Dispute heads to justices
Obama may face early decision if Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments
Al-Marri
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court could hand President-elect Barack Obama a delicate problem in the coming days: what to do with a suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent who is the only person detained in this country as an enemy combatant.
Ali al-Marri has been held in virtual isolation in the Charleston Naval Consolidated Brig for nearly 5 1/2 years. He is challenging President George W. Bush's authority to subject a legal resident of the United States to indefinite military detention without being charged or tried.
The justices are expected to consider al-Marri's case when they meet in private on Tuesday. If they agree to hear arguments, over the Bush administration's opposition, they could say so the same day.
Bush's legal team has claimed authority for such detentions and has argued aggressively for it in court papers.
But the case would not be scheduled for argument until sometime in the late winter or early spring during Obama's first months in office.
Al-Marri's fate will wind up in Obama's hands in any event, but a decision by the court to hear his challenge would force the new president to confront the issue quickly.
In the event the dispute makes it as far as a court hearing, the new administration's lawyers would have to argue the same basic position urged by Bush's team despite Obama's repeated criticism during the presidential campaign that Bush was too aggressive in asserting executive authority.
Or Obama's lawyers could reverse course in the middle of a complex legal dispute that essentially would have the new president arguing for limits on his powers.
Either way, "It will be a very tough position for the new administration," said Sharon Bradford Reynolds, senior counsel at The Constitution Project, a bipartisan legal think tank that wants the court to hear the case and
rule for al-Marri.
But Obama would have other, potentially more palatable, options that almost certainly would head off a hearing in the Supreme Court.
He could send al-Marri home to Qatar or transfer him back to civilian court to face criminal charges. The government followed the latter path in the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla rather than have the high court take up the matter. Padilla, who was held in the same brig in Hanahan as al-Marri, was convicted in a criminal trial in federal court in Miami.
Brad Berenson, a former Bush administration lawyer who went to law school with Obama at Harvard, said the new president is likely to discover that al-Marri's case is not easily resolved. It may be that trying a suspected al-Qaida agent in civilian court is difficult although the government successfully has prosecuted Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Al-Marri is one of those cases where the rhetorical necessities of the campaign are likely to collide with the security necessities of governing," Berenson said.
Obama's transition team has little to say about the case.
"We are not going to comment on cases pending before our courts. President-elect Obama has repeatedly said that he believes that our current legal framework has failed to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists," said Brooke Anderson, chief national security spokeswoman for the transition. "He will make decisions about how to handle detainees as president when his national security and legal teams are in place."
Obama also is weighing what to do with the roughly 250 men who are being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Al-Marri arrived in the U.S. with his wife and five children on Sept. 10, 2001, one day before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. He entered the country on a student visa seeking a master's degree in computer science from Bradley University, a small private school in Peoria, Ill.
He was arrested three months later as part of the FBI's investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Prosecutors indicted him on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI, traditional criminal charges. But in June 2003, Bush said al-Marri had vital information about terror plots, declared him an enemy combatant and ordered him transferred to military custody.
The government says al-Marri trained in al-Qaida camps and met with Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. His laptop was filled with information about poisons, coded e-mail messages and lectures by bin Laden and others on the importance of martyrdom, the government says.
Regardless of the problems al-Marri's case could pose for the new president, civil liberties groups want the high court to resolve the issue now. Without a Supreme Court ruling, a decision by the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backing the president's authority to detain terrorism suspects in the U.S. without charges would remain on the books. "We don't know what the Obama administration or any future administration would do," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing al-Marri.
Aside from the dispute over the law, al-Marri has been imprisoned for seven years.
The conditions of his confinement at the Navy Brig were initially so harsh, his lawyers said, that they feared for his mental health. Guards weren't allowed to talk to him or even look him in the eye. There were no visits, no phone calls and little to do but sit and wait for the next day to come. "I don't know of any other inmate in the history of the United States ... that's been in isolation that long," said Andy Savage, a South Carolina lawyer for al-Marri.
But in response to a lawsuit over the conditions, federal prosecutors in April revealed that several prison cells have been converted for al-Marri into areas for sleeping, living and studying, including a nearly 400-volume personal Islamic library.
Still, he has not seen his family in seven years, not even in pictures. When al-Marri was arrested, the last of his five children had just been born. Now, that boy is 7.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
GuyinChair (anonymous) says...
That guy is only guilty of one thing: Having a choice mullet.
November 23, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ironhorse (anonymous) says...
I had no idea Frank Zappa was in the Charleston Navy Brig.
November 23, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ForPnC (anonymous) says...
Well now... if he isn't just the purdiest thing... He looks just like a girl. Shave off that 'stach and throw him in general.
November 23, 2008 at 3:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MotoryachtSoCo (anonymous) says...
I was thinking Tony Orlando
On a more intelligent note it seems that Al-Marri is only guilty of looking like a terrorist, and if the United States has a case then let us have a trial, if not turn him loose and quit wasting the taxpayer's money.
November 23, 2008 at 5:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
B_Fwank (anonymous) says...
LMAO - Tony Orlando, Frank Zappa, choice mullet...all funny!
I missed it, where did they catch him at, Studio 54? And where is his buddy Tony Manero?
November 23, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
Motor, thank goodness you offer some intelligence here.
We joke about this man's imprisonment, but it surely cannot be legally right, nor morally right, that anyone be imprisoned for seven years without a swift trial. If this man is guilty as accused (not even proven in a court of law), then let this nation immediately bring him to trial and prove the government's position, or release him for lack of evidence. How can our democracy strip him of his rights (even minor ones) and deprive him and his family of his position in his family for seven long years.
I'm not for releasing terrorists and criminals, mind you, but I am for justice that is truly justice and not a manipulatory device.
November 23, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkris (anonymous) says...
He is challenging President George W. Bush's authority to subject a legal resident of the United States to indefinite military detention without being charged or tried.
BRING HIM TO TRIAL, Civilain courts. I think I may have thought differently were he here illegally. But I don't like the idea that the president has the authority to come into someone's home, grab someone and then claim he's a military combatant and throw away the key ... Judges may be idiots, but thats too scary.
November 23, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
That is a great head of hair!
November 23, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
B_Fwank (anonymous) says...
Is he a US citizen or a legal resident? Curious.
The key though for this man, was he just a political pawn for Obama?
"Al-Marri is one of those cases where the rhetorical necessities of the campaign are likely to collide with the security necessities of governing," Berenson said.
Wow, what was that..."security necessities of governing"
November 23, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
back2u (anonymous) says...
The article said he came here the day before 9/11 on a student visa. That doesn't mean he is an American citizen but allowed in our country only to attend school. Permission is terminated when school is through, even if ones marries an American citizen while here. That being said, have you all forgotten that we are in a war!! How complacent out society has become over the past 6 years. I say 6 years because the 1st. year after we were attacked everyone was pretty aware and those horrible memories were fresh in our mind. Who knows, maybe bringing this man to trial, military or civilian, may compromise national security by forcing the government to expose some covert intelligence operations. Folks, there's evidence that just ain't gonna be released and would probably scare you to death if it was. Solitary confinement seems harsh to us because our culture doesn't condone it. However, many of these war detainees come from cultures where that's the norm. Probably, they only play on our sympathies as part of their schemes. Unfortunately nowadays, it's all about mind control & whether you want to believe it, we are playing right into al-Qaida's hands by feeling sorry for these rascals. This fella may or may not be guilty. But I bet al-Qaida is paying close attention, especially if we cry inhumane treatment and rally to give a swift trial like American citizens are entitled to. I'm afraid that logic would eventually come back to bite us where it hurts.
November 23, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
diablo_tonto (anonymous) says...
This case has been a travesty of what he have left of our "justice" system. If this guy was an average Joe in Charleston, he could have killed somebody 7 years ago in this town, had a trial, been sentenced and be close to getting set free from prison by now. Instead he had the misfortune of being here in America at the time of the "W" administration in 2001(Sep 11th aftermath), and the fact that he knows terrorists and supposedly looks like a terrorist(if they come by way of Tijuana Mexico w/mullet included)?? Charge this guy or send him packing, asap........
November 23, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MotoryachtSoCo (anonymous) says...
Ali Al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar who was arrested in the US while lawfulluy in our country under a student visa.
November 23, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MotoryachtSoCo (anonymous) says...
There is no doubt that Mr. Al-Marri was up to no good.
He had in his possession a thousand or more stolen credit card numbers, had made frequent contact with known al-Qaida operatives and plenty of indications that he was on the wrong side of the law.
But to deny habeas corpus and due process is an affront to our most basic of civil liberties.
Further, the Bush administration's assertion that the Bill of Rights does not apply to citizens and residents in "some" cases is nothing short of applying our constitution as the King sees fit and making torture acceptable as long as it is for the common good.
More at:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/conv...
But as I see it if the Court rules against Mr. Al-Marri it's a really slippery slope for our country and a tar-baby for Mr. Obama.
November 23, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
I guess when the people elect a commander in Chief that is not a Veteran, Hates the military, may not even be a US citizen and wants to let terroist lose in our country because their country doesn't want them. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO GET?
November 23, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkris (anonymous) says...
Does it really matter if he is here as a resident or a citizen? Habeas Corpus is the right to allow a person to go to a judge and try to convince him he is being held illegally. I don't like the idea that any person here in the US can be detained for 7 years without the right to prove they are being held by the government wrongly. War or no war.
November 23, 2008 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Where did he get his fashion since, Goose Creek or Awendaw?
November 23, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
B_Fwank (anonymous) says...
KEEPING IN MIND THAT A DEMOCRAT CONGRESS HAS HELD POWER SINCE 2006 -
Argued: October 31, 2007
Decided: July 15, 2008
Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his military detention as an enemy combatant. After the district court denied all relief, al-Marri noted this appeal. A
divided panel of this court reversed the judgment of the district court
4 AL-MARRI v. PUCCIARELLI
and ordered that al-Marri's military detention cease. See Al-Marri v.Wright, 487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007).
Subsequently, this court vacated that judgment and considered the case en banc. The parties present two principal issues for our consideration:
(1) assuming the Government's allegations about al-Marri are
true, whether Congress has empowered the President to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant; and (2) assuming Congress has empowered the President to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant provided the Government's allegations against him are true, whether al-Marri has been afforded sufficient process to challenge his designation
as an enemy combatant.
Having considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, the enbanc court now holds: (1) by a 5 to 4 vote (Chief Judge Williams and Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Traxler, and Duncan voting in the affirmative;
Judges Michael, Motz, King, and Gregory voting in the negative), that, if the Government's allegations about al-Marri are true, Congress has empowered the President to detain him as an enemy combatant; and (2) by a 5 to 4 vote (Judges Michael, Motz, Traxler, King, and Gregory voting in the affirmative; Chief Judge Williams and Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, and Duncan voting in the negative),
that, assuming Congress has empowered the President to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant provided the Government's allegations against him are true, al-Marri has not been afforded sufficient process to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant.
November 23, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
B_Fwank (anonymous) says...
AL-MARRI, had his time in court.
________________________________________________________
Due Process Clause for the President to order the military to seize and detain individuals who "qualify" as enemy combatants for the duration of a war.
Judge Williams finds that in the AUMF, Congress has authorized the indefinite military detention, as an "enemy combatant," of any individual "who meets two criteria: (1) he attempts or engages in belligerent acts against the United States, either domestically or in a foreign
combat zone; (2) on behalf of an enemy force." Post at 116.
"Al-Marri is an al Qaeda 'sleeper'
agent sent to the United States for the purpose of engaging in and
facilitating terrorist activities subsequent to September 11, 2001," and
"possesses information of high intelligence value, including information about personnel and activities of al Qaeda." ...arrival in this country, he was "trained at Bin Laden's Afghanistan terrorist training camps" and, "[a]mong other things, . . . received
training in the use of poisons at an al-Qaeda camp." J.A. 217. He "met personally with Usama Bin Laden . . . and volunteered for a martyr mission or to do anything else that al Qaeda requested." J.A. 216. He traveled to the United States with money provided for him by al Qaeda for the purpose of carrying out his assigned mission.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-conte...
November 23, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
B_Fwank (anonymous) says...
89-10 to renew and extend expiring portions of the Patriot Act, with Hawaii Democrat Dan Inouye not voting.
On March 2, 2006, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 with strong bipartisan support.
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/p_...
Bush, was supported by Democrats. PERIOD.
November 23, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
B_Fwank (anonymous) says...
JimIslander - POWN3D THAT! You deluded lemming.
November 23, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
palmettotree (anonymous) says...
With a little luck, if he can get released soon enough he might get selected to Mr. O'Bama's cabinet. Word on the street has it "Mr. yes we can" has a copy of the constitution in the shape of a coaster for his new desk Jan. 20th.
Haha, gosh I love that one, that was good. On another site someone said that he specialized in the constitution because he was a lawyer. I copied and sent the definition for a specialist. Just because he was a supposed lawyer does not guarantee that he is a specialist on the constitution.
November 24, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.