Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (59939)	6/13/2007 1:19:53 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Unpack Your Adjectives When President Hillary Clinton suspends habeas corpus, don't come crying to us. Best of the Web Today BY JAMES TARANTO Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:24 p.m. EDT From a New York Times editorial today: <<< . . . grandiose . . . threatening . . . treacherous . . . dire . . . disastrous . . . powerful . . . relevant . . . strong . . . odious . . . >>> They left out "foggy" and "soggy." The subject is Al-Marri v. Wright, in which the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that the U.S. lacks the authority to detain as an enemy combatant one Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari national and U.S. resident alien who was captured in Peoria, Ill., and found to be "engaged in conduct that constituted hostile and war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism." The U.S. Supreme Court has previously held that U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants, including one--Abdullah al-Muhajir, né Jose Padilla--who had been captured in the U.S. What distinguishes al-Marri's case, according to Judge Diana Motz, is this: <<< Al-Marri is not alleged to have been part of a Taliban unit, not alleged to have stood alongside the Taliban or the armed forces of any other enemy nation, not alleged to have been on the battlefield during the war in Afghanistan, not alleged to have even been in Afghanistan during the armed conflict there, and not alleged to have engaged in combat with United States forces anywhere in the world. >>> To Motz and Judge Roger Gregory, both Clinton nominees, that makes him a civilian. Judge Henry Hudson dissented: 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 perpetrate terrorist acts against the United States. . . . There is little doubt from the evidence that al-Marri was present in the United States to aid and further the hostile and subversive activities of the organization responsible for the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. This makes clear the perversity of the court's reasoning. By its logic, alien terrorists are entitled to all the constitutional rights of civilians provided that they manage to stay out of Afghanistan and do their planning in America. The 9/11 terrorists, had they been caught, would have enjoyed more rights under this scheme than some low-level Taliban foot soldier. So-called civil liberties advocates who are cheering this ruling ought to take a moment to ponder its possible consequences. The Constitution gives the president the power to suspend habeas corpus in the event of rebellion or invasion, as President Lincoln did in 1862. President Bush is not about to suspend the writ. But let's say that two years from now America suffers another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, carried out by people who, like Al-Marri, did their planning within America and never set foot on a conventional battlefield. In the face of such an "invasion," does anyone doubt that, say, a President Hillary Clinton would suspend habeas corpus in a New York minute? opinionjournal.com nytimes.com fl1.findlaw.com