From: Gary Britt 


Yes it was.  It was an inaccurate highly biased and somewhat uninformed summary.

We have a criminal system for criminals.

We have a *separate* system for war prisoners, enemy combatants, and
illegal enemy combatants.  These separate systems have always existed. 
They are nothing new.  The congress has declared war and made specific
authorizations for handling these people who are at war with us.  If you
don't think we are war, then take it up with your congressman, but until
the democrats actually vote to declare defeat and surrender, the AUMF and
Military Comissions Act, etc remain in full force and effect.

Gary

Rich Gauszka wrote:
> No my statement was not overbroad.
>
> Second we have a system of law. If someone is believed guilty then bring
> them up before the system for a trial. - period.
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:466dde40$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> 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