Unpaid Commentary |
|||
|
Because the best things in life are free. The UltraFecta My Due Diligence Wonkette Political Animal Daily Kos Eschaton About Thomas Bio Archives 05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002 11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002 12/01/2002 - 01/01/2003 01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 |
2.23.2005
Reviving the Court of the Star Chamber The US Constitution specifically prohibits in Article IX any bills of attainder. Yet somehow, the Executive Branch of the government manages to claim a person may be an “enemy combatant”. Simply put, a Bill of Attainder stripped free British subject of certain rights in courts of law if ordered by the king. During the passage of the Constitution, it was not uncommon for the Crown to issue Bills of Attainder should a person be accused of a crime. Criminal cases were tried by the auspice of the king. Before the English Civil War kings had used Court of the Star Chamber to try political enemies without being guaranteed any rights. Enter Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, enemy of the state. The centerpiece of the Does this mean the Court of the Star Chamber is back with a vengeance? Not yet. While Abu Ali may be convicted initially, the Constitution explicit rules against attainder imply that there would be no ability for precedent. In other words, should the That is unless a convicted Abu Ali appeals and the Supreme Court weighs in. For now, the Government alleges that the planning was only “at the talking stage.” Federal conspiracy charges do not require a tremendous amount of evidence. But they still need proof of an affirmative act towards the conspiracy’s end. While the legal question is where the prosecution found evidence of this affirmative act, a more salient one is what the act was. Should the Government refuse to say, then the Court of the Star Chamber might be on its way to a comeback. |
||