Fourth Circuit Court backs Bush as dictator

One would hope that a United States Circuit Court would uphold the United States Constitution. The Fourth Circuit Court has instead abrogated its responsibility by authorizing da Bush's dictatorial powers, overruling a three-judge panel of its own members who last year said that the government could not hold civilians legally in the United States as enemy combatants.

Here's how Steven D. at the Booman Tribune put it:

"The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (one level below the Supreme Court) has just ruled that Bush was granted the unlimited power by Congress to detain indefinitely anyone in the United States (you, me, your teenage son or daughter, anyone at all) merely by declaring them an enemy combatant."

Glenn Greenwald offfers a comprehensive and detailed look at what all this means in his article, "Al-Marri and the power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges," at salon.com, here. Greenwald says,

"Of all the constitutionally threatening and extremist powers the Bush administration has asserted over the last seven years, the most radical -- and the most dangerous -- has been its claim that the President has the power to arrest U.S. citizens and legal residents inside the U.S., and imprison them indefinitely in a military prison, without charging them with any crime, based on his assertion that the imprisoned individual is an 'enemy combatant.'"

The Fourth Circuit Court blessed Bush's position on July 15 in a ruling related to the case of al-Marri. Greenwald says that al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was in the U.S. legally on a student visa, a graduate student in computer science at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. He lived in Peoria with his wife and five children.

"Shortly after the 9/11 attack, al-Marri was detained as a material witness and subsequently charged in a civilian court with a variety of crimes relating to credit card fraud and making false statements as part of the 9/11 investigation. He vehemently denied those accusations, and -- in June 2003 -- he was preparing for his criminal trial ... [when] Suddenly -- a month before his trial was to begin -- George Bush declared him to be an 'enemy combatant.' and ordered the U.S. military to seize him from civilian officials and transfer him to military custody."

Al-Marri has been confined in a military brig in South Carolina for five years. No criminal charges have been placed against him. "He has been kept in solitary confinement and denied any contact with the outside world other than his lawyers."

In fact, the government has not claimed al-Marri has done anything wrong or that he has enaged in anything of a terrorist nature. Nevertheless, according to this court ruling, he can be held "for the duration of the relevant hostilities."


As Greenwald so succinctly points out, "...the President can order anyone in the U.S. imprisoned in a military brig as an 'enemy combatant' -- even if they have never fought on a battlefield or with a foreign power against the U.S. Rather, mere accusations by the President of 'terrorism' are sufficient to justify the indefinite incarceration of such an individual as an 'enemy combatant,' who is then denied basic Constitutional guarantees."


This is the same president who speaks to the world of "freedom," and "democracy," and the "rule of law." But the world knows those are just words, and that he neither understands what they mean, nor does he give a damn. With every twist of the wind, Mr. Bush shreds further our Constitution, if not by himself than with the help of right-wing courts packed with extremist judges appointed by Republican presidents, or god help us, a Democratic president.

Actually, of the ten members of the court, five are Democrats and five are Republicans. Unfortunately, the court has again and again showed its ultra-conservative colors, which means it generally sides with big business or the government.

The al-Marri decision was 5-4, and the judge who was the swing vote was Judge Traxler, a Democrat, appointed by Bill Clinton. Traxler's "opinion became the court's binding decision," who claimed that, in spite of the Constitution's guarantees, "The detention of enemy combatants during military activities is ... an exception."

Talk about "activist" judges!

The case is expected to go to the U.S. Supremes, but that isn't necessarily a good thing for Mr. al-Marri. Steven D. says that would leave al-Marri (and the rest of us) "at the mercy of Justice Kennedy, the one conservative member of the Supreme Court who has shown himself willing to vote with the more liberal justices on issues involving the rights of individuals detained by the Bush administration as enemy combatants."

That's pretty amazing when you think about it. The continuing validation of our Constitution -- and our basic freedoms, and our freedom from a runaway dictatorship -- depends upon one man's vote.

Steven D. sums up:

"Until that happens, be very careful what you say and to whom. For who knows what constitutes evidence of terrorist allegiance in the minds of our national security professionals. Mr. al-Marri still doesn't know what precise information landed him in prison as a suspected Al Qaeda sleeper agent. All he knows is that someone at the CIA signed an affidavit claiming that he was a terrorist. Because that is all it takes, my friends, to put you in prison and deprive you of your liberty. The opinion of one man. And until Congress or the Supreme Court holds otherwise you live in a police state, different from that of the former Soviet Union or Argentina under the rule of the Generals only by the degree to which that authority has been exercised -- so far."