Quote of the day

"Certainly Respondent does not intend to argue here that, just because the President states that Petitioner's detention is 'consistent with the laws of the United States, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force' that makes it so. Not only is such a statement in directcontravention to the well settled separation of powers doctrine, it is simply not the law. Moreover, such a statement is deeply troubling. If such a position were ever adopted by the courts, it would totally eviscerate the limits placed on Presidential authority to protect the citizenry’s individual liberties."--
Padilla v. Hanft, ___ F.3d ____ (D. S. Car. February 28, 2005).

Finally, some one looking seriously at the Bush administration's line of reasoning and laughing it out of the courtroom. Judge Henry Floyd, you rock my world. He was even nice enough to give the Administration 45 days to take action. After all, he was only confirmed 09/22/2003 by a GOP controlled Senate and appointed by Bush for a district court in one the most conversative states in the Union. Still, I am guessing that Floyd won't be getting a christmas card or invite to the White House this year.

FYI here is what Bush's lawyers argued:

Even if there were any doubt about whether the AUMF [abreviation for the congressional resolution that authorized the War on Terror]encompasses combatants seized within the United States, such doubt would be resolved in favor of the President’s determination that Congress did in fact authorize petitioner’s detention. President’s Order, Preamble (declaring that petitioner's detention is 'consistent with the laws of the United States, including the Authorization for Use of Military
Force'). Respondent's Opposition at 26.

They must really believe their own spin, eat their own poop, drool over their own press releases. It is so facist to think that whatever the executive says IS the law. We are a nation of laws, not men, and certainly not of men like George W. Bush and his pals.