FTA:
While Marri is the only person seized on U.S. soil and currently held as an enemy combatant -- the administration says he was part of a sleeper al-Qaeda cell intent on mass murder and disrupting the banking system --

That's just freaking awful. Where are the apologists who say that the Gitmo guys don't count because they aren't citizens, and weren't on American soil? What about this dude legally in Illinois?

I just don't understand the mindset. If someone is doing something wrong, then simply observe them long enough to gain the evidence needed to imprison them with a trial. It isn't hard. The police have been doing it for an awful long time. It's not like a jury would be sympathetic to some Arabic asshole with a mullet with designs on hurting Americans.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is not a hard case.

I can see the legal difficulty in deporting him.

There aren't many countries outside the US that would allow a man with a hairstyle like that to live.

Marri was a graduate student in Peoria, Ill., when he was arrested in December 2001. He was charged a year later with lying to the FBI and using a false name and a stolen Social Security number to apply for bank accounts in Macomb, Ill., for a fictitious business.

But just before his trial in June 2003, Bush ordered the attorney general to turn him over to the military, and he has been held in isolation in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since.

WHAT THE FRAK!?

That is an amazing mullet.

And charge this guy or let him go, for farks sake. This is such bullshiat.

JustinCase: disrupting the banking system --

Obviously, the administration didn't believe he could do as good a job as they could.

the administration says he was part of a sleeper al-Qaeda cell intent on mass murder and disrupting the banking system

Thank God we caught him in time.

DamnYankees: Marri was a graduate student in Peoria, Ill., when he was arrested in December 2001. He was charged a year later with lying to the FBI and using a false name and a stolen Social Security number to apply for bank accounts in Macomb, Ill., for a fictitious business.

But just before his trial in June 2003, Bush ordered the attorney general to turn him over to the military, and he has been held in isolation in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since.

WHAT THE FRAK!?

You're surprised? The U.S. held a natural born U.S. citizen who was not in the military for three years in the same Navy brig without charges.



Born in Brooklyn, New York. Never served in the miitary, not even in the Guard or Reserve. Arrested in May 2002 and held in a Navy brig in South Carolina, and kept in solitary confinement. He was forced to wear sensory deprivation gear (the ear muffs and blacked-out goggles) even on his way to court.

He was finally charged in November of 2005.

the administration says he was part of a sleeper al-Qaeda cell intent on mass murder and disrupting the banking system

Then bring him to a real court of Law, in front of a real judge, and read jury of 12 people, present your evidence in a fair trial. One of two things will happen, he's convicted or let go.

Thats the American way......anything less is a crime and those that commit that crime should themselves in put before a real court of Law.

We all should be concerned about a government that doesn't understand this very simple concept of Jurisprudence.

Give him a fair trial or we become criminal ourselves.

The people that apologize for this by saying there are dangerous national security issues and we don't know where to release them and we're just not sure what to do make me sick.

And, the people that say they are all terrorists so it somehow makes it ok should be kicked out of the country.

JohnnyC: Give him a fair trial or we become criminal ourselves.

giving people a fair trial is somehow 'aiding the terrorists'. What I don't get is how someone could be against about the 'fairness doctrine' and completely agree with screwing over someone accused of terrorism. Either you agree with the US constitution - all of it - or you don't. all the right wing nutjobs turn into constitutional scholars when it comes to refuting the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine...but then they all get stupid when it comes to giving the poor bastards in gitmo a fair trial before a jury of their peers.

I don't get it.

Weaver95: Either you agree with the US constitution - all of it - or you don't.

Why can't we agree with some parts of it and disagree with others?

part of a sleeper al-Qaeda cell intent on mass murder and disrupting the banking system

What were they going to do? Bundle insurance bets on sub-prime loans into general funds?

Loves his Mullet
/ Link is Hotter than a fat guy changing planes 100 gates away.

I have to agree that was a bodacious mullet. Too bad they shaved it off.

JustinCase: FTA:
While Marri is the only person seized on U.S. soil and currently held as an enemy combatant -- the administration says he was part of a sleeper al-Qaeda cell intent on mass murder and disrupting the banking system --

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA yeah like Americans are sending bankers to Gitmo by the dozen.

DamnYankees: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is not a hard case.

you have to separate the man from the mullet. No mullet like that should have life or liberty.

The Supreme Court said yesterday it will decide whether the president may order the indefinite detention of suspects living lawfully in the United States the ideals we hold so dearly should apply to all of mankind or just those privileged by birth.

FTFT

Business up front, jihad in the back.

TrollAltDelete:

you have to separate the man from the mullet. No mullet like that should have life or liberty.

Let me mullet over a bit.

hillbillypharmacist: That's just freaking awful. Where are the apologists who say that the Gitmo guys don't count because they aren't citizens, and weren't on American soil? What about this dude legally in Illinois?

I just don't understand the mindset. If someone is doing something wrong, then simply observe them long enough to gain the evidence needed to imprison them with a trial. It isn't hard. The police have been doing it for an awful long time. It's not like a jury would be sympathetic to some Arabic asshole with a mullet with designs on hurting Americans.

Kind of like how India waited to 'observe' the terrorists rain bullets and explosives in the Taj Mahal? Sometimes a little preventative maintenance is necessary when dealing with people who have no regard for life, including their own.

B-B-But wasn't the court supposed to decide to take the Obama citizenship case yesterday? Why are they wasting time with this civil rights crap when they could be listening to the wild claims of crazy people?

If we need further proof how incompetent Bush is, he can't even convict a terrorist.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: Either you agree with the US constitution - all of it - or you don't.

Why can't we agree with some parts of it and disagree with others?

Weaver, I am generally in agreement with you, but I gotta go with the Yankee here. I agree with system that is established by the document and work within it, but that does not mean that I agree with all of it. This does not seem to be a situation that is a "love it or leave it" kinda thing. If you have to agree with the whole thing why have an amendment process?

Is he a Mullah with a mullet?

hillbillypharmacist: If someone is doing something wrong, then simply observe them long enough to gain the evidence needed to imprison them with a trial. It isn't hard.

Unless, of course, the initial evidence was obtained via unlawful wiretap... in which case, your entire investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree and legally inadmissible, making conviction an impossibility. I'd suggest instead he be left in a locked, concealed video-equipped room for an hour, with VP Cheney and no Secret Service protection about. All outcomes look win-win that way.

TrollAltDelete:
Kind of like how India waited to 'observe' the terrorists rain bullets and explosives in the Taj Mahal? Sometimes a little preventative maintenance is necessary when dealing with people who have no regard for life, including their own.

Kind of like how the United States refused to arrest and detain all the right wing militia groups members in the 90s. A little preventative maintenance could have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing.

wow. that thing is all business in the front, all terror in the back.

But Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre, in a brief to the court, said it was "absurd" to assert that the president was doing anything other than what Congress had given him power to do to prevent "another September 11."

In theory, Congress doesn't have that power to give him.

THEY GOT ASIAN PRINCE LOCKED UP?!

Jagr?

They already have ruled against the removal habeas corpus, what more do they need to do?

jake3988: They already have ruled against the removal habeas corpus, what more do they need to do?

It's like that ex-girlfriend we all had. You know, the type you need to 'tell' things to twice. ;)

/would love the chance to 'tell' Bush a couple of things.
//hang on, someone is at the door...

SixPaperJoint: Weaver, I am generally in agreement with you, but I gotta go with the Yankee here. I agree with system that is established by the document and work within it, but that does not mean that I agree with all of it. This does not seem to be a situation that is a "love it or leave it" kinda thing. If you have to agree with the whole thing why have an amendment process?

I think his point was more along the lines of how you can't pick certain laws from the constitution to follow while ignoring others, especially when you only argue for the laws that help you and ignore the ones that hinder you. You can disagree with it, but you can't just say, "I don't have to follow that because I personally don't believe in it."

His example was that people cite the First Amendment as to why the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional, yet have absolutely no qualms with holding people indefinitely prisoner without and trial or access to a writ of habeas corpus. The constitution matters when it means it protects their propaganda, but not so much when it involves human rights and civil liberties of people they disagree with.

Unconstitutiona. Next!

/Who knew being a Supreme Court Justice was so easy?

JustinCase: FTA:
While Marri is the only person seized on U.S. soil and currently held as an enemy combatant -- the administration says he was part of a sleeper al-Qaeda cell intent on mass murder and disrupting the banking system --

looks like he succeeded.

Rethorn: SixPaperJoint: Weaver, I am generally in agreement with you, but I gotta go with the Yankee here. I agree with system that is established by the document and work within it, but that does not mean that I agree with all of it. This does not seem to be a situation that is a "love it or leave it" kinda thing. If you have to agree with the whole thing why have an amendment process?

I think his point was more along the lines of how you can't pick certain laws from the constitution to follow while ignoring others, especially when you only argue for the laws that help you and ignore the ones that hinder you. You can disagree with it, but you can't just say, "I don't have to follow that because I personally don't believe in it."

His example was that people cite the First Amendment as to why the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional, yet have absolutely no qualms with holding people indefinitely prisoner without and trial or access to a writ of habeas corpus. The constitution matters when it means it protects their propaganda, but not so much when it involves human rights and civil liberties of people they disagree with.

Upon reading your comment and re-reading Weaver's, you are right Rethorn. I guess my celebration of the anniversary of the repeal of alcohol last night got the better of my comprehension skills.

Thank you, sir. And sorry Weaver, please give this drunk a pass on the ass-making this time.

You know who else took short cuts with habeas corpus?

and typing skills too. Throw a prohibition in there somewhere after alcohol.

This is gonna be a long day at this rate.

SherKhan: Business up front, jihad in the back.

I LOLed.

Wait, why.. we have enough LIBERALS right here on FARK.

Come on folks, just sign right here for one. You can be a proud owner of a Club Gitmo releaseee. His teeth are fixed, his gun shot wounds healed, and his AK-47 was left behind. Great credentials.

Or are you just a Hipocrate? Yea I bet you are.

It would have been much easier to take "people" like this clown someplace quiet and shoot them in the head. No mess, no fuss, no supreme court case.

Put this down as a lesson learned and move on.

SixPaperJoint: Upon reading your comment and re-reading Weaver's, you are right Rethorn. I guess my celebration of the anniversary of the repeal of alcohol last night got the better of my comprehension skills.

Thank you, sir. And sorry Weaver, please give this drunk a pass on the ass-making this time.

No worries. You weren't a dick about it, I wasn't a dick about it, he wasn't a dick about it, so all's well. :)

DamnYankees: Weaver95: Either you agree with the US constitution - all of it - or you don't.

Why can't we agree with some parts of it and disagree with others?

Because you can't support the 1st amendment and then ignore the 4th and 5th amendment when they get in the way of your political agenda.

This is a common failing of nearly everyone involved in politics today. I've seen someone on the left say that the 1st amendment is absolute, then advocate shutting down the Boy Scouts because they 'engage in hate speech'. 'tis quite puzzling, but there you go. It's just as scary to see someone like Limbaugh rant about the evils of the Fairness doctrine, then with a wink and a nudge laugh about throwing people into Gitmo without a trial.

Enforce the rules. All of them. Don't pick and choose who gets which protections. They all apply all the time to everyone. they apply to radio talk show host blowhards to people in gitmo and right on down to you and I when we get pulled over on a traffic stop. No exceptions. Ever.

winterwhile: Wait, why.. we have enough LIBERALS right here on FARK.

Come on folks, just sign right here for one. You can be a proud owner of a Club Gitmo releaseee. His teeth are fixed, his gun shot wounds healed, and his AK-47 was left behind. Great credentials.

Or are you just a Hipocrate? Yea I bet you are.

Didn't RTFA, didn't RTFT, can't spell hypocrite, fallacy of the excluded middle.

How about you man up, take a firm grip on such balls as you may have, and try to find the courage to live by the Constitution? Having principles means incurring risks, asshat.

/I am really beginning to lose my patience with those thugs.

Weaver95:
Enforce the rules. All of them. Don't pick and choose who gets which protections. They all apply all the time to everyone. they apply to radio talk show host blowhards to people in gitmo and right on down to you and I when we get pulled over on a traffic stop. No exceptions. Ever.

I don't think this is a new idea, but I like it.