Court Rules in Favor of Enemy Combatant

Court Rules in Favor of Enemy Combatant
By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON
Associated Press Writer

RICHMOND, Va. - The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said Monday.
The ruling was a harsh rebuke of one of the central tools the administration believes it has to combat terror.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution - and the country," the court panel said.

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court. It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

The government intends to ask the full 4th Circuit to hear the case, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

"The President has made clear that he intends to use all available tools at his disposal to protect Americans from further al-Qaida attack, including the capture and detention of al-Qaida agents who enter our borders," Boyd said in a statement.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.

"This is a landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power," al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, said in a statement. "It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals - citizens and immigrants - in the United States."

The court said its ruling doesn't mean al-Marri should be set free. Instead, he can be returned to the civilian court system and tried on criminal charges.

"But the government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention," the opinion said. "For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians - let alone imprison them indefinitely."

Al-Marri is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.

Jose Padilla, who is a U.S. citizen, had been held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.

Federal investigators found credit card numbers on Al-Marri's laptop computer and charged him with credit card fraud. Upon further investigation, the government said, agents found evidence that al-Marri had links to al-Qaida terrorists and was a national security threat. Authorities shifted al-Marri's case from the criminal system and moved him to indefinite military detention.

Al-Marri has denied the government's allegations and is seeking to challenge the government's evidence and cross-examine its witnesses in court.

Lawyers for al-Marri argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus - defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.

If the government's stance was upheld, civil liberties groups said, the Justice Department could use terrorism law to hold any immigrants indefinitely and strip them of the right to use civilian courts to challenge their detention.

The Bush administration's attorneys had urged the federal appeals panel to dismiss al-Marri's case, arguing that the act stripped the courts of jurisdiction to hear cases of detainees who are declared enemy combatants. They contended that Congress and the Supreme Court have given the president the authority to fight terrorism and prevent additional attacks on the nation.

The court, however, said in Monday's opinion that the MCA doesn't apply to al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident who wasn't captured outside U.S. soil, detained at Guantanamo Bay or on other foreign soil, who has not received a combatant status review tribunal.

"The MCA was not intended to, and does not apply to aliens like al-Marri, who have legally entered, and are seized while legally residing in, the United States," according to the court's majority opinion, written by Judge Diana G. Motz.

The court also said that the government failed to back up its argument that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted by Congress immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, gives the president broad powers to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant. The act neither classifies certain civilians as enemy combatants, nor otherwise authorizes the government to detain people indefinitely, the court ruled.

The case, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court, could help define how much authority the government has to indefinitely detain those accused of terrorism and to strip detainees of their rights to challenge the lawfulness or conditions of their detention.

___

The case is al-Marri v. Wright.
http://kevxml2adsl.verizon.net/_1_J...n=D8PMSNIO0&qcat=news&ran=15421&feed=ap&top=1



Unfortunately this doesn't do anything about non-citzens such as those at Gitmo.If those people are guilty of anything then the Govt. has a duty to bring them to court and present the evidence.To just allow them to just hold people indefinately makes a mockery of our values like fair-play,innoncent till proven guilty etc.Aren't these the things that this country was founded on?Do you trust a very few like George Bush,Dick Cheney with absolute power to lock people up without a trial?I trust no one with that much power,the founding fathers while by no means perfect people understood all this and that's why we have a bill of rights which we have been ignoring beacuse of the Fear mongering by the current administration.Gotta tell ya I think they are a much bigger threat to our Liberty than any Jihadist is.They say things like "This is one of the greatest threats we have ever faced" which is ridiculous.The threat posed by the soviets with 30,000 nuclear war-heads pointed at us(and don't forget while tensions with the Russians have lessened we both have most of those weapons still and they can be re-targeted to US cities again in less than half an hour)was much more of a severe life and death thing.The Jihadists have nothing comparable capability wise and are decades away from it.
Let the debate begin!!!:fight:
 
Checks'n Balances ...

People have been screaming about this as if it's never happened before.
And just like before, the courts protect us, each and every time.

Ironically, it has nothing to do with "the people speak."
In fact, those who are the most powerful are the most removed from the majorities "on a whim today" non-sense.

Kudos to our founding fathers, I like seeing our checks'n balances at work.
They don't prevent innocents from getting hurt at times, but no system of review and due process can.
 
so what if the guy is linked to al queda? sorry bush, but it's not against the law to be a member of al queda. to kill people and commit terrorism is. but it's not a crime in and of itself to belong to any group, even one that kills people and commits terrorism. It's constitutionally protected, that's why the KKK exists and is a legal organization and legally get's together and legally has marches and demonstrations while illegally killing people and commited terrorism. It's also constitutionally protected that any and all citizens of the united states are not subject to military rule and are entitled to a trial if they are being charged with committing an illegal act.

That's really what the differnece is between us and al queda and other groups like that that don't honor human and civil rights.
 
How did you go from one thing to the other?

sorry bush, but it's not against the law to be a member of al queda.
to kill people and commit terrorism is.
but it's not a crime in and of itself to belong to any group, even one that kills people and commits terrorism.
Er, um, there are laws against insurrection of the United States!
Don't confuse "he must be tried as a civilian" with "he is not guilty of a crime."
It is very much illegal to be a member of an organization sworn to destroy the United States, and bring harm to those are protected by its Constitution.

His defense cannot even be categorized as "sedition," which would get him more legal leverage.
Siding with Al Quieda, and actively supporting it, is insurrection -- sorry, reality, and you ain't gonna get any pity from myself.

It's constitutionally protected, that's why the KKK exists and is a legal organization and legally get's together and legally has marches and demonstrations while illegally killing people and commited terrorism.
Er, um, yes and no. First off, you'd be wrong there as well, at least in several aspects.
Several, federal judicial rulings have categorized the KKK as an institution of insurrection as well (beyond just "sedition").
It's more than just going against the Constitution of the United States and its guaranteed civil liberties, but being an organized institution that has threatened the stability of the United States.
It has been found guilty of several, federal laws against organizations -- beyond just basic civil/criminal -- and broken up as a result when found in various states.

But the modern "Knights Party" -- among other, equivalent, non-violent successors -- have been granted certain protections, and will as long as they are not found guilty of certain acts against the United States or its citizens.
The same is true of the US NAZI Party, Communist Party, etc...

The US Community Party has neither ever been banned from the US nor ever been "illegal" to be a part of -- despite McCarthyism which never jailed anyone for ever being a communist party member (but for other reasons).
In fact, and quite ironically, it was such largely procedural/Congressional power-based aspects that don't hold up in a court of law as well that detained that McCarthy used to detain people.

So I have no love for the Legislative Branch either, especially not after the recent jailing of reporters for not giving up their sources. With all the bitching about Rove and the W. administration on Plame, I was utterly pissed (as was most of the media) at the clear Unconstitutional acts committed by Democratic Congressmen and women, when Plame's name was already well known by the media before any alleged "confirmation" by the W. administration (of which was repeatedly proven not to be illegal -- and only 1 person has been convicted of not any wrong-doing in the matter, but merely perjuring himself in front of a Grand Jury on the matter). People, under their clear, Constitutional Rights, were jailed for failing to give up names in a pure, 100% political witch hunt, based on no criminal act (only a political one -- even as Woodward himself would continually point out).

Which is why I get pissed at most people who only chastise W., but look the other way at what the Democrats (and even Clinton) do -- and vice-versa on chastizing Clinton, but not W. or the Republicans. Why do people's wish for civil liberties fail to cross political alignments? I guess it's the same logic that results in people calling me "wishy-washy" for allegedly siding with Democrats one time, Republicans the next.

It's also constitutionally protected that any and all citizens of the united states are not subject to military rule and are entitled to a trial if they are being charged with committing an illegal act.
Agreed, that was the actual ruling.

How you asserted that it wasn't illegal to belong to Al Quieda is beyond me. They are an organization explicitly and publicly dedicated to the erradication of the US as a government, and its people it is sworn to protect.

That's really what the differnece is between us and al queda and other groups like that that don't honor human and civil rights.
Nope. Utterly missed the difference. Sorry.
 
Not that I don't think it's a good idea to give reporters protection from having to reveal their sources except in the most extreme cases of national security. Muckraking has been an important job of journalist for a long time. However Prof I'm interested to know where in the Constitution does it give journalist protection from revealing their sources in a court of law when they have been subpoenaed to tell what they know?
 
Not a "court of law" ...

However Prof I'm interested to know where in the Constitution does it give journalist protection from revealing their sources in a court of law when they have been subpoenaed to tell what they know?
Were they subpoenaed in a "Court of Law"? ;)

The problem with that whole episode is that people didn't bother to read up on the matter.
The protections in a "Court of Law" are very, very different than those on the Congressional floor. ;)
Which is why I loathe what Congress does as much as the Executive at times.

BTW, at what point was this thing even remotely about "national security"?
Let alone no law was broken or anything else -- not until someone screwed up their facts in front of a Grand Jury.
Just like Clinton, what he did was not illegal -- it was what he said in front of a Grand Jury that was.

Plame's name was already out there in the media, and the media called the administration confirm.
This has been not only proven over and over (let alone the "far removed" and actual dialog involved -- and now on record -- which no one stops to actually read), but there would have not been a crime had any facts been different either.
It was 100% political, about roasting people for 100% political gain and media frenzy, just like the whole Clinton episode.

But because people don't stop to look at the facts, and assume what is going on, we get the loss of our rights as a result.
Not in a court of law, but on the Congressional floor, where the powers over-ride the rights of the individual, and Congress men and women are not accountable.
Democrat or Republican, I personally love it when people will defend something because it is political aligned with their party, or speak out when it is not.

This entire Congress, like the President, has utterly pissed me off.
And looking at the public opinion polls of both institutions, for those 75% of us that don't bother with the media, we utterly agree.
Especially enjoy the continuing slide of the opinion of the Democrat Congress from the Republican.
Not because the Democrat is any worse, but they are no different.

Hell, I might as well bring up the whole Foley double-standard non-sense.
 
Not sure where the question of how journalists came up and where there protection for Govt. interference in the constituion comes from but let answer it for you.Its the 1st amendment to the constitution(the Bill of rights) which says congress/the Govt is not allowed to infringe on a free press.
 
I just need to correct one thing,the leaders of the communist party did go to jail for just being communists in the 50s.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/menace-emerges.html

Ironically, even though the party's leaders were to go to jail in the 1950s because they had supposedly advocated the violent overthrow of the American government, no one in any position of responsibility seriously worried that the party would mount a successful revolution. A far more tangible danger was the possibility that individual Communists in sensitive positions could subtly influence the nation's foreign policy or undermine its ability to defend itself. There was no evidence that this had happened. But conspiracy theories blossomed, circulated primarily by Republican politicians and their allies who wanted to discredit the Democratic party and the New Deal. Most of these theories involved charges that Communists had infiltrated the State Department, where they induced FDR to give Poland to Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945 and then betrayed China to the Communists. Though these allegations had no basis in reality, there were enough tidbits of circumstantial evidence for people like Joe McCarthy to build their careers (and ruin those of others) by creating apparently convincing scenarios.
 
Do you see it now?

Not sure where the question of how journalists came up and where there protection for Govt. interference in the constituion comes from but let answer it for you.Its the 1st amendment to the constitution(the Bill of rights) which says congress/the Govt is not allowed to infringe on a free press.
Unfortunately the Congress has found ways to do that on the Congressional floor, if you make the mistake of finding yourself there.
Things that are enforceable or protections guaranteed in a court of law are sudden not there.
Congress continues to do it today, as the most recent episode showed, and it literally pissed me off how people could excuse it.

I just need to correct one thing,the leaders of the communist party did go to jail for just being communists in the 50s.
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/menace-emerges.html
Specifics (the quote was weak)?

It was never illegal to be a member of the Communist party in the US. Now you might be signing yourself up for extra scrutiny or other investigative matters if you were. And if even broke a single, small crime, they were probably all over you. There were probably other issues of harrassment, etc... I don't deny.

But other than what went on the Congressional floor, I don't know anyone who was jailed for merely being a member of the Communist party. And even then, they were jailed for the same thing these journalists were -- failure to provide additional names so the politicians could provide more media coverage for themselves. What they did provided absolutely no fact or other "evidence" for any alleged "trial" in the entire matter, much less was there a single crime done.

Do you see it now?

History just repeated itself 50 years later and most didn't care, especially if it didn't fit their political alignment, much like back then.
 
Here is the link to the full story again if you missed it in last post.
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/menace-emerges.html
They were jailed in the same way you mentioned about Al Queda,communists were trying to overthrow us and their leaders were packed off to jail on that justification.
I don't see any specifics at all. Can you get more detailed info? That's all generalizations and political discussion, not actual information of who, when, etc... In fact, I think they are pointing to some instances (many non-existent/more "fear based") of accusations of Community Party actions, but nothing beyond the Congressional hearings -- that were already aforementioned and referred to by myself.

Furthermore, even if they were, we're talking just individual leaders who allegedly committed acts on an individual basis. The communist party itself -- nor any and all of its members -- were not alleged to be acting in a way to undermine the entire United States government. Yes, individuals may have come under prosecution. But that's no different in this case -- let alone this case is about an organization that does wish to undermine the US! At least the Communist Party claimed it merely wanted representation in the US government, as it was currently designed -- and not to overthrow its organization, or harm its people.

That's why the Communist party was never outlawed in the US. All the Democrats and Republicans did was automatically put themselves on the ballot and draft up new rules to prevent those from getting on the ballet, to inhibit Communist influence. Hardly "fair" or "right" (as we Libertarians constantly point out), but they didn't outlaw them either.
 

Torre82

Moderator \ Jannie
Staff member
I'm quite tired at the moment so forgive if this has been said; but the law..

The law does not PREVENT crime. It only punishes those who have already commited them. In theory. There are a great many slipping thru the cracks and continuing their illegal shenanigans before and after their crimes. :p

So no, I dont believe a suspect should be held even 24 hours over an allegation or belief. If the paper trail tells its tale...

if the credit card records show it..

if the storage unit and U-Haul truck contain traces of it..

Then dammit, go for it. But holding somebody for years without charges? That's called cruelty and torture.. and THAT.. is actually illegal. ;)
 
I 100% agree with you ...

So no, I dont believe a suspect should be held even 24 hours over an allegation or belief.
And I 100% agree with you!
Then dammit, go for it. But holding somebody for years without charges? That's called cruelty and torture.. and THAT.. is actually illegal. ;)
Now you're starting to see it.

Now just remember, this didn't start with W., or Clinton or even Reagan for that matter. ;)
Holding people for a full day and no charge started much earlier.

In Russia, they can hold a citizen for months without a charge, or even 2 years in some cases.
China is even more scary.

Now look at the UK -- then look back at the US.
I honestly don't see how you Brits find time to complain about the US. ;)

I thank God everyday that our Executive and Legislative are from different parties.
In fact, our system encourages it -- if not after 2 or 4 years, at least by every 6. ;)
 
Re: How did you go from one thing to the other?

How you asserted that it wasn't illegal to belong to Al Quieda is beyond me.

because to my knowledge there isn't a state or federal ruling that says that a person cannot be a member of al queda, and defines what the specific punishment is for being such a member. maybe I'm wrong. There could be, but i've never heard of it.

Otherwise a person has the right to get together in a group of other people and call that group al queda and say that they hate america, and they want to destroy america.

as I said, that is your constitutional right, just as it's the right of the nazi party and the kkk, like you said, to say that they hate all black people and jews and that they want to destroy all black people and jews.

as you pointed out, various branches of the kkk have been shut down because they did more than just talk about it, as I said, which IS a crime.

I'm not saying that I don't think that al queda wants to destory america. I just said that they do. what i'm saying is that it is the job of the legal system to find evidence that shows that members are plotting to carry those things out, and charge them with conspiracy to commit murder or any other real charges. not just put them in jail for having a viewpoint that we don't like and no other reason.
 
I don't see any specifics at all. Can you get more detailed info? That's all generalizations and political discussion, not actual information of who, when, etc... In fact, I think they are pointing to some instances (many non-existent/more "fear based") of accusations of Community Party actions, but nothing beyond the Congressional hearings -- that were already aforementioned and referred to by myself.

Furthermore, even if they were, we're talking just individual leaders who allegedly committed acts on an individual basis. The communist party itself -- nor any and all of its members -- were not alleged to be acting in a way to undermine the entire United States government. Yes, individuals may have come under prosecution. But that's no different in this case -- let alone this case is about an organization that does wish to undermine the US! At least the Communist Party claimed it merely wanted representation in the US government, as it was currently designed -- and not to overthrow its organization, or harm its people.

That's why the Communist party was never outlawed in the US. All the Democrats and Republicans did was automatically put themselves on the ballot and draft up new rules to prevent those from getting on the ballet, to inhibit Communist influence. Hardly "fair" or "right" (as we Libertarians constantly point out), but they didn't outlaw them either.

You need to get your facts straight you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own set of facts.1st fact is again here is more proof that communists went to jail from wikepedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall Full story
Here is the pertinent paragraph
Indictment during the 'Red Scare'
On July 22, 1948 Hall and 11 other Communist Party leaders were indicted under the Smith Act on charges of “conspiracy to teach and advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government by force and violence.” Hall spent eight years in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. The U.S. Supreme Court later struck down the Smith Act as unconstitutional.

After his release, Hall continued his activities. In 1959, he was elected CPUSA general secretary. But the McCarthy, Cold War era had taken a heavy toll on the Communist Party. Hall, along with other Party leaders who remained, sought to rebuild it. He led the struggle to reclaim the legality of the Communist Party and addressed tens of thousands in Oregon, Washington and California

Here is where the Govt outlawed the communist party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#1950s.2C_1960s_and_1970s
Pertinent paragraph
The US government outlawed the CPUSA with the Communist Control Act in 1954. The 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary and the Secret Speech of Nikita Khrushchev to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union criticizing Stalin had a cataclysmic effect on the previously Stalinist majority membership CPUSA.[12]Membership plummeted and the leadership briefly faced a challenge from a loose grouping led by Daily Worker editor John Gates, which wished to democratize the party. Perhaps the greatest single blow dealt to the party in this period was the loss of the Daily Worker, published since 1924 , which was suspended in 1958 due to falling circulation


Lastly you have made lots of statements which I think are clearly not fact based so I say present some evidence as you have asked me to do and not just your assertions which I find highly suspect.
Like I recently read in one of your posts that the Valerie Plame situation was a political witch hunt.That is a total distortion of the facts.It was the CIA that refered to the justice dept the fact that one of their people had been outed.It was not commom knowledge she worked for the CIA and only someone who drinks the Fox news type Kool-Aid thinks otherwise.What her husband reported about Saddam and yellow cake all turned out to be true like all the other WMD claims the administration made.But the white house didn't like that and made a concerted effort to descredit him and one of the tactics was to try to say he was not credible because his wife had something to do with his being asked to make the trip.
 
Re: I 100% agree with you ...

Now look at the UK -- then look back at the US.
I honestly don't see how you Brits find time to complain about the US. ;)

yeah, in the UK we currently can detain terrorist suspects for up to 28 days before charging them. The pm elect, gordon brown, is apparently wanting to try to have this extended to 90 days - but i doubt he'll get that

what'll probably happen is parliament will allow the use of phone tap evidence and allow terrorists suspects to continue to be questioned after being charged

i'm happy that this thread on a kinda "human rights" issue is pretty active as a certain other thread on a similar topic
( CIA jails in Eastern Europe 'confirmed'
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=138992 )
has been eerily quiet
- so, despite that thread being viewed plenty of times, members have chosen to ignore what is a massive issue, that applies to the US and <at least> all of the other NATO countries
no one has tried to explain or justify the use of "extraordinary rendition",
i guess perhaps because that would be defending the indefensible

sorry for going ( slightly) off topic, but i would like to see some reasoned debate on that other thread, and this is a similar "war on terror" / civil liberties issue
:)
 
Excellent!

You need to get your facts straight
I wasn't saying you weren't correct, I was just hoping you could provide actual information.
You did not prior, just an abstract analysis without any reference of its own.
1st fact is again here is more proof that communists went to jail from wikepedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall
Excellent! This is what I was looking for!
Hall spent eight years in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. The U.S. Supreme Court later struck down the Smith Act as unconstitutional.
Again, excellent info!

The US government outlawed the CPUSA with the Communist Control Act in 1954.
Then I stand corrected on the history of the Communist Party in the US.
Thank you for that information, and if you can find any further information when it was no longer illegal, that would be great as well.

Lastly you have made lots of statements which I think are clearly not fact based so I say present some evidence as you have asked me to do and not just your assertions which I find highly suspect.
Last time I checked, the US had declared war on the Taliban and Al Quieda, which are named in the powers granted to the President by the Congress.
But I should read up on this to ensure what the actual powers are and who they target, especially since that will be of judicial consideration.
I will reserve to comment on that further until I do.

But there are laws against insurrection against the US, and there are well defined terms of treason.
Whether or not the courts will side with the Congress and/or Bush administration on that with regards to Al Quieda is to be seen.

Like I recently read in one of your posts that the Valerie Plame situation was a political witch hunt.That is a total distortion of the facts.It was the CIA that refered to the justice dept the fact that one of their people had been outed.It was not commom knowledge she worked for the CIA and only someone who drinks the Fox news type Kool-Aid thinks otherwise.
Sorry, I rarely watch Fox news (among CNN and others) and actually read some of the Congressional investigative notes on the matter (all public record).
What her husband reported about Saddam and yellow cake all turned out to be true like all the other WMD claims the administration made.
I do not dispute that! That's not the point.
The "politics" anyone played -- from the W. administration to Plame and her husband (he is quite political) -- is not the matter.
What matters is the actual sequence of events and truths in the matter.

But the white house didn't like that and made a concerted effort to descredit him and one of the tactics was to try to say he was not credible because his wife had something to do with his being asked to make the trip.
Yes, we are all aware of this. I am not denying the politics of the situation.

What I am pointing out is that there was no possibility of a criminal act.

Not only the fact that the media knew about Plame before they asked anyone in the W. administration, not only that they asked to confirm the fact -- I mean, did you read the transcripts?
It was basically (and this is verbatim -- or very close -- I can get the exact quote), "Oh, so you know about her?" -- that was virtually the confirmation of the matter!
But it's not merely that.
Even if someone had so-called "leaked" the name -- which they did not (again, read the actual transcripts!) -- it wouldn't have been illegal either.

Again, no one was indited or prosecuted with the leak at all or having anything to do with it.
One person has been found guilty of committing perjury to a grand jury in the facts on the matter -- that's it.
It's just like Clinton -- he wasn't found guilty of doing anything illegal with Monica or his powers or whatever the right-wing said, but committing perjury on the facts of the matter.
Because there was no case against Clinton of any criminal nature or intent, just like this whole situation.
The fact that someone was found guilty of perjury, that's it, and just like Clinton, the actual "details" of that was lame.

The "witch hunt" is that reporters were held by the Congress (not a court of law) -- just like in the days of McCarthy -- for not naming people.
Why? Because people like yourself and others glued to the TV weren't interested in the "facts" or the actual and utter total lack of any "crime," but "can we get someone in the W. administration!"
And the freedom of those people in the press involved be damned!
Just like the same non-sense and utter disregard for our freedoms just like during the Communist scare non-sense.
That's what I'm talking about! Read the records dude!
 
Re: Excellent!

.

The "witch hunt" is that reporters were held by the Congress (not a court of law) -- just like in the days of McCarthy -- for not naming people.
Why? Because people like yourself and others glued to the TV weren't interested in the "facts" or the actual and utter total lack of any "crime," but "can we get someone in the W. administration!"
And the freedom of those people in the press involved be damned!
Just like the same non-sense and utter disregard for our freedoms just like during the Communist scare non-sense.
That's what I'm talking about! Read the records dude!

Again a mis-statement of the facts.Congress had nothing to do with it.Judith Miller refused to tell a Grand Jury and while I won't say she wasn't right to do that my point is that once again YOU are the one who is un-informed and needs to do his own research.You have stated several times I do not know history and yet it is you whose assertions have no basis.You refer to me and others as not interested in the facts and "Read the records Dude".Well all I can say to that is get a new handle "professor" cause were revoking your self given title.Oh and before you ask here is the documentation on the Miller case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)

In July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but was reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official — later revealed to be "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff—on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for "twisting" intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity was revealed in a column by conservative political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.)
 
Re: Excellent!

In July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent.
Then I stand corrected on that fact, and it wasn't on the Congressional floor.
Then again, Congress has been using the courts (both parties) to do this for a good decade now.
Sigh.

(Plame's CIA identity was revealed in a column by conservative political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.)
It was publicly revealed in that article for the first time, yes.
But it was known by several reporters -- prior to that article or any call to Libby.
Woodward, among others, have pointed that out repeatedly.

Again ...
1) You can't leak what people already knew
2) Anyone who did originally leak that (which wasn't the White House) were not guilty of any crime
 
Re: Excellent!

It was publicly revealed in that article for the first time, yes.
But it was known by several reporters -- prior to that article or any call to Libby.
Woodward, among others, have pointed that out repeatedly.

Again ...
1) You can't leak what people already knew
2) Anyone who did originally leak that (which wasn't the White House) were not guilty of any crime

I challenge you to Sustantiate those statements please with some evidence.Namely that it was not administraion officals who gave people like Woodward the information that Valerie Plame was in the CIA or that her status was common knowledge prior to it being revealed by those officials.And also that quote "Anyone who did originally leak that (which wasn't the White House) were not guilty of any crime".
 
Top