NYT editorial, A Ruling for Justice: "the law does not give Mr. Bush power to seize a civilian..."

[DeepModem Mom]

A Ruling for Justice
Published: June 12, 2007

For years, President Bush has made the grandiose claim that the Congressional authorization to attack Afghanistan after 9/11 was a declaration of a “war on terror” that gave him the power to decide who the combatants are and throw them into military prisons forever."

Yesterday, in a powerful 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit utterly rejected the president’s claims. The majority made clear how threatening the administration’s policies are to the Constitution and the rule of law — and how far the administration has already gone down that treacherous road.

Mr. Bush, the majority said, does not claim these powers for dire emergencies but “maintains that the authority to order the military to seize and detain certain civilians is an inherent power of the presidency, which he and his successors may exercise as they please.”...

The court did not say Mr. Marri was innocent, nor that he must be set free. It said that the law does not give Mr. Bush the power to seize a civilian living in the United States and declare him to be an enemy combatant based on whatever definition he chooses to apply. If Mr. Marri is to be kept in prison, it said, he must be tried and convicted in a civilian court....

***

This ruling is another strong argument for bringing Mr. Bush’s detention camps under the rule of law. Congress can do that by repealing the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, which endorsed Mr. Bush’s twisted system of indefinite detentions, by closing Guantánamo Bay and by allowing the courts to sort out the prisoners — not according to the whims of one president with an obvious disdain for the balance of powers but by the rules of justice that have guided this nation for more than 200 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/opinion/12tue1.html

[ninkasi]

1. K&R

This is a great editorial. Thanks for posting, DeepModem Mom. We need to stop the Chimp's relentless goose-stepping our country into a fascist dictatorship. He is clearly a sociopathic, and will stop at nothing to have his way. He is poison to our democracy, along with his equally psychotic neo-con pals.

Never, in my wildest imagination, did I ever think I'd see the day when we had a country who stooped to torture, and shredding the Constitution. All of the bedrock principles our country was founded on have been weakened by this arrogant man's reign of terror against the rule of law, and the American people. The only solution I see is impeaching him and his puppet-master, Cheney.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Thanks for your post! nt

[indepat]

17. And everyone who still supports/enables want W to have unfettered power:

the whole lot of supporters/enabler are thus fuc*ing wholly 100% un-American imnsho and unworthy of living in this once land of the free and home of the brave.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. The court's opinion itself is pretty blistering, too.

"...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. For a court to uphold a
claim to such extraordinary power would do more than render
lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the
rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth
Amendments; it would effectively undermine all of the freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution. It is that power -- were a court
to recognize it -- that could lead all our laws “to go unexecuted,
and the government itself to go to pieces.” We refuse to recognize
a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations
of our Republic." (pp. 76-77)

http://www.findlaw.com/

No wonder the Bushies hate the judicial branch.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Wow! Thanks, ocelot! nt

[Canuckistanian]

10. Damn activist judges....

They should all be replaced by Bush loyalists.

Because Bush loyalists all do a heckuva job, don't they?

Totally unnecessary, but ------> :sarcasm:

[L. Coyote]

12. Bush could be leading "the government itself to go to pieces" per this ruling.

Never in the history of the Republic has a President been given such a scolding from a court ruling, TTBOMK. The President is a threat to "the constitutional foundations of our Republic." Well, let's correct the problem. Simple enough. Impeach.

Anyone noticing a very significant turn of the American tide in the major media lately. Maybe the blogosphere has greater gravitational force than previously realized? We were out in front of the big wave, folks!

[originalpckelly]

4. The stunning part of the decision is that it comes from the 4th Circuit...

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is one of the most, if not the most, conservative circuit court in the entire country.

This is not an example of "liberal judges" stealing power or overstepping their bounds, this is a case where people who are real conservatives stared down the wolf in sheep's clothing.

However little or much it may matter, I congratulate them.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Thanks for that info, pc! nt

[OregonBlue]

16. But this was the three judge panel and the government is going to appeal to the

full court. If they are that conservative, isn't it likely that they will overturn this ruling?

[theoldman]

6. I am 73 years old and not in my lifetime has a president

abused his powers as much as Bush. I wish I were younger to see if he will be punished in the years to come.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Indeed! nt

[w4rma]

9. Which judge supports allowing U.S. Presidents to throw U.S. citizens into prison without a trial? nt

[L. Coyote]

13. Totally excellent point. As long as there is just one of these, danger lurks

[baldguy]

11. Will sanity yet reign in America?

Only if the Dems become angry.

[Tatiana]

14. Hudson's dissent is particularly galling.

<snip>

"I believe the district court correctly concluded that the President had the authority to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant or belligerent. Although Al-Marri was not personally engaged in armed conflict with U.S. forces, he is the type of stealth warrior used by al Qaeda to perpetuate terrorist acts against the United States..." (p. 86)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/067427p.pdf (registration required)

The spectre of 9/11 is raised several times by this judge and he sounds like a walking Bushbot (TERRA! AL QAEDA! SEPTEMBER 11TH! TERRA!). He basically admits the majority opinion was well-researched and has solid legal founding, but thinks the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) gives the President the authority to do whatever he wishes and that trumps all other protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

Great editorial post, DeepModem Mom. This really restores my faith in the belief that there are more sane than insane judges out there on the federal bench.

[baldguy]

15. "...he is the type of stealth warrior used by al Qaeda..."

Except that Al-Marri hasn't been convicted of anything. Hudson is trying to do the prosecution's job instead of being a judge.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Exactly.

Maybe there really is evidence that Al-Marri is associated with Al-Qaeda or has done some other nasty terroristic shit -- but it's only evidence; it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt; he hasn't been convicted of any crime. He hasn't even been tried. For that matter, the poor bastard hasn't even been officially charged with anything.

It wouldn't matter even if he were really Osama Bin Laden himself. It wouldn't matter if he were Adolf Fucking Hitler. (Didn't a whole bunch of really evil Nazis get public trials after WWII?) He gets a trial in which the government has the burden of proving all elements of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Period. I can't figure out why these anti-Constitutional assholes think the right to habeas corpus and legal representation and an actual trial should depend on how bad a terrorist they THINK the guy is.

Why would letting somebody have a fair trial constitute a danger to America? Are they so afraid that they might be acquitted? Like, maybe, they might actually be innocent and they have to let them go? Like there's something wrong with showing the rest of the world that we can conduct fair, legal trials of even the worst, most dangerous people? Ramzi Yusef and the other guys behind the first WTC bombing were captured, tried and convicted in a federal court following a normal criminal trial, and now they're doing life in a maximum security prison.

What the hell is wrong with that result? Apart from the fact that it happened during the Clinton Administration?

Dammit, these assholes piss me off...

[baldguy]

19. We didn't need any secret evidence at the Nuremberg Trials