The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has delivered another small victory in the War on Terror today. Despite the best efforts by a handful of retired federal judges, the court decided not to consider briefs filed on a technicality pertaining to some of wording used in the documents.

Although this court has rejected the “Silly Seven’s� briefs because of a legal technicality, they still did not rule out the possibility that one day prisoners, collected form all corners of the globe for wanting, planning, and even attempting to kill you and I, could one day take advantage of the same Constitutional rights that we American citizens have.

The Constitution of the United States is an American birthright, and common sense dictates that it should not be allowed to be used by foreigners in order to further their own causes and to manipulate our legal system. Whether it’s the criminal aliens that sneak across our borders or militant detainees imprisoned for the safety of the American citizenry, they cannot be allowed to treat the Constitution of the United States as a legal loophole.

The AP story is below the fold.

An appeals court considering whether Guantanamo Bay detainees have constitutional rights said Friday that it will not accept arguments by seven retired federal judges who oppose a new U.S. anti-terrorism law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is examining whether so-called enemy combatants should be allowed to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. President Bush signed a law this fall forbidding such challenges and the Justice Department says detainees are not protected by the Constitution.

Seven federal judges from both political parties filed friend-of-the-court briefs in November urging the appeals court to declare key parts of the new law unconstitutional. They said the law, which sets up military commissions to hear terror cases, “challenges the integrity of our judicial system” and effectively sanctions the use of torture.

In a 2-1 decision Friday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it would not accept that brief on a legal technicality, saying the title “judge” should not be used to describe former judges in legal proceedings.

The panel’s more conservative judges, David B. Sentelle and A. Raymond Randolph, issued the opinion with Judge Judith W. Rogers, an appointee of President Clinton, dissenting.
Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, said it’s unusual for such briefs to be rejected. He said the ruling could indicate a decision in the detainee case is near.

This story originated HERE.

[tags]court+of+appeals,decision,guantanamo,prisoners,detainees,judges,constitution,justice+department,America[/tags]