Perilous test awaits Obama in detainee case

[babylonsister]

Perilous test awaits in detainee case
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2009-01-03 12:41.

By ADAM LIPTAK, NEW YORK TIMES


WASHINGTON -- Just a month after Barack Obama takes office, he must tell the Supreme Court where he stands on one of the most aggressive legal claims made by the Bush administration -- that the president may order the military to seize legal residents of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime.

The new administration's brief, which is due Feb. 20, has the potential to hearten or infuriate Obama's supporters, many of whom are looking to him for stark disavowals of the Bush administration's legal positions on the detention and interrogation of so-called enemy combatants held at Navy facilities on the U.S. mainland or at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

During the campaign, Obama made broad statements criticizing the Bush administration's assertions of executive power. But now he must address a specific case, that of Ali al-Marri, a Qatari student who was arrested in Peoria, Ill., in December 2001. The Bush administration asserts that Marri was a sleeper agent for al-Qaida, and it is holding him without charges at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. He is the only person currently held as an enemy combatant on the mainland, but the legal principles established in his case are likely to affect the roughly 250 prisoners at Guantanamo.

Many legal experts say that all of the new administration's options in Marri's case are perilous. Intelligence officials say he is exceptionally dangerous, making deportation problematic.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38645

[snowbear]

1. Somehow.. I have a feeling he'll make the right decision..

.
.



~~

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. This guy has been being held for SEVEN YEARS without charges even.

Holy shit.

If the Bush people had any kind of case against him they could have at least produced charges by now. Sweet Jesus.

[JeffR]

3. He's been held for 7 years. He may be "exceptionally dangerous".

Charge him and try him, already. And if he's guilty, throw him in jail. We do that to thousands upon thousands of marijuana offenders and we can't do that to one foreign national arrested in Peoria 7 years ago? Is this what the USA has been reduced to? (Rhetorical question.)

There's no perilous test here. If he broke the law, he should be imprisoned. If he didn't, he should go the hell free. If intelligence officials can prove he's dangerous, swell. If they can't, then perhaps they're not so "intelligent" after all.

[JeffR]

4. Forgot to add

the fact that we do this to thousands upon thousands of marijuana offenders is utterly appalling. But if we do it to an honest-to-Gawd terrorist, I have no problem with it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Perilous?

I don't understand what should be so "perilous" about a case like this. Either this guy is a terrorist mastermind or a bonafide member of a "sleeper cell" and thus a genuine threat to this nation or he isn't. After 7 years of keeping him locked up without charges, the LEAST we can do is cough up some REAL charges against him with the evidence necessary to back them up or simply let him go (with perhaps some compensation). IMHO it seems crazy to me that we could simultaneously have proof that he is too dangerous to let go but yet be unwilling and/or unable to provide the evidence to a duly constituted court of law to back up our claims, particularly out of fear of losing the case (which the administration may have further enabled in some cases, ironically, due to their misconduct and lack of adherence to "quaint" things like the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions).
It has always amazed and puzzled me how the Bush (mis-)administration has been able to tell us (and the courts), seemingly with a straight face, that they KNOW for a fact that all of the people they we are continuing to hold at Gitmo (and elsewhere) without charges are "the worst of the worst" without being willing (able?) to produce the evidence about which they are basing their concerns or even bringing charges in the cases. It seems to me that if the individuals in question are truly the "worst of the worst" our government should be able and willing to provide genuine evidence of their threat to this nation to prosecutors, a judge, and a jury in an impartial court of law and rest assured that justice will take its course. Hopefully, Obama, being the constitutional scholar that he is, will make the right decision in cases like these and will seek to restore the "rule of law" and will NOT continue the worst legal and judicial traditions of the Bush (mis-)administration.

[AtomicKitten]

6. I am confident he will remain true to his prior repudiation of Junior's crimes.

He has til Feb. 20th to file the brief. I can think of no reason why he would side with Junior on this since it is the antithesis of everything he stands for, what he has promised.

Thanks for posting this. I read a piece on this yesterday and forgot about it what with the 24/7 war being televised on TV. :(

[IndianaGreen]

7. Shall we place some bets?

There was a time not long ago when I would have been certain that Obama would have repudiated everything Bush did to infringe on our Constitution and civil liberties. Since the Warren pick, and his silence on Gaza, I have become quite sceptical.

[AtomicKitten]

8. his silence on Gaza has to do with the fact that he isn't president yet

Give him a chance to disappoint you with actual policy before drop-kicking his ass. Please.

[IndianaGreen]

9. that didn't stop him from speaking on the economy at length

Gaza won't be over by January 20.

As to the wager, I'll bet that Obama will not oppose the "enemy combatant" concept.

[AtomicKitten]

10. we don't fight the economic war with guns and bombs nt

[IndianaGreen]

11. The more reason why Obama must speak out on Gaza

People are being killed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO7LM5BPWok

[AtomicKitten]

12. I hear you. It is appalling that * nixed a ceasefire & we televise the war here 24/7.

Still, you have reason to be hopeful. Obama has shown a heart toward the Palestinians. He met with them on his tour during the primaries. IMO Junior has given the green light to Israel to go nuts before his term expires. I think you are caught up emotionally in this atrocity and that prevents you from acknowledging that Obama is powerless until 1-20-09.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Yes, I am "caught up emotionally in this atrocity,"

I am totally enraged!

[AtomicKitten]

14. me too, IG -- we just manifest it differently nt