9 Responses to “Al-Marri”

1. #1 |  freedomfan |  July 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pm

   Very scary stuff. I really don’t think the majority on those decisions are suited to be judges in these United States.

   And al-Marri illustrates another problem with too much deference to precedent (which is much of the basis for such decisions): it allows an end run around the clear understanding of the Constitution when it was ratified. It’s like cumulative round-off error in math. By building on smaller rulings over time that may have seemed close to Constitutional thinking when they were rendered, their cumulative effect can be clearly unconstitutional.

   I haven’t seen a case made that, at ratification, people understood the Constitution to allow any government official (the President or anyone else) to lock up someone arrested (in a situation utterly unconnected to any combat) in the U.S. and hold him indefinitely without even filing charges – much less a trial – on a mere accusation of wrongdoing. To me, that’s the bottom line and a fundamental check on any ruling. No matter how many clever bits of “reasoning” can be strung together to connect various rulings over the years (e.g. giving legal standing to throwaway terms like “enemy combatant”), if the ruling being handed down today violates that check, then it should be clear that the intermediate steps have gone awry.

   And, frankly, that should be the starting point: Did the people ratifying the Constitution understand it to empower government in this way? The starting point should NOT be: Let’s take some sequence of rulings, each of which stretched government authority over the years, and see if we can extend the most recent one to cover the power the government currently claims. Start by considering the Constitution and, if recent ruling would appear to take us beyond that, then perhaps it is time to review those rulings, not build on them.

2. #2 |  flacmonkey |  July 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pm

   How long until this is twisted into use in other so call “wars”? Maybe possession of a joint or even aspirin on a school campus could make you an enemy combatant in the “War on Drugs”. How about possession of gold, silver, or more that $100,000 could make you an enemy combatant in the “War on Poverty”. The President can just slap the war label on anything he wants and we can just do away with those pesky warrants, evidence, and trials.

3. #3 |  Nando |  July 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pm

   Oh, what I’d give for the next President to declare George W. Bush as an “enemy combatant” and place him in a brig somewhere without having to explain what evidence they have for it. Let him try to figure out how bad he messed up.

   Of course, no President would have the balls to do such a thing, but a man can dream, can’t he?

4. #4 |  jwh |  July 21st, 2008 at 4:04 pm

   You’re correct, Nando, no president would do that, since he would then be sealing his own fate as soon as his term of office ended…..if not sooner.

5. #5 |  Dave Krueger |  July 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm

   Let’s repeal the first ten Amendments. If we can’t make the government conform to the Document, at least we can make the Document conform to the government.

6. #6 |  Tokin42 |  July 21st, 2008 at 6:03 pm

   Getting Greenwalds take on this issue is like asking PETA the best way to grill my burger, it’s a waste of time.

   Greenwald manages to mix up 3 completely different scenario’s, with 3 different levels of U.S. “citizenship”, for 3 men no one has even claimed are innocent and used them to jump to the conclusion the president has the ability to arrest any u.s. citizen on american soil and hold them forever without charging them.

   Maybe a more evenhanded opinion would be better before everyone gets themselves all wound up over something that has happened a total of 3 times. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_13-2008_07_19.shtml#1216146391

   If I were you folks I’d be much more concerned my local county prosecutor is going to make shit up just to convict you of something he doesn’t like than the idea that the president (not just bush but any president) is out to get you.

7. #7 |  Les |  July 21st, 2008 at 8:19 pm

   If I were you folks I’d be much more concerned my local county prosecutor is going to make shit up just to convict you of something he doesn’t like than the idea that the president (not just bush but any president) is out to get you.

   Practically, you’re right. But when we shrug our shoulders as the highest levels of government thumb their noses at the Constitution, it’s no wonder the local D.A. feels confident he can do the same.

8. #8 |  KBCraig |  July 21st, 2008 at 9:09 pm

   From freedomfan:
   The starting point should NOT be: Let’s take some sequence of rulings, each of which stretched government authority over the years, and see if we can extend the most recent one to cover the power the government currently claims. Start by considering the Constitution and, if recent ruling would appear to take us beyond that, then perhaps it is time to review those rulings, not build on them.

   Amen! I’ve been arguing for years, in vain, about the inherent flaws of relying on stare decisis.

9. #9 |  Tokin42 |  July 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm

   #7

   The problem, les, is that the 4th circuit ruling didn’t grant the office of the president any such thing as what greenwald is suggesting. greenwald is a tool, and a moron, who is always going to find the dark conspiracy that this president wants to lock up anyone who disagrees with him. All I’m suggesting is that maybe we should look at each instance and judge them on their own. There are only 3, let me repeat that, 3 instances to deal with. I’ll say it again, there are other, bigger and more real, issues that people should be concerned with instead of looking for ways to start conspiracy theories.

---