Ask not for whom the bell tolls ...

It tolls for thee.

Robert Owens, independent candidate for Ohio Attorney General, found this recent decision by the U.S. Fourth District Court of Appeals:

"Judges of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the president can legally, by simply labeling an individual an “enemy combatant,” imprison anyone, citizen or not, without due process for months, years, decades — or indefinitely.The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier three-judge panel’s decision which ruled that the government lacked the power to detain Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar legally in the United States on a student visa, who had been charged with credit card fraud and making false statements as part of the 9/11 investigation. Keep in mind the Bush administration is not accusing al-Marri of having any connections to al-Qaeda or the Taliban or fighting against U.S. forces. He is accused of being involved in an unproven terrorist plot, which he denies.

"That didn’t stop the judge who was the swing vote in the matter, William Traxler, from opinionating in the ruling (page 28): 'As pointed out by my colleagues, the Constitution generally affords all persons detained by the government the right to be charged and tried in a criminal proceeding for suspected wrongdoing, and it prohibits the government from subjecting individuals arrested inside the United States to military detention unless they fall within certain narrow exceptions. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1978)' ('In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.') The detention of enemy combatants during military hostilities, however, is such an exception. If properly designated an enemy combatant pursuant to legal authority of the President, such persons may be detained without charge or criminal proceedings 'for the duration of the relevant hostilities.' Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 519-521 (2004)."

It gets even worse.

"Under the current state of our precedents, it is likely that the constitutional rights our court determines exist, or do not exist, for al-Marri will apply equally to our own citizens under like circumstances. This means simply that protections we declare to be unavailable under the Constitution to al-Marri might likewise be unavailable to American citizens, and those rights which protect him will protect us as well. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is therefore advocating a circumvention of basic constitutional rights by the president of the United States and the courts. And this power, once invested will carry forward to all subsequent presidents and courts. They have determined that they will be the 'deciders,' specifying who will and who will not be afforded due process under constitutional law."

Liberty depends on a government of laws, not of men. This decision has thrown that whole idea out the window by making the laws dependent on the whims of men. When government is based on the whims of men, there is no law.

History may well record this decision, if it holds up in the U.S. Supreme Court, as the event that repealed the Constitution.