California Conservative

A case certainly could be made for Janet Reno in that respect based on her utterly partisan behavior during Clinton’s second term alone. That said, this article provides additional proof of her ineptitude.

Former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials filed court papers Monday arguing that the Bush administration is setting a dangerous precedent by trying a suspected terrorist outside the court system. It was the first time that Reno, attorney general in the Clinton administration, has spoken out against the administration’s policies on terrorism detainees, underscoring how contentious the court fight over the nation’s new military commissions law has become. Former attorneys general rarely file court papers challenging administration policy.

Suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is the only detainee being held in the United States. The former prosecutors challenged the Justice Department’s right to bring al-Marri before a military commission. A citizen of Qatar, he was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He had faced criminal charges until authorities designated him an enemy combatant and ordered him held at a naval base in South Carolina.

The Justice Department said in court papers last week that a new anti-terrorism law strips detainees such as al-Marri of the right to challenge their imprisonment in court.

Reno is betting that the liberals on the Supreme Court will side with her on this, if it makes it that far but that’s far from a sure thing considering their opinion in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, which struck down the military tribunals only on the grounds that the Executive Branch couldn’t unilaterally establish military tribunals. Another important facet to this ruling is that they said that enemy combatants didn’t have to be tried but that there was judicial oversight in the sense that the Judicial branch could rule whether someone was properly termed an enemy combatant.

Reno’s lawsuit argues in favor of trying enemy combatants in a regular court subject to the rules of evidence. That’s scary considering how the evidence is collected. If Reno’s lawsuit prevails, it could give terrorists access to classified information, including sources and methods used in collecting the information. Only an airhead like Reno wouldn’t see the danger in that.

One of the last pieces of legislation passed before the election was the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which codifies into law military commissions. Enemy combatants’ due process rights are protected through a limited appeals process and via judicial oversight on the Commission’s activities.

According to Wikipedia:

The bill passed the Senate, 65-34, on September 28, 2006. The bill passed in the House, 250-170-12, on September 29, 2006. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 17, 2006.

The legislation wouldn’t have won such bipartisan support if it didn’t address key due process rights.

I’m betting that the Justice Department’s case against Mr. al-Marri is airtight and that part of their proof is classified, which is why they’re planning on trying al-Marri at a military commission instead of in open court.

What this means is that Ms. Reno’s lawsuit speaks more to her perspective on ‘fighting’ the GWOT with her hands tied behind her back than it speaks to the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act. It speaks to the ineffectiveness of the Reno Justice Department and to her personal incompetence. Her ineptitude speaks for itself.

Technorati Tags: Hamdan, Military Commissions Act, Janet Reno, Justice Department, GWOT

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 21st, 2006 at 1:45 am and is filed under ACLU, Author: Gary Gross, Homeland Security, Intel, Judiciary, Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.