On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:05:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

The governments response is to suggest a range of alternatives:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4207295.stm


That's all very nice. I hope you find something that works.


Apparently three are to be bailed, and I hear that there are
signs of sanity coming from the US legal system too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4223561.stm

Unfortunately, all it means is a constitutional conflict. District courts
have decided both ways on this issue -- mostly against. The district court
in the Rasul case decided against; the Court of Appeals in that case decided
against; and then the Supreme Court, in a ruling I described elsewhere in
this thread, decided for, with a strong dissent and with an undefended
concurrence.

Unless you know the US federal court system, don't draw any conclusions yet
from this ruling. Furthermore, it will have nothing to do with "sanity" when
it's all finally decided. It will be based on constitutional principles,
which are vague enough in this area that a decision could go either way.

"Sanity" would require an act of Congress to re-define the rules of habeas
corpus in US courts, for foreign nationals outside of our borders.

Ed,
These are matters of international import.
Trying to claim that ONLY US laws apply is absurd on the very
face of it.

Breaking so many international laws, the UN Charter, so many
treaties .... mooning the world legal system ....
--
Cliff