Remember precedent

Just image what this sets for precedent if we elect a president with less character and doesn't have our best interests in mind. And yes, that last part was sarcasm.
Court rules in favor of enemy combatant - Yahoo! News

RICHMOND, Va. - The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said Monday.

The ruling was a harsh rebuke of one of the central tools the administration believes it has to combat terror.
...
"This is a landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power," al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, said in a statement. "It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals — citizens and immigrants — in the United States."

The court said its ruling doesn't mean al-Marri should be set free. Instead, he can be returned to the civilian court system and tried on criminal charges.

Bottom line, if he is guilty of something, he should stand trial. Sounds like there is evidence, so please proceed to protect our society from these criminals. But usurping the rights of citizens sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us "not yet criminals".

Funny what happened when another illegally detained U.S. citizen took it to court.

Jose Padilla, who is a U.S. citizen, had been held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.

And why don't I trust that our supreme court will rule in favor of liberty? Hmmm, I wonder why?