in the name of “security””
I would agree wholeheartedyly. However, in case you missed it, the complainant is not a US citizen.
9:04 pm on June 11th, 2007 2
But unless he was enrolled at Bradley without a student visa, he is/was an alien lawfully permitted to reside in the United States, qualifying him as a US Person, William.
The issue in this case appears from this post, to be whether the Executive Branch can subject US Persons to military detention? In Reid v. Covert, the Court ruled that the Constitution follows individuals overseas. This was a case where a Civilian was being tried by Courts Martial, which necessitated that the civilian be held by the military. The administration knew this to be the case, and yet they apparently decided that the vague “by any means necessary” meant, essentially, that stare decisis did not mean anything anymore, and that even if the Constitution applied to US persons outside the United States, the Supremacy Clause did not apply to US Persons inside the US. This was absolutely the right decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; let’s hope that the Court denies Cert.