Serial homophobe plays the race card

Isaiah Washington, a mediocre actor, played the race card in making himself the victim of his series of insensitive remarks that cost him his job.

In playing the race card, a typical disingenuous act when people do despicable things and want to still be seen as a sympathetic person, Washington took it up a notch by insulting sucessful black actors.

"My mistake was believing that I would get the support from my network and all of my cast mates across the board. My mistake was believing I could correct a wrong with honesty and sincerity," he said in the interview posted online Thursday.

"My mistake was thinking black people get second chances. I was wrong on all fronts," he said.
His unwillingness to act like a submissive black at work was part of the problem, Washington said.

"Well, it didn't help me on the set that I was a black man who wasn't a mush-mouth Negro walking around with his head in his hands all the time. I didn't speak like I'd just left the plantation and that
can be a problem for people sometime," he said.

Instead of facing the reality that his apologies were lame as they generated more controversy that the original remarks, Washington downplays the idea he may just be an ass, he wants everyone to think it is just because he is black.

And he claims he is the victim because he didn't act like "a submissive black", wasn't a "mush mouth negro" and didn't speak like he "just left the plantation." I'm sure the scores of successful actors thank you for suggesting they succeeded because they did all those things you claim to be above.

There are real victims of racism, and everytime the race card is played by people like Isaiah Washington, those victims lose their voice. And in trying to defend his indefensible actions he not only denied justice to the real victims of racism, but he also managed to take away the successes of the scores of actors in Hollywoood who have talent.

Ex-`Grey's' star cites racism for firing

Just Shut "The Chuck" Up

Chuck "E Cheese" Schumer has called for an "import czar" in light of the wave of tainted goods entering the US food supply.


Chuck has always been a fan of expanding the bloated bureaucracy in Washington. Never mind that customs, the FDA, and four other already existing bureaucracies already control everything imported into the US.


During one of his latest whiney press conferences Schumer unveiled his latest brain storm is the Import Czar. In case you missed it:


"There are more than a half dozen federal agencies responsible for monitoring, testing, and blocking dangerous or tainted shipments," the Schumer statement said. "This maze includes cabinet level departments, independent agencies and administrations within executive agencies, all operating with different regula- tions, rules and protocols."


So rather than address the subject and appoint a lead organization to help coordinate and assign areas of responsibility he wants to appoint an Import Czar. And along with the Czar comes his administrative staff and the government continues its inexhorable growth at the expense of the taxpayers.

These federal "czars" have been the ultimate in wastes of time and money and have never addressed or solved any of the problems they have been "empowered" to handle. The key being the word empower.

• Drug Czar: has no real authority and has accomplished nothing
  
• AIDS Czar: has no real authority and has acomplished nothing
  
• War Czar: has no real authority and will accomplish nothing
  
• Import Czar: need i continue?
  

How can anyone suggest with a straight face that Washington doesn't have enough bureaucrats already?

Perhaps the problem is that there is too much bureaucracy! The government is so large it is unable to handle even the most perfunctory tasks. Clinton/Gore ran on the promise to reinvent government, and they did, they made it larger and it still doesn't work. Maybe someone needs to reinvent government by making it smaller and more efficient.

But I guarantee you Chuck Schumer will not be that person!

The Supreme Court rules racism is wrong... liberals are confused

The US Supreme Court ruled that using race as a condition of ensuring diversity is wrong. The Chief Justice summed it up perfectly when he said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

This is another example of liberals being confused and taking their eye off the ball. The issue at hand is not strictly liberal vs. conservative, although the media would have you believe so by identifying the justices in the majority as conservative, and refering to the dissenting justices as liberal. The make up of the Supreme Court is 4 conservative/constitutionalists, 3 liberal/ social activists, 1 moderate/constitutionalist, and 1 moderate/social activist. So while the article may be technically correct in assigning the labels "liberal" and "conservative", those political stances are virtually insignificant when examining the ideological differences at play.

The ideological split is that 5 of the justices see themselves being the final arbiters in determining if laws and decisions are based on a firm constitutional foundation. The other 4 see themselves as legislators without accountability.

Court limits schools considering race

Perspective vs. Spin

I am unapologetically conservative. But everything I discuss is factual, I actually take time to research a topic before talking about it. But when I do write it is with a conservative perspective because I have right leaning ideologies. But I do not ignore facts, or use dubious information to support my argument... that is called spin.

The main stream media has an anti-Bush, anti-Republican agenda, they write their headlines and "research" their stories to spin stories to favor the left. By spin I mean use facts that only support their agenda, ignoring, or more accurately choosing not to report, those items that would make the story more balanced and factually correct and give the viewer a better perspective of the issue. The main stream media cannot allow their viewers to make up their own minds, they need to control the input so they can control the message, and hence the viewer.

That is spin. Ignoring facts and/or using disinformation to change the context of the story to suit one's agenda or motive.

I do not ignore facts, I do debunk disinformation.

I have always angered those who claim they were conservatives when they mean Republicans because I always said Bush failed the conservatives. Now it's cool to say you don't like Bush... which I do, the economy has been great for more than half a decade. But to the left I'm a Bush apologist when I point out the Clintons, John Kerry and hundreds of our elected Representatives emphatically knew that Saddam had an advanced program of WMD.

Your SUV is afffecting Mars

(originally posted June 26, 2007)




Mars is experiencing a dust storm, the likes of which are unknown here on Earth. And the culprit? Extreme solar activity.


Huge Dust Storm Breaks Out on Mars


Apparently we must have generated so much carbon dioxide that it left earth's atmosphere, broke free of the earth's gravity and is now enveloping the Red Planet.


Dust storm thousands of miles across are pummeling the planet. But somehow the solar activity that effects Mars, about 78 million miles further than the Earth, is not contributing to Earth's climate change at all.

Two cloture votes for Monday

(originally posted June 22, 2007)



Both of these bills are bad legislation (as is most legislation)!!!

When the senate reconvenes at 1 pm on Monday the first order of business will be to vote for cloture on HR 800... an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act. The purpose behind this amendment is to make union organizing easier, make it easier for labor unions to accuse an employer of using unfair labor tactics and to provide for emergency injunctions against employers accused of unfair labor practices.

It also includes a provision for "open voting" when organizing unions at workplaces. This means employees' votes are cast in the open, running against the American doctrine of closed ballots to protect people from reprisals. Employees who vote to organize unions are protected under existing federal law, but reprisals from co-workers for failing to vote for unions are not.
Everyone knows this so when unions hold open voting the union wins about 80% of the time.
This is designer legislation determined to give the faltering labor unions a last gasp as working.

Currently labor unions represent just over 12,000,000 employees, most of them government employees. They need to expand their base since most union jobs have vanished. Of course there is no coincidence that union jobs disappear, the modern labor union chokes the life out of business. Again, going against American tradition, it rewards longevity instead of initiative.
Just as businesses should not be over-regulated and we should have a free and open economy, labor unions do not need any assistance getting members. We have empirical data that labor unions choke the life out of American industry. If labor wants to organize they will, but forcing an open vote where employees will be under pressure to vote for the union is intimidation. That the government would allow the practice is shocking, that they would legislate top make it legal is stupefying.

Write to your Senators this weekend to vote for no cloture on HR 800... we want open debate on the measure, not back room designer legislation politics.

(To make matters worse the Senate voted Friday to waive the mandatory quorum rules for this measure.)

And right after HR 800 the senate moves for a cloture vote S 1639... the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Remind your senators this weekend to vote no cloture for that as well.

The debate is not over, the American people have spoken against it, make the Senate do their duty as the representatives of the people.

FIND YOUR SENATORS HERE

Call, fax, or email... do something to stop it so you won't have to complain about it later!!!

ADDED: correction, after rereading the daily record the cloture votes are tentatively scheduled for Tuesday am. But they voted to hold the HR 800 cloture vote without a quorum, clearing it for Monday which means S1639 could possibly be heard on Monday. It doesn't matter if it is Monday or Tuesday... call, fax, or email your Senators before it is too late.

The Senate Fails Again

(originally posted June 21, 2007)

The Senate passed HR6, the Clean Energy Act. Being good intentioned, but ill informed, the Senate made sure that lots of attention was given to ethanol.

Bills such as this often contain lots of proposed legislation that is closely related to the title of the bill, some that is distantly related to the topic at hand, and some that draws no correllation.

But ethanol is NOT clean energy, it is a tool for energy independence.
Ethanol from corn... the Senate's pet project... takes more energy to create than it yields, with the added penalty of increasing almost all food products. And that harms not only the US, but all of the countries that import our corn for livestock feed. The distilling process creates a vast quantity of CO2 and the tailpipe emissions aggravate athsma symptoms and cause other respiratory problems. Since Brazil has been so reliant upon ethanol there is little need for environmental impact studies, the effects are well documented.

Building nuclear power plants is a better tools for clean energy AND energy independence. Once we shutter coal fired power plants we can invest in coal cracking plants that extract fuel from coal, same with the oil impreganted shale. Those two sources of petroleum, on top of our reserves would reduce our imported of oil dramatically. Yes nuke plants create waste, a moderate amount annually, appromimately 1/2 ton, or two 55 gallons barrels. The waste can be processed, but right now the number of plants in operatoin make processing the waste unfeasible considering the cost of the plant, build more nukes and the costs come in line.

There is another factor for energy independence that is always ignored... recycling. Almost all plastic gathered for recycling is sent either to landfills (bet your local DPW never told you that) or to Asia. While the petroleum cannot be (feasably) extracted from the plastic, the plastic can be ground and reused in most cases. Right now the vast majority of our recycling goes to China. There it is made into new items for much less than the cost of virgin resin. An enormous level of our imported oil goes into the plastics sector.

The Senate had the oportunity to listen to the experts and come up with a comprehensive bill that focused on Clean a Energy AND Energy Independence. Instead they chose to listen to the lobbyists and are mislabeling ethanol as a clean energy source. This win for the lobbyists will have huge negative economic impacts that will effect everyone.

Bush promises veto of stem cell bill and Nancy Pelosi is a liar

(originally posted June 19, 2007)






There is not much surprise in the title of this blog.

Every knew that if the House's stem cell bill made it past the Senate it was going to face certain veto. Bush vetoed it once before and stated his objection to embryonic stem cell research based upon two factors: the moral and ethical debate over creating and then ending life and the indisputable fact that embryonic stem cell research has not been used to cure a single disease.

And everyone knows Nancy Pelosi is a liar. Her statement in this article that "more than 70 percent of Americans who support it" is a lie. The Speaker of the House knows that the majority of Americans don't even have a cogent opinion on the issue becuse she made sure that they don't. Instead of presenting facts she rolled out Michael Fox.

FACT: embryonic stem cell research, while it can form longer strings than adult stem cells, has yet to yield any results.

FACT: a long list of cures based on adult stem cells exists, total for embryonic research, ZERO.
FACT: private industry, foundations and states can fund embryonic stem cell research under existing guidelines, it is federal money that is restricted, the practice is not banned.

FACT: if embryonic stem cell research was so promising the pharmaceutical and medical industries would be flooding the labs with money.

FACT: in the 2005 bill an amendment to provide tax breaks to companies who invest in embryonic stem cell research failed to pass, the same amendment was not even considered for a vote when Pelosi rammed her version through as part of her" First 100 Hours".

Jimmy reminds us why he was the worst President in US history

Jimmy grins as he displays his book that was so outrageous and non-factual 14
of his closest advisors quit rather than be associated with his "Center for Peace."

.
Jimmy Carter has sealed his fate as the worst president in the history of the US of A. His legacy is a combination of hostages and malaise. His foreign policy was a joke and his domestic policies still reign supreme as being crap.

Carter blasts US policy on Palestinians

But that is not to say he was not a nice guy, and no one can fairly call him dumb. He was elected because he was a Washington outsider and the country paid the price for wanting that drastic a change. Because Jimmy was "his own man" he surrounded himself with his good ole boys who had no idea what foreign relations meant, but his heart was in the right place. Unfortunately for the US his brain was apparently left in Plains.

Jimmy Carter is now relishing his role as the United States' senior statesman... but the problem is he was never a stateman, he was a peanut farmer. Jimmy Carter needs to step away from the mike and stop criticizing the current and all other administrations. But he is on the anti-Bush bandwagon because he believes he may once again become relavent in a new Democrat regime and hopes to rewrite history (and his legacy) through new post-Presidential actions.

But Jimmy proves what a fool he is by criticizing Bush for not recognizing Hamas, a terrorist organization, when the Palestinian Authority has non-terrorist leaders, people who want peace and have demonstrated it. The tact being used by Bush and the EU, by dealing with fatah and unfreezing funds to them is brilliant.

Jimmy says his Center for Peace certified the election and found no wrongdoings except on the part of Fatah. Jimmy also certified Hugo Chavez' elections despite worldwide knowledge that fraud and voter intimidation was not even concealed.

If Jimmy didn't suck so bad as President maybe his opinion would count. When will Carter learn that appeasing terrorists won't work? He saw first hand what happens when you try to appease terrorists, they overrun your embassy, take hostages and keep them for over a year. And in 2001 he saw the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacked because of the preceeding 8 years of appeasement.

Democracy? We don't need no stinking democracy!

The great State of New Jersey is considering joining a compact to award all 15 electoral votes NOT to the candidate that wins the popular election in our fair state, but the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote nationwide. This compact, which must be agreed to by enough states with the majority of electoral votes - or in terms able to be understood by humans - the most populous states are looking at silencing the will of the smaller states - the EXACT reason the electoral college was set up in the first place.
Maryland is the only state to have ratified it so far, while the Governator and Hawaii both vetoed the resolution.

Some say the electoral college is an outdated idea, but the truth is it was basically unnecessary when it was created as the entire population was pretty much evenly distributed, but people with foresight saw that as the country expanded there would be states with less population - the electoral college ensures that they have a say in who gets elected president.
Since these discussions are being held and votes being taken by your state representatives without consulting you it behooves everyone who understands the importance of the electoral college to do some homework and see if your state legislators are considering this proposition. If they are, let them know your feelings about it.

Moonbats will be in favor of it since they feel Bush robbed Gore in 2000. But those with the political acumen to understand the value of the electoral college in our system of chosing a president knows it makes sure the less populous states have a reason to vote for President.

New Jersey weighs giving electoral votes to popular vote winner

Senators love to invoke the constitution, but have they ever bothered to read it?

(originally posted June 13, 2007)

Earlier this year the House rammed through legislation to give a representative from the District of Columbia voting rights in the House and add another representative for Utah.
On 6/13/07 the Senate committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs approved the house measure.

Ranking member Susan Collins (R-ME) had this to say:
“I believe that residents of the District of Columbia should have voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives as a matter of fundamental fairness. The concern that I have always had is how this representation could be granted to the District in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution. "

Well Senator Collins,the constitution is quite clear on the matter, in order to be consistent with the constitution just try reading the preamble, you don't even need to read the whole thing:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

So your choices are:

1. Grant DC statehood and they will receive 2 representatives and two senators (based on population they will have the same representation as Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota
2. Dissolve the federal district and ceed the land back to Maryland
3. Amend the constitution of the United States
4. Keep things status quo where DC has a representative who can attend all House functions, can speak on all proposals, and can vote in committee but has no vote on the House floor... just like every other possession or territory.
   

Senator Collins concludes:
“This legislation raises complex issues, but the ultimate goal makes it worth my support.”

This legislation does not raise "complex issues", the issue is quite simple, it is illegal and unconstitutional. The constitution can only be changed by amendment, not by a legislative vote. The constitution clearly says states get voting representatives in the House... not protectorates, not territories, not possessions and not federal districts.

Since our elected officials take oaths to uphold the constitution perhaps they should try reading it some time.

The Senate Buries an Investigation

(originally posted June 13, 2007)

On May 25, 2007 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence filed a report with the President Pro Tempore concerning the pre-war intelligence assessments on post-war Iraq. It seems the committee came to the following conclusions about issues clearly raised by the intelligence community:

• Democracy: Establishing a stable government would be a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge.


• Terrorism: Al-Qaida would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks during and after a US-Iraq war. The increase in terror would spike and decrease in 3 to 5 years and in this period the lines between Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would become blurred. Softer targets, such as US citizens overseas would become more inviting targets.


• Domestic conflict: Iraq is a deeply divided society that would likely erupt in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it.


• Influence of Iraq’s neighbors: Neighbor’s would jockey for influence in Iraq with activities ranging from rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure to fomenting strife among Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic groups. Iranian leaders would try to influence the shape of post-Hussein Iraq to preserve national security and demonstrate Iran is an important regional leader.


• WMD: any action to eliminate Iraqi WMD would not cause other regional states to abandon their WMD programs or desire to develop such programs.


• Security: the Iraqi government would have to walk a fine line between dismantling the worst aspects of Saddam’s police, security and intelligence forces and retaining the capability to enforce nationwide peace.
  

And there is more… much, much more. Since these intelligence assessments were conducted pre-war and were not classified it is information that was available to all members of the House and Senate when they voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.

So the question remains, how can people who voted for the war, such as Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry say they were misled by the White House? The official intelligence statements were extraordinarily accurate. This report not only supports the claims by the intelligence agencies that they were not influenced by the White House to portray the war as anything other than what it was, it actually refutes any such allegations.

And why is the Senate keeping this report under wraps, why not inform the people that their investigation proved that the intelligence corps were correct and they knew Iraq was going to be a long time commitment with the likelihood of internal strife and violence with participation from Al-Qaeda and Iraq’s neighbors?

Why is the Senate afraid to tell people Iraq is turning out exactly as the intelligence they used to authorize the war predicted it would?

Dan Rather Get's It Right

(originally posted June 12, 2007)





For decades the broadcasts news' (like all media outlets') dirty litle secret is that it is ratings driven... or to put a finer point on it... the broadcast news outlets are whores... they spin a story desined to get them ratings... ratings means more advertising dollars and making money is the goal of the media.



But the news also had news men (and the occassional woman) that went beyond being mere reporters, such as Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather (pre-2004 election), who did their own research, wrote their own stories and understood the developments in the world beyond the distilled sound bites released on the networks news.



The network (and cable news) is packaged as entertainment and people like CBS's Moonves are entertainment executives first and foremost.



Dan Rather is correct when he said Moonves dumbed down the news when Katie Couric took the anchor spot at CBS. But he is correct from his perspective, he remembers his career prior to 2004 when the news anchor meant more than being a talking head. But it wasn't that long prior when Connie Chung was added (and subsequently removed) as co-anchor in a failed attempt by the network to appeal to women... and why the urgency to appeal to women?... to get higher ratings.



But Dan Rather outlasted the rest of the news anchors who did more than smile and read the TelePromptR... when he finally stepped down in disgrace for not checking the facts of a story and being so excited about this scoop he failed to recognize a purportedly 30 year old document was done on a computer he was a figurative dinosaur... and CBS's ratings were suffering because of it.


Dan Rather remember the days when the station's anchor was the real head of the news department... when stations would run stories past their anchor for decsions on what to run and how to spin it... now the "Big 3" run the stories and put the spin with the hopes of getting the best ratings... instead of checking with their anchor they run it past Nielson or Arbitron.

Experts predict we could soon be paying $4.50 a gallon

No, I am not referring to gasoline. I am referring to a more necessary item... milk.

I don't have kids so I really didn't pay attention to this until recently when I noticed that my 1/2 gallon of milk cost what I remember my mother paying for a gallon about 10 years ago. Although I do shamefully admit I had noticed that ice cream had passed $5 a half gallon and that many "half gallons" of ice cream are now only 48 ounces. That I knew was due in large part to the worldwide demand for butter fat. But the milk angle was one I wasn't paying too much attention to.

Then last week agricultural experts predicted milk could hit $4.50 a gallon by August.
And why? The increased demand for dairy products both in the US and abroad is one reason. Yes, we are exporting a huge percentage of our milk supply to India and China, and when an item is in demand the price goes up. There is also a dearth of smaller dairies meaning we rely more and more on the super-dairies in the Midwest. Again common sense issues, but almost forgotten is the issue that feed prices are at near record highs and causing the dairy farmers largest expense to drive up the cost of milk and milk products.

And why are feed costs up? Corn derived ethanol!!!

So thanks to the corn lobby and moonbat environmentalists we can expect to be hearing about the next African crisis. India, China and other developing countries are buying US milk and feed grain driving up the costs of those products, making it difficult for underdeveloped countries to afford these necessities. So they can't afford the milk and they can't afford the feed to produce their own milk unless they sacrifice improvements to their infrastructure.

And that means they will not be able to produce sufficient quantities of fresh water to take care of their cattle or their children, forcing them to use unsanitary water to reconstitute the milk. So the next African crisis, large scale starvation and surging child mortality are in the foreseeable future.

(In case you've forgotten, corn ethanol uses more energy than it yields, and while it emits less carbon from the tail pipe when it burns the distilling process yields quite a bit... and the emissions are not clean, just lower in carbon... plus it drives up the costs of everything made with corn or corn derivatives, including meat and dairy products... corn ethanol is a step towards energy independence, not to help the environment, and what good is energy independence if you can't afford to eat?)

The stench of the Clinton Administration persists after 6 years

(originally posted June 9, 2007)




I was going to write about one of the greatest travesties of justice inside the beltway... the "pardon"' given Sandy Berger. Sure Bill Clinton had his theft and mail fraud charges, but they technically occurred outside the beltway.



Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, entered the national archives and stuffed documents into his pants, making a few trips and depositing national security papers at a construction zone until he could recover them and destroy them.



The attached editorial actually mirrors my exact sentiments... that Berger did not "voluntarily" surrender his law license any more than Clinton did... it was a condition of dropping the investigation. That the federal judge, like Berger, is a Clinton appointee is just a coincidence and I'm sure played no factor in his virtual pardon.



I will also note that in 2005 Mr Berger "agreed" to forfeit his security clearance for 3 years and promised to cooperate in the investigation. Now he "agrees" to forfeit his law license in order not to cooperate. That he only lost his security clearance for 3 years is a joke, he forfeited his integrity by forever concealing the contents of those documents when he stole and destroyed them, his security clearance should have been shredded with those papers.


Sandy Berger "Voluntarily" Forfeits Law License


Berger pleads guilty to taking classified documents, loses security clearance



Even though he did a great disservice to the people of the United States, especially as the papers he destroyed involved the circumstances leading up to 9/11, Sandy has earned the undying gratitude of Bill Clinton (and by association Hilary) since they could only have even further obliterated Clinton's legacy. Even if Berger did it to cover up his own incompetence it irrevocably affected the results of the 9/11 commission and what was known and when prior to the events of that day.

Sometime the moonbats are right

Court rules in favor of enemy combatant

First things first. There is a difference between the way I see this ruling being good and the way the left does. They see it as a way to exercise their Bushate. I see it as the world's leader in pressing for human right's reform walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

I have no problem with the MCA: 2006. I think it is a great tool to help provide security to the country while giving rights to a class of person so despicable that they are not addressed in the Geneva Conventions; except indirectly as spies, and as everyone knows the Geneva conventions upholds the summary execution of spies and grants them no rights or guarantees of humane treatment.

However, since al-Marri was a legal resident he is protected under the constitution. And even if the MCA permits him to be held until trial if the government cannot develop a case in 5 years they need to kick the defendant loose.

The MCA does not stipulate time lines for hearings for combatants so the government can interview the detainee and use that information in current cases, but no law based on the US Constitution should permit unlimited detention.

The MCA is a powerful tool and a necessary one as it establishes a system of justice for enemy combatants. But like all power, it has the potential for abuse. And while I'm certain parts of the MCA was written knowing legal challenges would provide for guidance and limitations, we need to remember one important fact... the United States is not a third world dictatorship, it is the United States of America. Other countries aspire for the freedoms we have. Residents and citizens on US soil should not be treated as enemy combatants and their right to habeus corpus should never be in jeopardy.

(I added the article below in case the link "times out")

Jun 11, 1:58 PM EDT
Court rules in favor of enemy combatant
By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON Associated Press Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it suspects of being an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday.
"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.
He is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.
Jose Padilla, another U.S. citizen, was 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.
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.
Al-Marri's lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus - defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved