To read the whole story, go to: http://news.yahoo.co… I am sure the MSM and AP will be all over this story shortly.
The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 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.
“This is a landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power,” al-Marri’s lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, said in a statement. “It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals ? citizens and immigrants ? in the United States.”
Surely, we live in interesting and perilous times.
They already drew their line in the sand in Hamdi. More to the point, Bush’s opinion numbers have tanked, so there is little to lose from challenging the Executive in this way, and much to gain insofar as they will establish a precedent for judicial activism.
is no conservative. The 4th Circuit generally is, but Motz is an exception.
An extremely conservative panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of an enemy combatant.
<
p>
There has been no finding by either a federal court or a military tribunal that al Marri was properly designated an enemy combatant by Bush. That was the whole point of the decision in that case.
<
p>
Regarding the swipe at Judge Motz in a comment above, it should be noted that, although she was initially a Clinton recess appointment, she was thereafter nominated by Bush and confirmed by a Republican Senate.
And I was merely reporting this decision. I do not personally know or care if Judge Motz is liberal or conservative. What I do care about is that she or he is willing to uphold the Bill of Rights.
…your source erred. Discussions of the opinions of the case have been all over the law blogs.
…regarding the conservativism/liberalism of Judge Motz, I was referring, not to your post, but to the comment directly above mine. I’ve read parts of the majority opinion (Motz’s) and the entirety of the dissent, and find the majority much more persuasive. It is an issue of the constitutionality of the withdrawal of the right of habeas corpus.
…the issue of the right of habeas corpus was so important that it was mentioned in the Federalist Papers, FP84 (Fourth paragraph).
But dont tell Bush or he might throw me in jail.