With the US Appeals court directing the Bush administration to free a Qatar student who is a legal US resident from the military justice system back to the standard US justice system, it’s clear the US Gonzalez System (formerly bound to the laws and practices of the clear and presently endangered US Justice system) will footdrag the matter with a full court appeal, followed by an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

As a supporter of the very effective and far more just system of law that Bush has tried to surrender to America’s enemies, I’ve long advocated that all detainees should be tried in our courts instead of military tribunals, so justice could be meted out within a system of justice with a proven record of objectivity and moral integrity. Had Bush done so, every detainee would have been tried long ago with the guilty convicted, sentenced and serving sentences likely to be harsh yet well-earned. Because Bush chose the tribunal approach, should this fresh ruling stand, it now may prove difficult to try Ali al-Marri, a Qatar citizen living with his wife and five children while doing post-grad work at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. (He’d earned his bachelor’s degree there a decade earlier, and had returned to pursue a master’s in computer information systems.)

A little background’s in order.

Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, was captured with Khalid Shaykh Muhammad in Pakistan in 2003. Evidence gathered against these two suggest Muhammed was the principal architect of the 9-11 attacks and al-Hawsawi was one of two principal treasurers moving funds to aid the 9-11 attackers, among others. They represent two of the most important apprehensions made of senior al Qaida officials since 9-11, as both subsequently participated in other attack attempts on the US between December 2001 and early 2003.

The complaint against the detainee in question, al-Marri, indicates he may have had regular contacts with al-Hawsawi before and after the 9-11 attacks, that he was sympathetic to the efforts of Palestinians and Osama Bin Laden, that he was using false identities to illegally utilize credit cards, and that he lied to FBI officials about a previous visit to the US and all the phone calls to al-Hawsawi. Additional material found on his computer raises the suspicion he was researching other potential terror targets within the US.

However, as Glenn Greenwald noted last November:

Al-Marri vehemently denied the charges, and after lengthy pre-trial proceedings, his trial on those charges was scheduled to begin on July 21, 2003.

But his trial never took place, because in June, 2003 — one month before the scheduled trial — President Bush declared him to be an “enemy combatant.” As a result, the Justice Department told the court it wanted to turn him over to the U.S. military, and thus asked the court to dismiss the criminal charges against him, and the court did so (the dismissal was “with prejudice,” meaning he can’t be tried ever again on those charges). Thus, right before his trial, the Bush administration simply removed Al-Marri from the jurisdiction of the judicial system — based solely on the unilateral order of the President — and thus prevented him from contesting the charges against him.

I bolded the key sentence in that quote to highlight what may be the end result of Bush’s June 2003 decision should the fresh ruling stand in forthcoming appeal(s). Turned back over to civilian courts, Bush now cannot use any of the previous charges against al-Marri. Unless evidence of other crimes exists to charge him with different crimes, he’d have to be released.

In short, it is not because of deficiencies in our court system that the guy could go free, but because of Bush’s decisions to sidestep the courts in ways the appeals court has determined is illegal. Bush’s illegal actions may result in a sleeper cell agent of al Qaida (if he is one) being set free. And the legal proof that he is an al Qaida operative has now been denied to us, should the ruling stand.

Marty Lederman, at Balkinization, lays out the case that indicates it’s likely the ruling will stand. Even though Bush put jurisdiction in the most pro-executive and conservative appeals court in the land, he’s discovering the integrity of the law will prevail above ideology, which pight to be a great relief to every US citizen.

As Barbara O’Brien concluded at Mahablog, “Whatever is done with al-Marri, the public will never get a close look at him.” I’ll gp further, venturing the guess that should the ruling stand, Bush will lean on Qatar to take al-Marri back and imprison him there. If that doesn’t happen, we may see a terrorist set free. If it does happen, we’ll know someone’s still being incarcerated without the truth being known about his complicity in terrorism. After all, credit card fraud is not proof of terrorism. And neither is lying to the FBI.

Hell, even the Chief of Staff to our Vice President has done that.

Which leaves us all to wonder: will another Bush major Bush blunder result in the release of a dangerous enemy to our country, undoing the good work done by our FBI in aprehending and building a case against the guy?