Bush suffers court setbacks

[jetdawgg]

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles...2?ecid=RSS0001

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush 's broad assertions of power in his war on terrorism are under assault by U.S. judges who have rejected his indefinite imprisonment of enemy combatants and the domestic spying program.

A pair of recent rulings, one from military judges and the other from a U.S. appeals court, delivered new legal setbacks for Bush's tactics in dealing with terrorism suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in the United States.

"In case after case, this nation's judicial branch has told the administration that it may not trample on fundamental rights in the name of national security," said Hina Shamsi of the New York-based group Human Rights First.

A federal appeals court panel in Virginia ruled 2-1 on Monday that Bush could not declare civilians in this country to be enemy combatants and have the military hold them indefinitely.

The ruling said Bush overstepped his authority in the case of a Qatari national and suspected al-Qaeda operative, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who has been held in military custody for four years without any charges.

Human rights and civil liberties groups said the decision underscored the importance of judicial review as a check on Bush's executive power.

"Once again, the courts have stepped in to rein in the executive and restore the rule of law," said Jennifer Daskal, U.S. advocacy director of Human Rights Watch.

The ruling came a week after military judges dismissed all charges against the only two Guantanamo prisoners facing trial, saying they had been designated only as "enemy combatants," and not "unlawful enemy combatants" as required by a 2006 law.

The decisions added to a number of earlier rulings that went against the Bush administration over the past three years.

Last August, a federal judge in Detroit ruled that Bush's domestic spying program, adopted after the September 11 attacks, violated free-speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency.

Five months later, the administration abandoned the program and agreed to get court approval for the electronic surveillance. It still has appealed the ruling to a U.S. appeals court, which has yet to decide.

The U.S. Supreme Court in three rulings since 2004 has rejected Bush's position in terrorism cases, including the most recent one a year ago that struck down as illegal his initial system of military trials for Guantanamo prisoners.

Bush administration officials predicted the al-Marri decision would be overturned by the full appeals court, which is controlled by conservative judges and has ruled for the administration in at least two other terrorism cases.

'LAW IS ON OUR SIDE'

"We think the law is on our side in this one," one U.S. official said. The official and others said al-Marri trained at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan during the 1990s and entered the United States just before the September 11 attacks as a "sleeper agent."

The officials also expressed confidence the two Guantanamo trials ultimately would go forward.

The Pentagon has asked the military judges to reconsider their decisions. If the judges refuse, the administration next could appeal to a military court, they said.

The officials point to some significant wins for Bush's terrorism policies.

A U.S. appeals court in February upheld the law that Bush pushed through the then-Republican -led Congress last year that took away the right of the Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their confinement before U.S. federal judges.

That law also created the new system of military trials for Guantanamo prisoners to replace the one struck down by the Supreme Court.

With Democrats now in control of Congress, legislation is moving forward that would restore the rights of the approximately 380 prisoners now at Guantanamo to challenge their imprisonment.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Jet, just when I thought we were making a Republican outta you....

However, this is again a case of the court meddling in things they have not a clue about. Stupid.

Typical "9/10" mentality rolling here.

[erased]

Why, did God appoint Bush king of America on 9/11?

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Yes, didn't you get the message?

[erased]

Oh... ok... well... that sucks.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That one was too easy.... Sorry dude...

[jetdawgg]

SGT Lep, I am a conservative leaning independent. The current policies have made a mockery of being one.

[JinxJr]

As a conservative, leaning Independant I'm giving "W" the benefit of the doubt on some of this. I think the process is a little convoluted in the handling/management of the detainees but we've had our hands on some of these bad guys and let them go only to get bitten in the backside later. Besides, what is the difference between "enemy combatants" and "unlawful enemy combatants"? Are there LAWFUL enemy combatants? That kind of semantics is pure, unadulterated crap! If you're a combatant for the enemy, lawful or...whatever...and you're incarcerated, you lose. Getting fed? Allowed to practice your religious beliefs? Being sheltered? Hey, your fundamental rights have just been covered. If I get captured in the Middle East I'll get none of the above for the brief amount of time I'll be allowed to live.

[jetdawgg]

As a conservative, leaning Independant I'm giving "W" the benefit of the doubt on some of this. I think the process is a little convoluted in the handling/management of the detainees but we've had our hands on some of these bad guys and let them go only to get bitten in the backside later. Besides, what is the difference between "enemy combatants" and "unlawful enemy combatants"? Are there LAWFUL enemy combatants? That kind of semantics is pure, unadulterated crap! If you're a combatant for the enemy, lawful or...whatever...and you're incarcerated, you lose. Getting fed? Allowed to practice your religious beliefs? Being sheltered? Hey, your fundamental rights have just been covered. If I get captured in the Middle East I'll get none of the above for the brief amount of time I'll be allowed to live.

What about the ones that are not guilty of anything? How long do we continue to hold those prisoners?

This sh1t stinks.

[JinxJr]

I did mention that the process was a little convoluted. I didn't say there weren't some who were caught being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can find examples of that in our own prisons...doesn't make it right but when the boy next door hangs out with the meth lab operator across the street he's gonna look guilty. Sure it stinks but isn't "better safe than sorry" a good philosophy?

[jetdawgg]

JInxJr, safe but sorry is one thing. This policy is an unequivocal disaster and now with the democrats enabling the republicans, there looks to be no end in sight.

The only ones getting something out of this other than the defense contractors are a few lawyers that work for the gov't. The prisoners can't get lawyers.

[JinxJr]

We aren't that far off from agreeing here; I don't think "disaster" quite fits though. There are some cases of damn shame but these guys didn't get caught with Darwin Award candidates who rob convenient stores or steal cars in Cleveland, Ohio. They should have some legal "counsel" sure.

[jetdawgg]

The disaster part that I speak of is that this policy is not scableable. We have now let Iran take the moral ground when it comes to prisoners. Iran let the British Marines and Sailors go back in Mar/Apr.

They held us prisoners for 444 days (including 10 Marines) and now we have held some prisoners for 3/4 years in GTMO. With no counsel, torture and who knows what other human rights violations.

In fact one guys was a car thief.

[erased]

"Besides, what is the difference between 'enemy combatants' and 'unlawful enemy combatants'?"

Enemy combatants are protected under the Geneva Conventions... unlawful combatants apparently aren't.

[jetdawgg]

"Besides, what is the difference between 'enemy combatants' and 'unlawful enemy combatants'?"

Enemy combatants are protected under the Geneva Conventions... unlawful combatants apparently aren't.

erased, that is where the Wasnington lawyers got paid.....