re: When 'enemy combatants' aren't, Blumner, 6/17/07
This entry was posted on 6/17/2007 9:18 AM and is filed under St Pete Times.
It is simply wrong headed and dangerous of Ms. Blumner to celebrate a legal opinion that attempts to give greater legal status to treacherous vermin like Ali Al-Marri and would have given to Mohamed Atta then they deserve.
President Bush has stridently championed legislation and pro-active steps to enable our government to identify, detain and prosecute terrorists in military tribunals as they deserve and I for one continue to support his efforts to keep us all safe.
It’s a shame that two activist Clinton appointees, 4th Circuit Court Judges Diana Motz and Roger Gregory, were able to derail the President’s efforts by ignoring legal precedent based upon Bush legislation. Motz and Gregory prefer to follow the dangerous and convoluted logic of Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, who writing in a New York Times op-ed piece states that it “… makes no sense to say we are at war with a group of terrorists.”
Well, it might not make sense, but I don’t think we can simply ignore militant Muslims and or multi-national Al Qaeda sycophants who have sworn an oath to wage jihad against American infidels!
Nor do I agree with Motz and Gregory’s decision limiting the term "enemy combatant" to citizens from particular nations or countries against whom the US has legally declared war! Hmmm, that’s a real clever distinction if ever I heard one.
Ironically Ms. Blumner says President Bush is the one with one with a semantic problem.
In contrast dissenting Judge Henry Hudson, a Bush appointee from the Eastern District of Virginia, correctly applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and voted to affirm the lower court's ruling that Al-Marri was indeed an enemy combatant and that his detention and prosecution was correct and proper.
Fortunately we don’t have to rely on them or on the ramblings of loons from the Times, New York or St Pete, to keep us safe. An en banc hearing of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals or a review by the Supreme Court will rectify this travesty.
