A Victory For The Constitution
Let's hope this is a trend.
06/11/2007 12:02:41 EST Court Rules in Favor of Enemy Combatant
By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON
Associated Press Writer
Maybe this guy is a terrorist or extremist supporter. I don't know the details.
All I know is that if he is a citizen, he is protected by habeas corpus and must be charged, and tried in the light of day. Then we all can know if he is guilty or not. It's how I would expect to be treated as a citizen.
I would really like to know if this guy is what they say. If he is, he should receive the appropriate punishment.
As long as he gets a fair trial, whether he deserves it or not, we can sleep with a clear conscience.
Tweet
06/11/2007 12:02:41 EST Court Rules in Favor of Enemy Combatant
By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON
Associated Press Writer
RICHMOND, Va. - The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court said sanctioning the indefinite detention of civilians would have "disastrous consequences for the constitution - and the country."
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.
Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree.
"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.
Al-Marri's lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus - defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.
Maybe this guy is a terrorist or extremist supporter. I don't know the details.
All I know is that if he is a citizen, he is protected by habeas corpus and must be charged, and tried in the light of day. Then we all can know if he is guilty or not. It's how I would expect to be treated as a citizen.
I would really like to know if this guy is what they say. If he is, he should receive the appropriate punishment.
As long as he gets a fair trial, whether he deserves it or not, we can sleep with a clear conscience.
Labels: Habeas Corpus, Military Commissions Act, U.S. Constitution
Submit To PropellerTweet