Our BOL Lawyers need to read this long article and opine. I have provided a few clips first {for Ron Mexico }

On May 30, in a decision of which the Guantanamo judges were no doubt well aware, a U.S. District court ordered the release of a Palestinian named Majed Talat Hajbeh. In Jordan, Hajbeh had been convicted of terrorism for, among other things, bombing an American school. (Which didn't stop him from running to the U.S. to hide out.) Picked up on an immigration charge, Hajbeh was held for four years while the U.S. searched for somebody willing to take him off our hands.

And on June 11, the umpire called, "strike three!" in the form of Al-Marri v. Wright. Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is an easy match for Khadr and Hajbeh, a Qatari who trained at an Al-Qaeda camp, actually met 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and was sent to the U.S. to establish a sleeper cell to be activated for later terrorist strikes. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals argued with none of that. Nor did they dispute the fact that Al-Marri is an enemy combatant, unlawful or otherwise. What they found was that, despite those unquestioned facts, the United States "lacks the authority" to hold Al-Marri, and, by extension, any other active terrorist.


So in under two weeks time, the judiciary of the United States has established that known international terrorists, bent on causing as much destruction within this country's borders as humanly possible, cannot be held at Guantanamo, cannot be held in U.S. prisons, and cannot be returned to the only countries that will accept them. Needless to say, the media, the academy, and the Democratic Party - collapsed institutions all - view this as a triumph.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/casting_terrorists_as_defender.html

Boy, by previous discussions on this topic. There should be a few happy BOL people today

based on your snippets, i think that the decision was wrong. but then again, i'm sure this right-wing blog hasn't taken any liberties with the facts.

If you read the article through, there is alot about judicial history and trends within from mid-century. If you only read my snippets, you lose so much of that. These should be particularly appealing to lawyers.

i don't feel like reading the article.

(but i'm sure that i will end up doing so)

Oh you will. So will Straw and Rainman, then we can get a good ol' fashioned debate going

sorry, I don't feel like playing, since Ron repeatedly refuses to read anything other than articles that he posts or that agree with his viewpoint.

I guess he is just afraid his beliefs might be shaken if he reads contrary opinions.

I read it but I think we are going to end up going round and round on the same debate we had a couple weeks back.