From: "Robert G Lewis" 

Not a perfect world at wall. Why would the cops in this city think they can
ignore the law ? This , as written, was not an emergency situation. If the
cops actually followed the law then no problem.

I'd have far more sympathy for his point had it not been such a clear cut
case of police screw ups. The cops had no knowledge of criminal activity or
enemy status when they broke the law.

I wonder if the writer would feel the same if the police got a tip on him
and searched without a warrant his property ?

BTW at least some of those we caught in WWII were executed. After arrest
and trial. And many of those interned ( who paid a terrible price) had sons
on the front lines fighting for our side.

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:466ec7dc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Not a perfect world and not at all the point of the blog post from which
> your quote is extracted.  The hypothetical was to set up a situation where
> they can't be criminally prosecuted yet its undisputed they are in fact
> illegal enemy combatants with whom we are at war.  We didn't turn such
> people loose in World War II when found inside the USA and we didn't
> prosecute them criminally either.  We have always had the choice of
> locking up the enemy for the duration of the conflict.
>
> Gary
>
> Robert G Lewis wrote:
>> We could also train the police to obey the law and get a warrant . Judges
>> seem to have no problems issuing warrants.
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:466e3968$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> The subject at hand Rich was your erroneous summary of the 4th Circuit
>>> Al Marri case, and now you are wondering off into completely extraneous
>>> arguments.  I don't like a lot of things about Bush and the Bush
>>> administration and that dislike is growing daily.  This case you
>>> incorrectly summarized in your intro sentence just doesn't happen to be
>>> one of those things.  For a rational discussion of what is wrong and
>>> inconsistent with the 4th Circuit decision and an understanding of why
>>> the decision was 2-1 with 1 in favor of the Bush understanding of the
>>> law and constitution and an explanation of why this decision will likely
>>> be reversed follows:
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> http://volokh.com/posts/1181615410.shtml
>>>
>>> Orin Kerr, June 11, 2007 at 10:30pm] Trackbacks
>>> What Should Happen to Al Qaeda Cell Members Discovered in the United
>>> States?: I've been mulling over the Fourth Circuit's decision in
>>> Al-Marri v Wright, and I have two tentative thoughts about it. First, as
>>> a matter of policy, its reasoning can lead to results that are
>>> completely bizarre. Second, those possible results help explain why I
>>> think the U.S. Supreme Court would look at the case very differently
>>> than did the Fourth Circuit.
>>>
>>>   To see why I think the results of Al-Marri are so puzzling, consider
>>> the following hypothetical. An Al-Qaeda cell of five individuals, all
>>> citizens of Qatar, enter the United States on student visas. The cell
>>> members' plans are to detonate a "dirty bomb" in New
York City, and they
>>> rent a hotel room in Jersey City, New Jersey (just across the river) to
>>> build the dirty bomb. One of the hotel employees thinks the group is
>>> suspicious, and he calls up the local police and tells an officer that
>>> there is a group of Arab men in the hotel staying in one room and acting
>>> very secretively.
>>>
>>>   The officer visits the hotel when the men are out one day and he
>>> requests that the hotel employee show him the room. The employee agrees;
>>> he opens the door with his key and shows the officer inside. They
>>> immediately see the bomb-making materials along with several photographs
>>> of Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks taped to the walls. The officer
>>> contacts the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. An hour later,
>>> the FBI has obtained a search warrant for the room and arrest warrants
>>> for the five men.
>>>
>>>   The men are arrested and charged criminally. A search of the hotel
>>> room discovers all the bomb-making materials. The room search also
>>> uncovers videotapes the men made celebrating their pending attack; the
>>> men each spent a few minutes on tape describing what attacks they will
>>> execute and hoping and praying that the streets of New York
will "run
>>> red with Jewish and imperialist blood."
>>>
>>>   But there's a major problem with the criminal case: The evidence
>>> against the cell members was obtained in violation of the Fourth
>>> Amendment. Under Stoner v. Califonia, the men have a reasonable
>>> expectation of privacy in the hotel room and the hotel clerk lacks
>>> authority to consent to a law enforcement search. As a result, the
>>> evidence against the five men was obtained in violation of their Fourth
>>> Amendment rights. The evidence --
>>> including the videotapes in which they each celebrated the attacks and
>>> confessed to their plans -- must be suppressed.
>>>
>>>   So what should the government do? It seems to me that under the Fourth
>>> Circuit's decision in Al-Marri v. Wright, the government has two
>>> choices: it can either deport the men or else must set them free. The
>>> military cannot hold them, Al-Marri teaches; they are not "enemy
>>> combatants" but rather are merely "civilians."
Sure, they're Al Qaeda
>>> cell members who entered the United States to execute another 9/11, but
>>> hey, they're still civilians with Due Process rights against detention.
>>> It would be different if the men were Taliban soldiers, Al-Marri tells
>>> us; then they would be "enemy combatants." But since
they're just
>>> everyday Al Qaeda cell members instead, they can't be held under that
>>> authority. Under Al-Marri, the government has to either deport the men
>>> or set them free. (There could be a possibility of detaining the men on
>>> material witness warrants, but in this hypothetical they are the only
>>> people involved in the plot.)
>>>
>>>   From a standpoint of policy, this result seems incredibly bizarre to
>>> me. Could it really be the case that the U.S. should have to deport or
>>> set free an Al Qaeda cell tying to blow up a nuclear bomb in the U.S.? I
>>> agree that there are often legitimate issues of proving that alleged
>>> terrorists are really terrorists; if the President declares that the
>>> five men are Al Qaeda members who want to blow up a dirty bomb, we may
>>> want to see some proof. But in this hypothetical, there is no doubt that
>>> the men are terrorists: just watch the tapes the men made before being
>>> caught in which they boast of their attacks. Could it really be the case
>>> that the most the government can do in light of the Fourth Amendment
>>> violation is to deport the men to a foreign country? I find that
>>> possibility just bizarre.
>>>
>>>   My reaction is part of the reason why I think the Supreme Court would
>>> have a very different take on Al-Marri than the Fourth Circuit did.
>>> Compare Al-Marri to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Hamdi was an American citizen
>>> captured and believed to have been fighting with the Taliban; he was
>>> brought to the United States and detained there. He argued that his
>>> detention violated 18 U.S.C. 4001, which prohibits the detention of U.S.
>>> citizens "except pursuant to an Act of Congress."
The Court disagreed,
>>> holding that Hamdi could be detained because the AUMF was the required
>>> Act of Congress. Hamdi then argued that his detention violated Due
>>> process; a plurality held that the detention was constitutional so long
>>> as Hamdi was given some process in the determination that he was an
>>> enemy combatant. It then remanded the case for the relevant proceedings.
>>>
>>>   I find it pretty unlikely that a majority of the Supreme Court would
>>> say that Hamdi can be detained (if he is given the necessary hearing)
>>> but Al-Marri has to be let go. It seems plausible to me that Hamdi and
>>> Al-Marri have equivalent rights to have their cases heard in court via
>>> the writ of habeas corpus: Hamdi because he is a U.S. citizen, and
>>> Al-Marri because he was detained in the United States. But once you get
>>> past jurisdiction, isn't the case for detaining Al-Marri a lot stronger
>>> than the case for detaining Hamdi? First, Al-Marri is a non-citizen
>>> while Hamdi is a citizen. Second, Al-Marri is at the core of what the
>>> AUMF was all about, while Hamdi was more at the periphery.
>>>
>>>   For this latter point, recall what the AUMF actually says:
>>>
>>>     The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
>>> force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
>>> planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
>>> occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
>>> persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism
>>> against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
>>>
>>> Isn't that pretty clearly directed at a member of an Al-Qaeda cell who
>>> entered the U.S. on September 10, 2001 to commit attacks -- much more
>>> directly than a United States citizen who was fighting against the
>>> Northern Alliance? That's part of the reason why i think the Supreme
>>> Court would look at this case differently than the Fourth Circuit; I
>>> suspect they would see a case like Al-Marri as being a core AUMF case,
>>> much more so than Hamdi. An alien Al Qaeda cell member who entered the
>>> U.S. to execute attacks is exactly the kind of person that Congress was
>>> trying stop with the AUMF; the case that he's an "enemy
combatant" is
>>> stronger than the case for Hamdi. If anyone is an "enemy
combatant,"
>>> it's Al-Marri (assuming the allegations against him are true).
>>>
>>>   That's why I think Al-Marri would be a repeat of Hamdi if it got to
>>> the Supreme Court. I imagine the Court holding that the AUMF is
>>> sufficient to detain non-citizen Al Qaeda members who entered the U.S.
>>> to execute attacks, and then moving on to what kind of Due Process
>>> hearing Al-Marri is entitled to receive to test whether he is in fact
>>> such a person. The Court would then remand for further proceedings based
>>> on whatever the Due Process standard turns out to be.
>>>
>>>   Anyway, that's my initial take; obviously it's open to revision if
>>> there's something I'm missing, which is always a possibility. Finally, I
>>> should add that there is a possible way out of the Fourth Amendment
>>> holding described above: A court could hold that members of an Al Qaeda
>>> cell who enter the U.S. to commit attacks have no Fourth Amendment
>>> rights under United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez because they lack
>>> sufficient legitimate connections with the U.S. If so, then the cell
>>> members would not be able to invoke the Fourth Amendment to challenge
>>> the illegal hotel search, and the evidence could be admitted against
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>>>> You may want to consider moving to Chile as the idea of military
>>>> tribunals obviously appeals to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The United States has used the term Enemy Prisoners of War EPW for a
>>>> long time but of course that was subject to the Geneva
Conventions for
>>>> treatment of those prisoners - something about humane treatment that
>>>> absolutely confounds the Bushies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/0/94B18B8D276D22C0C1256BC80044C23D
>>>>
>>>> Law or Regulations: Army Regulation 190-8 on Enemy Prisoners of War,
>>>> Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees, 1997
>>>>
>>>> Gary Britt wrote:
>>>>> 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