Janet Reno files challenge to "terror" law

[buckthesystem]

The only odd thing about this is that Janet Reno has got "a bit of a cheek" doing this now after her performance when she was attorney-general, and she should have been held to account for her complicity in killing American people. However:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061121/D8LH749G0.html

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials filed court papers Monday arguing that the Bush administration is setting a dangerous precedent by trying a suspected terrorist outside the court system.

It was the first time that Reno, attorney general in the Clinton administration, has spoken out against the administration's policies on terrorism detainees, underscoring how contentious the court fight over the nation's new military commissions law has become. Former attorneys general rarely file court papers challenging administration policy.

Suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is the only detainee being held in the United States.

The former prosecutors challenged the Justice Department's right to bring al-Marri before a military commission.

A citizen of Qatar, he was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He had faced criminal charges until authorities designated him an enemy combatant and ordered him held at a naval base in South Carolina.

The Justice Department said in court papers last week that a new anti-terrorism law strips detainees such as al-Marri of the right to challenge their imprisonment in court.

"The government is essentially asserting the right to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United States indefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those people criminally - perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain a conviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raise embarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for other reasons," the former Justice Department officials said.

Some of the eight attorneys named in the document are now in private practice and represent detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most served under President Clinton, though the list includes former U.S. Attorneys W. Thomas Dillard and Anton R. Valukas, who served under President Reagan.

"The existing criminal justice system is more than up to the task of prosecuting and bringing to justice those who plan or attempt terrorist acts within the United States - without sacrificing any of the rights and protections that have been the hallmarks of the American legal system for more than 200 years," the attorneys wrote.

The al-Marri matter is before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and is one of three appeals court cases that will help determine the scope of the new military commissions law. That law allows the CIA to use tough - but undefined - interrogation techniques and says detainees may not use civilian courts to challenge their imprisonment.

Human rights groups have challenged the law. The former prosecutors wrote that they worried the government would increasingly use the law to avoid criminal trials "and the rights associated with them, such as the defendant's right to counsel and the government's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

(continued - link)

[Leonard]

Will no one rid me of this pestilent lawyer?

[Arthur Durnan]

UltraLibDem Janet Reno lives on! If not in my beating heart, then certainly in the bogs of the fiefdom of one, my favorite choice for lifeguard, the Crown Prince of Chappaquiddick, Edward The Kennedy. Knock the harrumphs, Janet, mad broccoli disease lives! Wouldn't the entire world be far better served if you spent time rowing over to your friend's Paradise of the Caribbean, ie, the self-proclaimed Dictator-For-Life, Fidelissimo Castro? He could probably assist in your quest to understand what multi-faceted terrorism is all about. What essential good are "civil liberties" if one becomes indubitably dead? BTW, where you around for 9-11, J.R.? Ever heard of the taliban? Conversant to any degree with the Qur'an? GOD BLESS AMERICA INDEED!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[buckthesystem]

UltraLibDem Janet Reno lives on! If not in my beating heart, then certainly in the bogs of the fiefdom of one, my favorite choice for lifeguard, the Crown Prince of Chappaquiddick, Edward The Kennedy. Knock the harrumphs, Janet, mad broccoli disease lives! Wouldn't the entire world be far better served if you spent time rowing over to your friend's Paradise of the Caribbean, ie, the self-proclaimed Dictator-For-Life, Fidelissimo Castro? He could probably assist in your quest to understand what multi-faceted terrorism is all about. What essential good are "civil liberties" if one becomes indubitably dead? BTW, where you around for 9-11, J.R.? Ever heard of the taliban? Conversant to any degree with the Qur'an? GOD BLESS AMERICA INDEED!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

There you go again with that ridiculous catchphrase "What essential good are "civil liberties" if one becomes indubitably dead?", well far more relevant is what I said (or rather quoted) in "Gonzales blasts surveillance critics": "Give me liberty or give me death!. Indeed, What essential good is a life where one has voluntarily given up their civil liberties?

Don't you see that if you believe that the price of "the war against terrorism" is that you give up your freedoms, the terrorists have won and they can not "hate us for our freedoms" because Americans have no freedoms for terrorists to "hate" them for?

[Guest man]

Don't you see that if you believe that the price of "the war against terrorism" is that you give up your freedoms, the terrorists have won and they can not "hate us for our freedoms" because Americans have no freedoms for terrorists to "hate" them for?

The terrorists haven't won until every last one of us is dead.

They don't hate us for our freedom's....they hate us because we're not like them.

Muslims aren't even safe around them.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Hear, hear! Liberty has nothing to do with it. They do not hate us for our Liberty. However they do detest Liberty. It is the polar opposite of Oppression. To crush Oppression we must simply walk right past our civilized High Minded Ideals. We weren't seeking War, yet it has found us.

Why?

We have become too civilized to Fight. It isn't all Relative, there is an evil in the world seeking to dominate those whom will. Yet civilization demands that we do exactly what we behold to be dirty work.

War has been thrust upon us. Liberty is ours to Save.

Biblically speaking; We ultimately have to lose ourselves to gain the Victory.

Peace,

Dave

[Adarian]

UltraLibDem Janet Reno lives on! If not in my beating heart, then certainly in the bogs of the fiefdom of one, my favorite choice for lifeguard, the Crown Prince of Chappaquiddick, Edward The Kennedy. Knock the harrumphs, Janet, mad broccoli disease lives! Wouldn't the entire world be far better served if you spent time rowing over to your friend's Paradise of the Caribbean, ie, the self-proclaimed Dictator-For-Life, Fidelissimo Castro? He could probably assist in your quest to understand what multi-faceted terrorism is all about. What essential good are "civil liberties" if one becomes indubitably dead? BTW, where you around for 9-11, J.R.? Ever heard of the taliban? Conversant to any degree with the Qur'an? GOD BLESS AMERICA INDEED!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Hear hear.