Fern said:
Fern, I don't have a complaint about the decision, I applaud it...
here is the Pdf if your interested.
Also I am "not" contesting his possible guilt, put him on trial and let due process take it's course.
Although its ultimate resolution is complicated, the question raised by Al-Marri is a clear and simple one:
Does the President have the power, and/or should he have it, to arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime, allowing them access to lawyers or the outside world, and/or providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the charges?
Al-Marri was in the U.S. legally, studying at Bradley University, living with his wife and 5 children, and sitting at home in Peoria, Illinois when he was detained and then ultimately charged, in a court of law, with committing various crimes.
He was set to have a trial in July 2003 when the President suddenly and unilaterally decreed him to be an "enemy combatant," ordered him put into military custody, had his trial cancelled, and then proceeded to imprison him for the next four years, including many months where he was denied any contact at all with the outside world, including lawyers, all without charging him with any crime.
Anyone who objects to the court's decision, and particularly anyone who seeks to vest the President with powers of indefinite, due-process-less military detention of individuals on U.S. soil - is, by definition, advocating nothing less than the establishment of martial law inside the U.S. That is the precise point the court made, at page 72.
The court's decision rests on the very simple proposition that Congress, when it enacted the Patriot Act, provided a very clear legal framework for the detention of suspected terrorists inside the U.S., namely, it allows temporary detention but requires due process be accorded to the accused suspect. The court rested its decision on a strict statutory reading of the law:
It would mean, in essence, that we have military rule, with the President as Commander-in-Chief not only over the armed forces, as the Constitution confines that power, but over everyone and everything. As the court put it:
Anyone who believes that the President should have the power to order individuals inside the U.S. imprisoned forever with no charges and no process is someone who, by definition, simply does not believe in the political system of the United States.
Fern, I don't have a complaint about the decision, I applaud it...
here is the Pdf if your interested.
Also I am "not" contesting his possible guilt, put him on trial and let due process take it's course.
Although its ultimate resolution is complicated, the question raised by Al-Marri is a clear and simple one:
Does the President have the power, and/or should he have it, to arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime, allowing them access to lawyers or the outside world, and/or providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the charges?
Al-Marri was in the U.S. legally, studying at Bradley University, living with his wife and 5 children, and sitting at home in Peoria, Illinois when he was detained and then ultimately charged, in a court of law, with committing various crimes.
He was set to have a trial in July 2003 when the President suddenly and unilaterally decreed him to be an "enemy combatant," ordered him put into military custody, had his trial cancelled, and then proceeded to imprison him for the next four years, including many months where he was denied any contact at all with the outside world, including lawyers, all without charging him with any crime.
Anyone who objects to the court's decision, and particularly anyone who seeks to vest the President with powers of indefinite, due-process-less military detention of individuals on U.S. soil - is, by definition, advocating nothing less than the establishment of martial law inside the U.S. That is the precise point the court made, at page 72.
The court's decision rests on the very simple proposition that Congress, when it enacted the Patriot Act, provided a very clear legal framework for the detention of suspected terrorists inside the U.S., namely, it allows temporary detention but requires due process be accorded to the accused suspect. The court rested its decision on a strict statutory reading of the law:
It would mean, in essence, that we have military rule, with the President as Commander-in-Chief not only over the armed forces, as the Constitution confines that power, but over everyone and everything. As the court put it:
Anyone who believes that the President should have the power to order individuals inside the U.S. imprisoned forever with no charges and no process is someone who, by definition, simply does not believe in the political system of the United States.
Facebook
Twitter