Interesting editorial in today's Wall Street Journal on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that an aspiring terrorist could not be detained as an enemy combatant: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010207. The basis of their holding was that this particular individual had never taken up arms on a foreign battlefield against the United States. The fact that he wanted to do it here seems not to have mattered.
What sense does that make?
No comments:
Post a Comment