Rule of Law: 1, Police State: 0 - New England Patriots Forums

Pujo · 06-12-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- A divided panel from a conservative federal appeals court delivered a harsh rebuke to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategy Monday, ruling that U.S. residents cannot be locked up indefinitely as "enemy combatants" without being charged.

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the government should charge Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident and the only suspected enemy combatant on American soil, or release him from military custody.

The federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip al-Marri of his constitutional right to challenge his accusers in court, the judges found in Monday's 2-1 decision.

"Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and then detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them 'enemy combatants,"' the court said. Such detention "would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country," Judge Diana G. Motz wrote in the majority opinion.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/11/te....ap/index.html

Now they're not saying Bush can't go after terrorists, and they're not saying we have to give up and convert to Islam, but they are saying the military can't just seize people who live in America, on American soil, and lock them up forever. And this is the most conservative federal circuit saying that. I'm assuming we have 100% agreement that it's a good thing we live in America, a rule-of-law country?

***DarrylS*** · 06-12-2007, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/11/te....ap/index.html
I'm assuming we have 100% agreement that it's a good thing we live in America, a rule-of-law country?

As much as I want to believe this, there are those who will continue to try to make the law fit the situation..

***BelichickFan*** · 06-12-2007, 08:03 AM

The lawyer types I saw on TV last night thought this would get overturned. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all the ins and outs but the high level concept of having to let likely terrorists walk out, no I'm not in agreement with you.

***Patters*** · 06-12-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

The lawyer types I saw on TV last night thought this would get overturned. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all the ins and outs but the high level concept of having to let likely terrorists walk out, no I'm not in agreement with you.

So, if by some fluke, your name ended up on a terrorist list, you would respect the right of the government to lock you up indefinitely? If that's true, then you have even greater faith in government than I do.

Pujo · 06-12-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

The lawyer types I saw on TV last night thought this would get overturned. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all the ins and outs but the high level concept of having to let likely terrorists walk out, no I'm not in agreement with you.

If we just locked everyone up, we wouldn't have any terrorists walking around

To me, there are some things worth protecting, and us having a society built on law and order is one of them.

***BelichickFan*** · 06-12-2007, 08:26 AM

I'm fine with us being given the option to charge him or release him. I realize he was here legally but as I said years ago, all non U.S. citizen middle easterners I would have kicked their asses back to their homeland on 9/12/01. Those who had become citizens I guess we'd be stuck with. Maybe it's not their fault that enough of their countrymen are freaks but it is what it is and I'd rather have one innocent guy locked up than have him blow up a few thousand.

***PATSNUTme*** · 06-12-2007, 08:36 AM

I'm fine with this as long as it doesn't get broadened to include non- American citizens.

I agree that American citizens that are part of terrorist groups and plotting againts us should be tried for treason right here in American courts.

Pujo · 06-12-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATSNUTme

I'm fine with this as long as it doesn't get broadened to include non- American citizens.

I agree that American citizens that are part of terrorist groups and plotting againts us should be tried for treason right here in American courts.

This ruling had nothing to do with citizens, it had to do with a a legal, non-citizen resident.

***patsfan13*** · 06-12-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/11/te....ap/index.html

Now they're not saying Bush can't go after terrorists, and they're not saying we have to give up and convert to Islam, but they are saying the military can't just seize people who live in America, on American soil, and lock them up forever. And this is the most conservative federal circuit saying that. I'm assuming we have 100% agreement that it's a good thing we live in America, a rule-of-law country?

The 2 so called 'conservative' judges who voted against the administration, were both Clinton appointee's. I just love how the 'objective, non biased' journalist's at CNN present
the news.

Pujo · 06-12-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The 2 so called 'conservative' judges who voted against the administration, were both Clinton appointee's. I just love how the 'objective, non biased' journalist's at CNN present
the news.

Like it or not, the 4th Circuit in Virginia is seen as the most conservative circuit court. Now circuit judges usually sit in 3 judge panels so there's potential for the court's more liberal judges to make a decision, but this is still very different from the 9th Circuit in California making this ruling.