And by the way, the Fourth Circuit doesn't agree with you and even if they did why would it matter? You've already made clear that the they can't be trusted.
"The government urges us not only to reverse and remand the June 11 order, but in the alternative to reach further and dismiss the instant petition in its entirety. In its brief before this court, the government asserts that "given the constitutionally limited role of the courts in reviewing military decisions, courts may not second-guess the military's determination that an individual is an enemy combatant and should be detained as such." The government thus submits that we may not review at all its designation of an American citizen as an enemy combatant -- that its determinations on this score are the first and final word. Any dismissal of the petition at this point would be as premature as the district court's June 11 order. In dismissing, we ourselves would be summarily embracing a sweeping proposition -- namely that, with no meaningful judicial review, any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel on the government's say-so. Given the interlocutory nature of this appeal, a remand rather than an outright dismissal is appropriate."
"If dismissal is thus not appropriate, deference to the political branches certainly is. It should be clear that circumspection is required if the judiciary is to maintain its proper posture of restraint. The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 670 ("[T]his Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted."). "
"The standards and procedures that should govern this case on remand are not for us to resolve in the first instance. It has long been established that if Hamdi is indeed an "enemy combatant" who was captured during hostilities in Afghanistan, the government's present detention of him is a lawful one. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (holding that both lawful and unlawful combatants, regardless of citizenship, "are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces"); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 313-14 (1946) (same); In re Territo, 156 F.2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946) (same). Separation of powers principles must, moreover, shape the standard for reviewing the government's designation of Hamdi as an enemy combatant. Any standard of inquiry must not present a risk of saddling military decision-making with the panoply of encumbrances associated with civil litigation."
Even though the appeals court agrees with my viewpoint, the use the "political question" argument won the day against judicial review. Many judges can't be trusted, not all. An example would be the 9th circuit. But I was talking about legislative and executive trust. In my opinion, if you trust on the good intentions of the elected officials and bureaucrates instead of strict walls of limitations, you are crazy, especially if the procedures are passed from one administration to the next.
Like I stated before, if Bubba was the president and Reno was Justice when all this happened, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And again, in Ex Parte Quirin, the American citizen was caught red-handed at espionage. While Hamdi was caught fighting in Afghanistan, the other citizen found fighting there is in the civilian courts now. Padilla has vague and circumstantial evidence against him, if that.
They may be both guilty. I'd say certainly Hamdi is. But for a nation that awards citizenship to an illegal alien who drops a baby between two rows of corn, and the Supreme Court holding that its citizenship can't be touched, the mere sayso of the executive that that citizenship is void for their purposes is irregular as hell.
You, and people who argue for that priviledge, don't see the egregious lengths to which it can be taken in a more hostile administration. If you don't, you're crazy. If we don't dot every "i" and cross every "t", we will find ourselves without i's and t's.
Other ways of questioning American citizens about their activities without holding them incommunicado are available. For instance, eavesdropping on accused and councel is now available, so access to councel is not a secretive affair and can't compromise any interrogation.
Again, thank you for posting the Habs. Otherwise, I would have to have been just suspicious instead of convinced. 