Ten Lords a' Leaping
_________________The Supreme Court agreed last week to decide whether the president has the power to label and detain indefinitely an "enemy combatant." Ali Saleh al-Marri is a Qatari man who was seized on U.S. soil and has been imprisoned in a Navy brig in South Carolina for over five years.
Al-Marri was not captured on a battlefield, but simply arrested here in the States. How does that make him an "enemy combatant"?
The Supreme Court has been largely AWOL during this critical time in U.S. history. Why is this only the fourth case being heard on the matter of illegal, open-ended detention?
A WaPo editorial asked incredulously today, "The question at one point would have seemed ridiculous: Can the president detain indefinitely, without charge or trial, a person who was captured on U.S. soil and is in the country legally? (The President's Prisoner)" But that was eight years ago, when we were a nation ruled by laws.
Former Federal Bureau of Investigations Director William Sessions and 11 other former federal judges in a legal filing said, "Under the (administration's) rationale, American citizens may be imprisoned indefinitely merely upon suspicion of being linked in some way to potential terrorism" (Supreme Court Takes Up Another Challenge to Bush's Terror Strategy.)
How does confining a lone suspect for five years in a Navy brig help the military protect our nation? According to former Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a congressionally commissioned report last year on WMD terrorism, says the U.S. is less safe today from such attacks, not more.
U.S. civil law is not designed as a military tool, yet in the U.S. today everything genuflects to military considerations. We must remember that people are not imprisoned in the U.S. to benefit the military lords. That behavior is the hallmark of regimes like Saddam Hussein's, for example.
George Bush's policy of indefinite detention sans charges is the definition of a dictatorship.
Al-Marri was not captured on a battlefield, but simply arrested here in the States. How does that make him an "enemy combatant"?
The Supreme Court has been largely AWOL during this critical time in U.S. history. Why is this only the fourth case being heard on the matter of illegal, open-ended detention?
A WaPo editorial asked incredulously today, "The question at one point would have seemed ridiculous: Can the president detain indefinitely, without charge or trial, a person who was captured on U.S. soil and is in the country legally? (The President's Prisoner)" But that was eight years ago, when we were a nation ruled by laws.
Former Federal Bureau of Investigations Director William Sessions and 11 other former federal judges in a legal filing said, "Under the (administration's) rationale, American citizens may be imprisoned indefinitely merely upon suspicion of being linked in some way to potential terrorism" (Supreme Court Takes Up Another Challenge to Bush's Terror Strategy.)
How does confining a lone suspect for five years in a Navy brig help the military protect our nation? According to former Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a congressionally commissioned report last year on WMD terrorism, says the U.S. is less safe today from such attacks, not more.
U.S. civil law is not designed as a military tool, yet in the U.S. today everything genuflects to military considerations. We must remember that people are not imprisoned in the U.S. to benefit the military lords. That behavior is the hallmark of regimes like Saddam Hussein's, for example.
George Bush's policy of indefinite detention sans charges is the definition of a dictatorship.
Labels: al-marri, Bush's suspension of habeas corpus, PWOT
posted by rangeragainstwar at 7:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home