You are right on the money, my man.

I have always been perplexed by Americans' that are unwilling to recognize the constitutionally guaranteed rights of criminals. Either the rights are unalienable or they aren't. You can't pick an dchoose which rights are to be recognized and which ones ought to be faithfully observed. To do so would make you a hypocrite.

Also, I wonder what some of the people that have commented above fear? What is it about due process that terrifies the right? How can the same people allegedly stand for the constitution and at the same time insist that it should be selectively applied? Would anyone really be a supporter of law and order but at the same time argue that guaranteedprotections and rights should be carved out because of the nature of the crimes committed?

I assume, if Mr. al-Marr was neither a US citizen nor a legal resident alien, and he was simply a Guantanamo detainee apprehended on the battlefield, this conversation would be secondary to the usual Dallas cocktail quip, “How ‘bout them Cowboys?!”

I can understand how someone can be troubled by the fact that according to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act, determining whether a suspected terrorist is a criminal defendant or an “enemy combatant” is totally subjective and is made on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis by the Pentagon and the president. The Bush administration claims that because the nation is “at war,” there should be no federal court interference with their determination. This gets back to your observation that things (wars) are not as clear cut as they once were. Regarding what rights terrorist have with respect to the Geneva Convention, it seems clear cut to me. (Page down to the end of my post for more on this**)

Some have argued that the type of governmental power exercised this case is there will be a back door to military control of our nation. I side with Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University, who says critics overstate the risk because anyone held can file a court challenge (as is being done here – try doing that in Qatar). “The claim isn’t that the president can detain whoever he wants, it’s the claim that he can detain al-Qaeda members,” Chesney said. “This notion that the president is asserting some royal prerogative is silly.” Chesney’s point underscores that Mr. al-Marr wasn’t singing in the Bradley Boys Choir or a practicing plumber like our buddy Joe; he was indicted on federal terrorism charges first in New York, then in Illinois before being whisked away by Federal authorities to a military brig in South Carolina.

Speaking of Joe the Plumber, no one seems too concerned – not the legal community, not the media, not any human rights groups – that his civil liberties have been violated. According to Ohio Inspector General, Tom Charles, Helen Jones-Kelley, Director of Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (probably another bloated government agency) committed an “improper” and “wrongful act” by allowing underlings to search state databases for dirt on Joe Wurzelbacher. http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/11/search_of_joe_the_plumbers_rec.html. As an aside, his report also stated that Jones-Kelley, who gave $2500 to the Obama campaign, sent four emails through her state account in which she provided lists of names of potential contributors to the Obama campaign. Where’s the
left-wing outrage? From what I remember, Joe’s offense was to have the gall, as an ordinary US Citizen, to ask a few probing, yet embarrassing questions of a presidential candidate. I suppose Joe should be thankful in that in Qatar, a monarchy, they don’t have elections (or unions).

This lack of support for Joe from the legal community is particularly disheartening in light of a recent Wall Street Journal article by William McGurn, Gitmo Lawyers Are the Latest in Radical Chic. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122939103167209233-lMyQjAxMDI4MjI5NjMyOTYxWj.html

”Within the ranks of our leading law schools, law firms, and legal centers, it would be hard to find a cause more popular than the detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Every lawyer wants his own detainee or detainee group. The result is that dozens of the world’s most dangerous men now have their own legal dream team.”

It’s particularly sickening that the media and legal community focuses on these detainees’ alleged rights, or our supposed mistreatment, while completely overlooking and ignoring who these people are, what they think, and their atrocities and crimes (Whoops, there I go again, alleged crimes). These terrorists, given their crimes and cause, are treated quite well in Gitmo. True, they don’t get to watch Hanoi Jane’s latest workout video, but they do get “three hots and a cot”. But focusing on America’s imperfections (as opposed to our virtues and successes) is typical of the left who believes, despite manifest evidence to the contrary, that America is an inherently unjust country, somebody somewhere is being oppressed. This may open your eyes, or maybe at least one eye – http://www.insidegitmo.com/ – a website that is a companion resource for a new book by Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu, Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay.

**

“No terrorist group is a party to the Geneva Conventions. They have not signed, much less ratified, those treaties. Moreover, it is evident that Hamas, Hezbollah, and members of the global Al-Qaeda network spurn both the spirit and the letter of international treaties designed to ameliorate the cruelty of war. Bloody attacks in New York, Jerusalem, Bali, Madrid, and Beslan are testament to the fact that these groups seek to kill civilians rather than to take captives. And when Islamist terrorists do seize hostages, brutality rather than protection appears to be the rule.

Iraqi insurgents beheaded 26-year-old American businessman Nicholas Berg and shot 20-year-old Keith Matthew Maupin shortly after the June 28, 2004 transfer of sovereignty. On July 22, Iraqi police found the beheaded corpse of a Bulgarian hostage. The Arabic satellite television network Al-Jazeera had confirmed on July 13 that it had a tape showing his execution. Iraqi captors have also executed Pakistanis, a Turk, and a South Korean, among others. Such mistreatment of prisoners is not a new phenomenon among terrorist groups. In the 1980s, Hezbollah captured a number of Westerners in Lebanon, among them priests, journalists, professors, a librarian, and even the president of the American University of Beirut. Hezbollah tortured and hanged U.S. Marine lieutenant colonel William Higgins. Iraqi insurgents who decapitate civilian hostages have no more international legal claim to protection than did Hezbollah kidnappers.

By violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions. U.S. forces would be within their legal rights to treat captured Al-Qaeda members as they did Nazi saboteurs during World War II—trial by military commission and execution by firing squad.”

Source: http://www.meforum.org/article/651

More seriously, I would take a 1/300,000,000 chance in being labeled an enemy combatant if the level of certainty required stolen credit cards and multiple links to, say, Al Queda. Certainly thems better odds than the Nisei had in WWII under St. FDR.

-OT

This is a good article. It's an issue that more Americans need to wake up and take a look at. I fear that the governments definition of a "terrorist" is widening to include individuals that should, in no way, be treated like "terrorists". Thanks for bringing this information to light!

Bradley,
@OutsideMyBrain

Blessings,
Dr.B

I'm reminded at this time Richard Nixon's understanding that the Executive Branch was "above the law" if the President deemed it necessary. It is evident to me that the present administration is emulating this understanding, rather than demonstrating wisdom or adherence to the constitution. Perhaps prior to running for the offices of President/VP, the individuals and their principals need to be educated in constitutional basics so that the types of infringements you've commented upon don't occur. Great post!