Originally Posted by edfreeman
What a pickle . . . the COTUS guarantees due process, and our laws define what that is. The timeline in Ron's lengthy post appears to be a manipulation of loopholes in some current laws. The one cited by guage I'm not familiar with, but if it says that, it looks like it needs tuning up to define what due process is for that situation. In the absence of that, the other definitions would apply. This is a question of whether the end justifies the means. Given the end, the conviction, albeit untimely, I would hope both sides of this would put political posturing aside and define a due process that would get us the end we had (protecting everyone), but would have the checks and balances that would protect the individual.
Writing a new law to cover every misjudgment by a panic stricken executive is not practical. In fact, if the courts were permitted to carry out a review it would be clear that the actions of the executive in this case were illegal. That is the only reason why the government changed its opinion and pursued the conviction they got in the federal court system.
All that time and attention devoted to pursuing a political position once the poor judgement was made apparent - who knows what real threats went undetected and are now looming out there. All because we had to employ so many resources to cover Bush's errors in judgement to eek out a conviction of a man, originally detained as an enemy combatant because he was suspected of incubating a dirty bomb conspiracy, for having supported jihadists in the 1990's in Bosnia and Chechnya. Sure makes the hoopla about the original government claims and the impetus for declaring him an enemy combatant seem a little shaky.
This all comes down to the Justice Department operating as an extension of the executive branch, doing the President's bidding so to speak, instead of providing advice on how to get what needs doing done without violating the Constitution or other laws of the land. Without good advice, it should not be surprising that there have been so many instances of grave failures of judgement followed by intense use of resources to disguise or otherwise hide the original failure - the very act being another failure in judgement that subsequently begets more similar failures.
This case is another, very visible instance of our government doing something they justify with an "original" story that lays the groundwork to gain support that turns out to be fiction. Iraq, the wiretapping, and this - there is a pattern and it is a classical pattern of malpractice. Overwhelmed, the executive branch cheats and then lies to cover up. We need to wake up and make it clear this is not acceptable. Changing laws makes it seem like there was something unclear here. Wrong answer. Demand better performance from the elected officials we put in office.