Man labeled 'enemy combatant' wins US court case

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Man labeled 'enemy combatant' wins US court case
11 Jun 2007 16:20:54 GMT

WASHINGTON, June 11 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush lacks
the power to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain a
Qatari national and suspected al Qaeda operative who is the only
person being held in the United States as an "enemy combatant,"
a U.S. appeals court ruled on Monday.

In a major setback for the Bush's policies in the war on terrorism
adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks, the appellate panel ruled the
government's evidence afforded no basis to treat Ali Saleh Kahlah
al-Marri as an "enemy combatant" and ordered his release from
military custody.


Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAT007708.htm

[shance]

1. Is this what I think it is?

Is this..........good news?

It's been so long I had forgotten what it looked like.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

33. Yes, indeed

Habeus corpus has been restored !

[sabra]

2. wow - k & r

[Dhalgren]

3. Did a panel of judges actually stand up and say that the

Dictator was wearing no clothes? Jesus, that is so refreshing...

[MissMillie]

6. it's like the 3rd time in less than a week, I think

yes....

So much for his "powers as commander-in-chief...."

[ginnyinWI]

16. I think the house of cards is beginning to tumble down. n/t

[americanstranger]

4. This is big, big, big.

Blows a truck-sized hole in Bush's legal authority.

Note to Dems: It's foot-on-neck time.

- as

[Gregorian]

5. If I recall, we were all worried he'd never get representation.

But he did. So our deepest concerns didn't come true. The system is still working despite Bush.

This is a success! Now hurry up with the caving of this administration. We're way way over our limit.

[xxqqqzme]

7. This should be the number 1 news story

wonder if any corporate media controlled hair-do will read this story.

I do expect KO to cover it.

[Roland99]

8. Damn activist liberal judges giving aid and comfort to the enemy!!!

oh wait...


Judges upholding the rule of law?!?!?!!?


:D

[Judi Lynn]

9. Earlier details, from HRW:

Human Rights Watch

(New York, June 23, 2003) The Bush Administration’s designation of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari national living in the United States, as an "enemy combatant" threatens basic rights safeguards, Human Rights Watch said today. The Justice Department announced today that it was dropping criminal charges against al-Marri and that he would instead be held without charge by the U.S. military.

“The Bush Administration has once again done an end run around the criminal justice system,” said Wendy Patten, U.S. advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “It is invoking the laws of war in the United States to justify locking people up without charge and without access to a lawyer. This kind of military detention has no place in a country committed to the rule of law.”

Al-Marri is the third person held in the United States under military authority as an “enemy combatant.” Human Rights Watch maintains that there should be a strong presumption that anyone arrested in the United States, far from any battlefield, be granted the full legal protections of the criminal justice system – including the right to counsel and not to be held without charge.

Human Rights Watch disputes the government's contention that international humanitarian law, commonly referred to as the laws of war, permits the president to unilaterally designate al-Marri an "enemy combatant." The United States cannot declare a criminal suspect, including a suspected member of al-Qaeda, an enemy combatant, except where there has been direct participation in an international armed conflict. International humanitarian law is inapplicable outside areas of armed conflict and where there is no direct connection to an armed conflict. Instead, the protections of international human rights law apply. In the case of a person detained in the United States, the protections of U.S. constitutional law apply as well. These protections include the rights to be formally charged and permitted access to counsel

More:
http://collegefreedom.org/AMhrw03.htm

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Explanation needed

How exactly can the Justice Department drop criminal charges against this guy but continue to hold him, exactly? I realize that this might be a "dumb question" when dealing with the Bush (mis-)administration but under what authority are they continuing to hold him WITHOUT charges?

[Enrique]

12. that's what I understand enemy combatant means

I believe few if any prisoners at Guantanamo have been charged. Some of the legal battles are the prisoners fighting to have the govt. charge them so they can be tried.

[treestar]

23. So much for * trying to declare the entire U.S. a war zone

That was their theory, IIRC - that the war on Terra was special and created a war zone of the entire world.

[deepthought42]

10. I saw this and I thought...

wait...is this good news? Is there such a thing? I don't know anything about the story, but from the title alone it was appear to be good news...but appearances can be deceiving.


:toast:

[madrchsod]

19. yes it is good news

what is even better news is that there`s little time left for the whitehouse to appeal to the supremes.even if it does go to the supremes he has no guarantee that that would overturn an appeals court ruling.they could kick it back to the appeals court but that would mean any ruling would be next summer. good news

[Marnieworld]

13. Has this negated his Executive Order?

I don't know the number of it but I'm pretty sure it was in NOvember 2001 that * signed an order stating more or less that he can decide if anyone is an enemy combatant and can completely decide their fate including death. I recall how chilling it was that he decreed the power of who gets to live and die.

Was this a test of that order or any signing statements? How long until the Supreme Court can overturn this?

[slipslidingaway]

14. "al Marri -- Big News From the Fourth Circuit "

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/06/al-marri-big-news-from-fourth-circuit.html

snip>>

Marty Lederman

"The U.S. Court of Appeals today held that the military detention of U.S. resident alien Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is unlawful: "We conclude that we must grant al-Marri habeas relief. Even assuming the truth of the Government’s allegations, the President lacks power to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain al-Marri. If the Government accurately describes al-Marri’s conduct, he has committed grave crimes. But we have found no
authority for holding that the evidence offered by the Government affords a basis for treating al-Marri as an enemy combatant, or as anything other than a civilian."

[Barrett808]

15. k & r

[ClayZ]

17. Yay! K and R

[happygoluckytoyou]

18. LIBERAL JUDGES MOVE HIM TO PRISON... LEE BACA SENDS HIM HOME...

bush is heard to say

"I'm not the same person I was, I used to act dumb. It was an act. I am 26 years old, and that act is no longer cute. It is not who I am, nor do I want to be that person for the young girls who looked up to me.
"I know now that I can make a difference, that I have the power to do that. I have been thinking that I want to do different things when I am out of here. I have become much more spiritual. God has given me this new chance."

[madrchsod]

20. they could seek federal custody

this applies only to the military power...so much for one of the cornerstones of his overthrow of the republic

[treestar]

21. I wish they would quit referring to those types of cases as "setbacks"

on the war on terra. They ought to be called "victories for the Constitution."

[MissMillie]

24. damned straight

:applause:

[Richard Steele]

22. A small victory for "rule of law". K&R

[GuvWurld]

25. Here is another interpretation

We often see or read what we want to. I think that is happening with this story in a big way. Yes, it is good news that a court, or anybody, has stood up to *. But let's break this down...

The headline is:

Man labeled 'enemy combatant' wins US court case

This story is good news for one man.

The story begins:

President George W. Bush lacks the power to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain a {man}...

And yet it happened, so he therefore does have the power as long as people will follow his orders.

The story continues:

...suspected al Qaeda operative who is the only person being held in the United States as an "enemy combatant,"...

There is no proof this is the only person being held inside the U.S. and we know for sure there are others being held under similar terms outside the U.S.

Furthermore:

...the appellate panel ruled the government's evidence afforded no basis to treat Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri as an "enemy combatant"...

At least according to this article, this ruling did not say the phony "enemy combatant" term could not be applied to other people, only that in this case there is no reason to think the term applies to al-Marri. What is more, it does not say that this term, even if justifiably applied, should not result in indefinite detention without charges.

This is good news for one man and that's about it. I caution you all against thinking that this or anything will rein in the exercise of illegitimate power until * is permanently confined to a cell, a pine box, or otherwise. His power endures by virtue of those willing to do as he says, and the approval or prohibition of a court was not and never will be any of their concern.

[Marnieworld]

34. "Slight setback for Bush's continuing unconstitutional law breaking"

That would be an accurate headline but not one we'll see. I often parse these articles for all of the thing unsaid as well. It's very frustrating. It's clear that the * admin, wants to act outside the law, did in this case, does still in many cases yet it's not framed that way. They are tapping us without warrants still, and who knows what other illegal shenanigans are happening that we don't know about as we speak with DOJ approval courtesy of Gonzalez?

Disappointing court ruling is how they phrase it, not a gain in the fight to bring the law and the constitution back to our government. Again and again they have been informed that they are committing illegal acts but yet they continue to do so out in the open? It's madness.

[BrainGlutton]

26. You KNOW the Admin is going to appeal this to the Supreme Court.

What then?

[rodeodance]

27. Court rules against enemy combatant policy

Source: ap



June 11, 2007, 2:56PM
Court rules against enemy combatant policy


By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON
Associated Press


RICHMOND, Va. — The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said today.

The ruling was a harsh rebuke of one of the central tools the administration believes it has to combat terror.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country," the court panel said.

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court. It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

The government intends to ask the full 4th Circuit to hear the case, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.



Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4879491.html

[populist101]

28. finally, a good ruling.

The MCA, as well as plenty of other legislation this government decides to pass, does not have the power to strip rights from people. Congress can pass any laws they want, but it doesn't change the constitution or our inalienable rights. period.

The Constitution doesn’t apply to Americans. It doesn’t apply to foreigners. It applies to the Federal Government, and there’s nothing in there that gives the feds this kind of power.

Some follow up reading:

“To Whom Does the Bill of Rights Apply?”
http://www.populistamerica.com/to_whom_does_the_bill_of_rights_apply

[dave123williams]

29. BOO YAH Habeas LIVES.

Source: MSNBC


"RICHMOND, Va. - The Bush administration cannot legally detain a legal U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday.

The case involves a Qatari national and suspected al-Qaida operative who is the only person being held in the United States as an "enemy combatant."

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act does not strip Ali al-Marri of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court. It ruled the government must allow him to be released from military detention."



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19172214/

---

Those scum in this administration that believe that they can hold prisoners without charge have had their day in court, and lost. And not a minute too soon - make no mistake they'd take any victory in this regard as precedent to hold you indefinitely, without charge. And they'd do it in the name of protecting the citizenry from whatever amorphous threat they saw fit to invent. They'd do it in the name of freedom, and pat themselves on the back for how moral they were.

"All enemies foreign AND domestic" to be sure.

[atreides1]

30. Don't Get the Champagne Out Yet

The Bush Cabal isn't done fighting for the chance to be real fascist!

[SpiralHawk]

31. Another blow against republicon fascism

But how can there have been a divided vote?

Civilized people made up their minds on habeas corpus over 400 years ago

-- the republicons really HATE democracy and America, that's for sure

[drm604]

32. Divided?

This is a good ruling but it's disturbing that it was divided. This should have easily been unanimous.