MSNBC's Jansing did not challenge Snow on claim of al-Marri "trial," which detainee has not received
On the June 12 edition of MSNBC Live, host Chris Jansing did not challenge White House press secretary Tony Snow's claim that "[n]one of" the many accusations against alleged terrorist Ali al-Marri were "even questioned at trial." In fact, contrary to Snow's suggestion, there was no trial. Jansing had asked for Snow's reaction to a June 11 decision by a Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel finding that the military's detention of al-Marri was unlawful and ordering that al-Marri be charged with civilian crimes, held as a material witness, deported, or released. Snow responded that al-Marri was "a member of Al Qaeda, had been working with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind of September 11, who was apparently a part of a sleeper cell to do damage to financial centers in the United States," adding: "None of this was even questioned at trial." But al-Marri never had a "trial" at which he could challenge the government's assertions. Indeed, it was the military's authority to detain him without trial that the court of appeals was adjudicating: A month before al-Marri's scheduled trial in civilian court on criminal charges -- to which he had pleaded not guilty -- the government placed him into military custody when President Bush, in a June 23, 2003, order, declared that al-Marri "is closely associated with al Qaeda" and was therefore an "enemy combatant."
According to the appeals court's decision, al-Marri was initially arrested by the FBI as a material witness in Peoria, Illinois, on December 12, 2001. In February 2002, he was indicted in New York on a single charge of intent to commit credit card fraud; in January 2003, he was indicted on six more charges, including making false statements to the FBI. Al-Marri pleaded not guilty, and all the charges were dismissed in May 2003 for lack of venue. He was then charged with the same seven counts in Peoria, and after al-Marri again pleaded not guilty, a trial was scheduled for July 21, 2003. The appeals court described in its opinion what happened next:
On Friday, June 20, 2003, the [district] court scheduled a hearing on pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress evidence against al-Marri assertedly obtained by torture. On the following Monday, June 23, before that hearing could be held, the Government moved ex parte to dismiss the indictment based on an order signed that morning by the President [which declared al-Marri an "enemy combatant"].
[...]
The federal district court in Illinois granted the Government's motion to dismiss the criminal indictment against al-Marri. In accordance with the President's order, al-Marri was then transferred to military custody and brought to the Naval Consolidated Brig in South Carolina.
Since that time (that is, for four years) the military has held al-Marri as an enemy combatant, without charge and without any indication when this confinement will end. For the first sixteen months of his military confinement, the Government did not permit al-Marri any communication with the outside world, including his attorneys, his wife, or his children. He alleges that he was denied basic necessities, interrogated through measures creating extreme sensory deprivation, and threatened with violence. A pending civil action challenges the "inhuman, degrading" and "abusive" conditions of his confinement.
From the June 12 edition of MSNBC Live:
JANSING: On Monday we saw a setback to the president's policies on -- the federal court ruling -- someone in the U.S. legally cannot be jailed indefinitely just because President Bush says that they're "enemy combatants." The court called this policy "disastrous." Is it now a case, Tony, where federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- have consistently found that President Bush has overstepped his authority with his anti-terrorism efforts?
SNOW: Actually, Chris, no. This court opinion actually is at odds with the Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld] case before the Supreme Court and the Jose Padilla court case in the federal court. This is a three-judge panel. It's now going to go before the entire Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We believe that this -- that our position is going to be upheld.
One of the unusual insinuations -- implications here is you got this guy, al-Marri, who was clearly a member of Al Qaeda, had been working with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind of September 11, who apparently was part of a sleeper cell to do damage to financial centers in the United States. None of this was even questioned at trial.
What the court said was, because Al Qaeda is not a country, like Iran or whatever, you cannot hold him as an enemy combatant; that's completely at odds with American tradition. It's also at odds with the law. We think that our position will be upheld on appeal.
JANSING: Let me ask you finally, Tony, about what was said Sunday on Meet the Press by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
I am playing catchup in the evening with the posts, I have been busy all week babysitting my Granddaughter. Anyway I wonder if some members of the msm are giving Snow a pass because of his cancer? its just a thought please do not attack me for being cold, because it is not what i intended in my words.
The MSM is giving Tony a pass because he is a loyal Bushie.
I read the ruling and what I find interesting is all this talk about enemy combatant lacks one crucial element which is war has never been declared. Only Congress can declare war and we all know this has never been done.
The chicken Republican controlled Congress was to scared to put their John Hancock down and declare war.
There is no war. No war declared by Congress, no war sanctioned by the United Nations. All we have are war criminals that were to chicken to talk straight to the People of the United States and to the World.
These war criminals are hiding, like the chicken that they are, behind a "support the troop" slogan.
As I have posted in another thread there is no way Abu prison can be filled over night with terrorists and all of them Iraqis. Not a single prisoner in Abu has anything to do with 911 or terrorists organization. Abu is nothing more a sick Bush photo opt to give the appearance that he is doing something when in reality is the war profiteer's water and towel boy. Bush even hands the war profiteers some soap and bends over. He is one sick president no doubt about it.
Perhaps you missed that Al Quaeda declared war on us. The didn't need Congressional approval.
I agree. The war against AQ and the Taliban was and is just! Still, people caught on the battle field are either POW, or because they are too dangerous to let go (as is the case in my opinion with terrorists) should get a trial. Too many prisoners in Cuba were 'sold' and did do nothing. They have no trials because there is no proof whatsoever that they did anything, even if they are terrorists.
No Iraq, but hey simple things are real hard for you we know. that darned reality always gets in the way of your non-thought processes
And when exactly did Iraq declare war on us? And how do non-state actors declare war at all? It's idiotic thinking like yours that has elevated Bin Laden from a global thug to someone who rivals a superpower.
"According to the appeals court's decision, al-Marri was initially arrested by the FBI as a material witness in Peoria, Illinois, on December 12, 2001. In February 2002, he was indicted in New York on a single charge of intent to commit credit card fraud; in January 2003, he was indicted on six more charges, including making false statements to the FBI. Al-Marri pleaded not guilty, and all the charges were dismissed in May 2003 for lack of venue. He was then charged with the same seven counts in Peoria, and after al-Marri again pleaded not guilty, a trial was scheduled for July 21, 2003. The appeals court described in its opinion what happened next:"
Sounds like a messed up court if they can't keep any charges intact.
Might be messed up source of charges, torture induced evidence, lack of due process. There's some involved people more concerned with the rule of law, than righteous revenge.
That's because neither of them understand either the concept of "trial" or "habeus corpus" nor the significance of the Sixth Amendment (which refers to "the accused," which would address "citizens," "non-citizens," "illegal immigrants," "enemy noncombatants," "enemy combatants," "illegal enemy combatants," and would preclude any statute being passed to limit the rights of any accused set forth therein, to wit:
Amendment VIIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
And of course if he is a prisoner of war he is entitled to the protection of the quaint old stuff they talked about in Geneva.
I don't believe unlawful enemy combatants who are not U.S. citizens or residents for that matter are covered by the U.S. Constitution hence no habeas corpus for them. You are claiming rights they don't have.
Hence the supreme court said they are covered under the geneva convention unless congress makes a law that says they are not. So Congress made that law.
The question is this case was whether habeas corpus extended to U.S. residents as well as citizens. This court ruled it did. Now there will be a review of this ruling.
Any human being on American soil has the right of Habeas Corpus, whether or not George W. Bush can unconstitutionally create some fictitious classification for them.
NOWHERE in the sixth amendment will you find the term citizen. The amendment was specifically addressed to accused persons. You can WISH all you want that it MEANT citizens but no possible reading of the amendment can support that intepretation. Those who read it obviously did know the difference between the word person and the word citizen.
Amazing...
As Tony said "None of this was even questioned at trial" which was a correct statement BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRIAL!!!!
The government basically takes someone off the street, detains them without trial (in direct contradiction to the Constitution of our country) and this dumb reporter, obviously having done NO homework, fails to ask this simple question.
Jansing should be fired and MSNBC should be ashamed.