Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US justices to rule on terror suspect's detention (can an "enemy combatant" be held indefinitely?)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 12:28 PM
Original message
US justices to rule on terror suspect's detention (can an "enemy combatant" be held indefinitely?)
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday that it would decide whether President George W. Bush can order the indefinite imprisonment in the United States of an al Qaeda suspect without charging him.

In the latest test of Bush's war-on-terrorism policies, the nation's highest court agreed to hear an appeal by a Qatari national, Ali al-Marri, the only foreign national currently being held in the United States as an "enemy combatant."

While President-elect Barack Obama has strongly opposed Bush's policies and has vowed to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, he and his aides have not said what position his administration will take in Marri's case.

After Bush designated Marri an "enemy combatant" in June of 2003, he has been held in solitary confinement in a U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina without being charged.

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05464470.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. k&r, will be watching to see what they decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Justices Take Case on Presidents Power to Detain
Source: New York Times

Justices Take Case on Presidents Power to Detain


By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: December 5, 2008

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide the most fundamental question yet concerning executive power in the age of terror: Can the president order the indefinite military detention of people living in the United States?


The case concerns Ali al-Marri, the only person on the American mainland being held as an enemy combatant, at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. Mr. Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was legally in the United States when he was arrested in December 2001 in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.

Eighteen months later, when Mr. Marri was on the verge of a trial on credit card fraud and other charges, President Bush declared him an enemy combatant, moving him from the custody of the Justice Department to military detention. The government says Mr. Marri is a Qaeda sleeper agent sent to the United States to commit mass murder and disrupt the banking system.

The case, which will probably be argued in the spring, will present the Obama administration with several difficult strategic choices. It can continue to defend the Bush administrations expansive interpretation of executive power, advance a more modest one or short-circuit the case by moving it to the criminal justice system.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/us/w05scotus-web.html...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zelta gaisma Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. what made THIS guy stick out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. edit: I don't know either
Edited on Fri Dec-05-08 07:07 PM by whutgives
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. no.
An "enemy combatant" cannot be detained indefinitely. Not legally.

Not that the US gives a shit about laws anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Probably because there is no such thing as an "enemy combatant" under the law.
It was fabricated by the Neo-Nazi-cons. An accused is either: (1) under a privilege as a combatant and subject to the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war; or (2) not under that privilege, a criminal defendant, and subject to due process.

The Neo-Nazi-cons have tried to create a new category that does not exist. We're in danger of Roberts, Alito and Scalia trying to fuck this into U.S. law. That is why the criminal junta has spent so much money and so many U.S. tax payers legal resources to push this through.

But the sheeple still think it is about "terrorism."

God help us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Watching this like a hawk... this should nullify a nasty hunk of
the Patriot Act. The whole concept of an "illegal enemy combatant" is a mess. This is where your habeas corpus is buried, kids..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
8. What, Bush can't just lock someone up forever?
Well, we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say. Considering some of the rulings these fuckers have handed down in the last several years, it will be interesting to see if they suddenly begin reading the Constitution again. Can't say I'm particularly sanguine about the prospect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
9. *This* needs the USSC to determine if it is legal???
> After Bush designated Marri an "enemy combatant" in June of 2003,
> he has been held in solitary confinement in a U.S. Navy brig in
> Charleston, South Carolina without being charged.

FIVE AND A HALF YEARS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WITHOUT CHARGE?

What century is this?

What country is it?

:grr: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. I wonder what the connection is between this story and the thread here that says the 911 suspects
have asked to plead quilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC