Another thing that is odd:
I find that quote from the 4th court very odd. The court seems to be saying that those charged with al Qaeda related crimes can be treated differently then others. Hopefully the courts are not stupid enough to go down that road.
Moreover, the court seems to think that we are at war with al Qaeda. I don't know what the legal justification for such a conclusion could possibly be. According to the (deprecated) Constitution, the president does not have the unilateral power to declare war; only congress can declare war. Congress has made no such declaration, so the concept al Qaeda being "an entity with which the United States is at war" is just not there. It may well be that the president does inded have the power to "detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with" a declared enemy when the country is officially and legally at war, but since we're currently neither, this ruling is faulty (ObDisclaimer: IANAL). I would expect the appeal to the USSC (assuming the USSC can scrounge up a quorum) to attack this ruling on this concept.
[Edit: Just read DrooK's post above. Great minds, etc... ;-) ]
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
Edited by
jb4
Sept. 9, 2005, 04:13:03 PM EDT
Another thing that is odd:
I find that quote from the 4th court very odd. The court seems to be saying that those charged with al Qaeda related crimes can be treated differently then others. Hopefully the courts are not stupid enough to go down that road.
Moreover, the court seems to think that we are at war with al Qaeda. I don't know what the legal justification for such a conclusion could possibly be. According to the (deprecated) Constitution, the president does not have the unilateral power to declare war; only congress can declare war. Congress has made no such declaration, so the concept al Qaeda being "an entity with which the United States is at war" is just not there. It may well be that the president does inded have the power to "detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with" a declared enemy when the country is officially and legally at war, but since we're currently neither, this ruling is faulty (ObDisclaimer: IANAL). I would expect the appeal to the USSC (assuming the USSC can scrounge up a quorum) to attack this ruling on this concept.
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
