From: Gary Britt 




Rich Gauszka wrote:
> How did I state this incorrectly? To quote the court
>

You Stated:
So much for the Bushies valued belief that the military can seize civilians
and imprison them indefinitely ignoring their constitution rights

That statement is overbroad and incorrect as a result.  Bush can still
pickup and imprison people like Hamdan and Hamadi and Padilla and Masri.
This case doesn't affect those situations that have been resolved by the
Supreme Court and the Military Commissions Act.

After further reading, it appears that this matter is well overstated. 
This guy entered the USA after training in terrorist camps on SEPTEMBER 10,
2001.
  He is alleged to be part of the second wave of Al Qaeda attacks that Bush
has so far thwarted.  Under Bush he was and is entitled to a trial before a
military tribunal where he can contest his status and have an appeal.

Some law professors, who otherwise do not support the President on his
terrorist surveillance programs and strong article II constitutional powers
are predicted that this case will be overturned either by an en banc review
of the full 4th circuit or by the Supreme Court.  It appears that Bush's
position is much stronger than the slanted media writings you focus on.

Whether this case is upheld or reversed doesn't really matter to me, but
the facts as they are coming out seem to strongly support the
reasonableness of Bush's approach to this guy.  He is alleged to be not
just an enemy combatant but an illegal enemy combatant (one who seeks to
violate the rules of war by attacking purely civilian targets, etc.) and if
Military Tribunals are good enough to try our own soldiers who commit
wrongful acts they are plenty good enough to try such alleged illegal enemy
combatants.

Gary Britt

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5