Decius wrote:

A federal appeals court ruled today that the president can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in the absence of criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

Sweet! Kiss your checks and balances goodbye!

Naturally this comes from the Fourth Circuit, home of two of the people on the "short list" Michale Luttig, who wrote the opinion and James Wilkison. There is absolutely no way that this can be held as constitutional, as it in in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment which reads "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In this case, he is obviously being deprived of liberty without due process.

Further, having read the opinion, the base assumption is fundamentally flawed. "Section 8, Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" The ability to declare War is something that is solely granted to Congress, not the President. War, the failing wars on drugs and poverty notwithstanding, is something that only exists between nation states. Al Q is not a nation state, hell, it has more in common with college fraternities than nation states. In any case, there is no such declaration of war.

It has oft been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. In making this finding, Mr Bush has violated his oath of office, and the members of the Fourth Circuit have taken a step towards the destruction of the Union.