Imprisoned by King George

The Bush Administration seems intent on continuing to behave like a bunch of feudal (or fascist) tyrant. Take the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri:

In early 2003, he was indicted on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. Like anyone else in the United States, he had constitutional rights. He could question government witnesses, refuse to testify and retain a lawyer.

On June 23, 2003, Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, Illinois, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.

A military jail allowed more options. Free from the constraints of civilian law, the military could interrogate al-Marri without a lawyer, detain him without charge and hold him indefinitely. Courts have agreed the president has wide latitude to imprison people captured overseas or caught fighting against the U.S. That is what the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is for.

But al-Marri was not in Guantanamo Bay.

"The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."

Now, from what I've read, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri was likely up to no good (in the worst way). His links to terrorists in other countries seem quite real (at least from my anecdotal news service readings) and so I'm really damn glad he's off the streets. He likely is a terrorist, or in league with such, and I'm all for his arrest and trial, and whatever punishment the civilian justice system deems appropriate, should he be convicted.

But it unsettles me that he's been tossed around like this, shifted from one jurisdiction to another to reclassify him and deny his rights. I'd much rather they charge him and give him a trial for what they have evidence for, and take whatever legal recourse they have to kick him out of the country after his likely inevitable jail sentence. If half what the papers say about him is true, the Justice Department should have no problem locking him away for 10-15 years and then deporting him thereafter.

But instead, the Bush gang seems to want to trample all over his rights and hold him indefinitely while interrogating him without legal counsel. That's excessive, unconstitutional, illegal and immoral.

Courts have gone back and forth on al-Marri's case as it worked its way through the system. The last decision, a 2-1 ruling by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, found that the president had crossed the line and al-Marri must be returned to the civilian court system. Anything else would "alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic," the judges said.

The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.

"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

The court seemed torn.

One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.

I wouldn't think you could attain the position of Court of Appeals Judge if were niave and blindly optimistic. It strikes me that such a job requires shrewd understanding of not only the law, but also human nature. I can't imagine that someone could reach that level of promotion within the justice system without having some knowledge of history . Before Hitler started rounding up German citizens of Jewish descent, there were "no mass roundups of citizens" in that country, either. I guess what I'm saying is, I find it hard to believe that judge honestly thinks there's little or no danger in the President having that kind of sweeping power.

So if he's not niave, what is he? "Duplicitious" would be but one possible answer.

Another judge said the question is not whether the president was generous in his use of power; it is whether the power is constitutional.

I really wish the article had specifically named which Judge was (possibly) feigning niavete for the benefit of the reigning powers, and which one(s) had the courage to defend the constitution and the rights of the people. On an issue of this importance, the article should have specified who's position the various comments were.