Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Andrew McCarthy On The Fourth "Circus" Court's Idiocy. UPDATED And Bumped!

Neither of us were too happy with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision rendered yesterday that stated either al-Qaeda operative, Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri, be given a trial in US crimial courts, or be released. We agree wholeheartedly with Andrew McCarthy's assessment of this decision. It is a return to the September 10th mentality that will only beckon our enemies to strike us again:

Strike another blow for lawfare: The use of the American people’s courts as a weapon against the American people in a war prosecuted by the president — the only public official elected by all Americans — under an authorization for the use of military force overwhelmingly passed by the American people’s representatives in congress. And all for the benefit of an alien sent here to attack us.

Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri is an al-Qaeda-trained terrorist embedded here by the terror network, right before 9/11, as a “sleeper” operative to sabotage the United States — by committing acts of terror and using his techno-skills to disrupt the economy by computer hacking. President Bush thus designated al-Marri as an unlawful enemy combatant in the war on terror, and the government proffered this and other information to a federal judge — a presentation al-Marri did not rebut.

Despite all this; despite the fact that the nation remains at war; despite the fact that Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and other assorted Qaeda mouthpieces continue to promise the organization is planning devastating attacks against our homeland; and despite the fact that, as we catastrophically saw less than six years ago, such attacks cannot occur absent the machinations of terrorists, like al-Marri, planted inside our country; a federal court Monday intervened on the enemy’s behalf.

Specifically, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled that the commander-in-chief may not detain a terrorist operative as an unlawful enemy combatant if that operative has managed to enter the United States and is present here lawfully — something perhaps worth the president’s consideration as he insists on trying to resuscitate an ill-advised comprehensive immigration bill that would make every illegal alien’s presence lawful.

Instead, the majority ruled that al-Marri, a national of Qatar here on a student visa, must either be given a full-blown trial in the civilian-justice system or be released. That is, our “choice” is either to afford al-Marri — who answered directly to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and met personally with bin Laden — a proceeding in which he would receive lavish discovery that could be extremely helpful to the people trying to kill us, or to release him so that he could rejoin the jihad and continue trying to kill us himself.

Al-Marri is not a US citizen. He is a foreign national here -- legally -- but who's intent was to harm this nation. He was not hear to surveil or blend in. He was here to cause disruption and terror inside of our borders. Because of this glaring fact, it baffles us that the fourth Circuit Court decided to find in favor of an enemy of this nation rather than in favor of the President of the United States -- the enumerated commander-in-chief via the US Constitution.

His job, in retrospect, is to protect this nation. People like al-Marri, like Jose Padilla are here as soldiers for al-Qaeda. They wear no uniform, answer to no known commander (known being easily identifiable), nor does any nation claim them. Under Geneva Convention rules he is an unlawful combatant. Additionally, he is a saboteur. Ex parte Quirin is a long-held Supreme Court precedent that allows the prosecution of such individuals, and their subsequent executions. This case alone should quash the Fourth Circuit's ruling.

This case will be reviewed (likely en banc), and if they still reach the same conclusion, we expect to see the case appealed to the DC Circuit Court, and possibly the Supreme Court. If appealed to the high court, we doubt they would be willing to reverse themselves; the 1942 case of Quirin. Al-Marri does not possess, and never has possessed, the same rights that we do. The fourth Circuit Court's idea that he should be extended such rights goes beyond idiotic. It is dangerous, not only with the precedent it threatens to set, but in returning to a time in this nation's history where we ignore the fact that these animals are working to destroy this nation.


ADDENDUM: The Editors @ NRO also weigh in on this simply baffling decision:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on Monday that Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri — an alien al Qaeda operative from Qatar, sent to the United States the day before 9/11 to conduct follow-up attacks and explore the potential for electronic disruptions of our reeling nation’s financial system — may not lawfully be detained as an enemy combatant in the war on terror.

According to the court, we have two options: Release al-Marri and thus enable him to rejoin the jihad; or try him in the civilian criminal-justice system, where he’d be entitled to — and able to share with his confederates — the fruits of discovery from U.S. intelligence files detailing the enemy’s capabilities and plans.

The United States is not at war with the uniformed army of a sovereign nation like Germany or Japan. But we are still at war — with a transnational terror network, whose jihadist operatives are often, but not always, abetted by enemy nations. ...

The wartime use of force obviously includes the detention of enemy combatants, as the Supreme Court found in its 2004 Hamdi decision. Such detentions are sanctioned by laws of war older than the United States, customs that permit the detention of enemy operatives for the collection of intelligence and depletion of enemy assets. These are standards designed to end wars justly, humanely, and more promptly. As a member of an al Qaeda sleeper cell, al-Marri was just such an enemy combatant, the commander-in-chief had found. Though lawfully in the United States on a student visa, he was in communication with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, among others.

Since al-Marri’s efforts were acts of war rather than mere crimes, President Bush ordered him held as an alien unlawful enemy combatant. But now the Fourth Circuit has substituted the commander-in-chief’s wartime judgment with its own.

Two judges — Diana Gribbon Motz, a Clinton appointee, and Roger Gregory, an unsuccessful Clinton appointee renominated by President Bush in a good-will gesture to Democrats — ordered that al-Marri be released or referred to the civilian-justice system for a full-fledged criminal trial. ...

Dissenting district judge Henry E. Hudson, sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Virginia, had it right: We are at war and Congress has authorized the president to use force against enemy operatives, including, as necessary, to detain them. Jihadists needn’t be part of a militia attached to a traditional national army to be such operatives. Nor, in this asymmetrical war, need they be captured on a traditional battlefield outside the United States. Indeed, those captured inside our country are the most dangerous of all. In the war on terror, the battlefield is wherever al Qaeda launches its next attack.

Indeed. Earlier this afternoon, Thomas brought up my argument that Ex parte Quirin should kill the Fourth Circuit Court's assertions that this man is not an enemy combatant, lawfully detained untder the AUMF that Congress gave the president to Hugh Hewitt. While Hugh acknowledged the precedent of Quirin, he pointed out that the Fourth Circuit Court completely ignored this precedent. He does agree than this will face an en banc review, and if necessary, the Supreme Court will reverse this decision.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home