Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
sysprog
Published Letters: 2957 Editor's Choice: 2
If it's summer, then it's time for Mr. Abrams.
And here he is:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3436
The U.S.-trained Fatah forces are under the command of Palestinian national security adviser Mohammed Dahlan, who was appointed by President Mahmoud Abbas under pressure from [Elliott Abrams]
Remember last summer?
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/69331.htm
July 21, 2006
SECRETARY RICE:
What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East.
Yeah, that went so well, let's do it again.
Solid Bush follower Andrew McCarthy, as one would expect, agrees with dissenting judge Henry Hudson that cases like the al-Marri case can't be handled in civilian courts.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWVlMGZlMzJhN2EwMWU0YjIzZjkwOGRlOTBlY2UxYTQ=
June 12, 2007 10:10 AM
Lawfare Strikes AgainBy Andrew C. McCarthy
Strike another blow for lawfare: The use of the American people’s courts as a weapon [ . . . ] unaccountable federal courts, not political officials answerable to Americans [ . . . ] That’s not self-defense. That’s suicide. This decision must be reversed.
— Andrew C. McCarthy directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
McCarthy doesn't address the fact that cases like the al-Marri case are, in fact, handled in civilian court.
That's the general rule.
The handling of the al-Marri case is an unusual (so far) exception, and McCarthy offers no reason why this case is different from other such cases, except that President Bush says so.
Cases like the al-Marri case are mentioned in footnote 16 of Judge Motz's decision.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/067427.P.pdf
The Government’s treatment of al-Marri, i.e. subjecting him to military detention, which the Government insists “is not ‘punishment,’” is at odds with the Government’s repeated recognition that criminal terrorist conduct by aliens in this country merits punishment by a civilian court, not indefinite military detention as an enemy combatant. See, e.g., United States v. Abdi, 463 F.3d 547, 550 (6th Cir. 2006) (civilian prosecution of suspected al-Qaeda terrorist who allegedly “indicated a desire to ‘shoot up’ a Columbus shopping mall with an AK-47”); United States v. Moussaoui, 382 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2004) (civilian prosecution of surviving al Qaeda conspirator involved in the September 11th attacks); United States v. Reid, 369 F.3d 619, 619-20 (1st Cir. 2004) (civilian prosecution of terrorist allied with Bin Laden who attempted to destroy airplane with explosives); United States v. Goba, 240 F. Supp. 2d 242, 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) (civilian prosecution of associates of al Qaeda, including those who met with Bin Laden and trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan). Moreover, the Government is now prosecuting Jose Padilla in civilian court for his crimes. This practice is hardly new. Even the civilian co-conspirators of the Quirin petitioners were tried for their crimes in civilian courts. See Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945); United States v. Haupt, 136 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1943).
If, as McCarthy insists, putting all those cases into civilian courts has been "suicide" for the U.S.A. - - then how come we ain't dead yet?
If it's almost summer, then it's time for Mr. Abrams.
And here he goes again, laying his eggs in somebody else's
nest:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3436
The U.S.-trained Fatah forces are under the command of Palestinian national security adviser Mohammed Dahlan, who was appointed by President Mahmoud Abbas under pressure from [Elliott Abrams]
Remember the summer of '06?
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/69331.htm
July 21, 2006
SECRETARY RICE:What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East.
Yeah, that went so well, let's do it again.
Of course, to be fair, it's not just seasonal.
War is always in season.
Excelsior! Tehran delenda est!
Cuccu, cuccu, well singes thu, neocuccu.
Dodd Harris is a conservative Republican, but, as you might expect from somebody blogging with Joyner, he's no Andy McCarthy.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/06/bad_facts_dont_always_make_bad_law
Dodd | Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Fourth Circuit panel’s 2-1 decision in the al-Marri case today has resulted in a predictable round of triumphalism among the Administration’s opponents. I am here to argue that, even though I agree with the result, that triumphalism is inapposite. The case was not, as al-Marri’s lawyer (from whom the hyperbole is at least understandable) would have it, “landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power.”[. . . ] In truth, the question presented is much narrower than most of the commentary I’ve seen would have it.
[ . . .] It will probably surprise many, but one of the panel’s best arguments against the Government’s position is that indefinite detention of al-Marri as an enemy combatant is prohibited by the PATRIOT ACT. One thing everyone seems to have wrong is the oft-repeated contention that this was a major Constitutional decision. The panel expressly sidestepped the Constitutional question as to whether or not the Military Commissions Act’s habeas provisions are Constitutional as applied to resident aliens (rightly so, under judicial canon) by finding that al-Marri’s detention met only one, but not both, of the two requirements in that portion of the MCA. They also found that, while the Fourth Circuit did indeed interpret the AUMF to include the power to detain enemy combatants (that precedent is still good law; the case was mooted before the SupCt could rule on the matter), that power is a general, implied one. Since specific provisions in the PATRIOT ACT relating to “terrorist aliens” conflict with the broader, unspecified AUMF power as they relate to the specific facts of this case, the panel (quite reasonably) applied the specific rather than the general.
In short, this was a statutory interpretation decision, not a Constitutional one. The fact that I (and many others) would still have agreed with it had it been based on the Due Process Clause rather than interpretation of conflicting statutes doesn’t change that.
- - Dodd Harris
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
