Talk about being convicted on the word of George Bush alone!
Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.
He moves in the *day before* 9/11 -- and *someone* decides he is an "Enemy Combatant". I really don't care what kind of contorted bullshit the government used to create that term. It is obscene, and it is an excuse to drop individuals down the oubliette with as much justice as French prisoners got from Louis.
Now look at the Government's argument:
The Bush administration's attorneys had urged the federal appeals panel to dismiss al-Marri's case, arguing that the act stripped the courts of jurisdiction to hear cases of detainees who are declared enemy combatants. They contended that Congress and the Supreme Court have given the president the authority to fight terrorism and prevent additional attacks on the nation.
"Given him the authority" -- you know, I don't think that anyone except a Bush attorney would think that throwing out the Constitution is encompassed in any "authority" that congress might grant. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that all those elected officials took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not destroy it in pursuit of illusory "safety".
Only George Bush and his trained Dementors would try such a thing. Why is he still in office? Why?
[crosspost @ Mockingbird's Medley]