Enemy Combatant Challenges Detention

Attorneys For Alleged Al Qaeda Agent Say Client Is Being Held Unconstitutionally

(AP)  Attorneys for an immigrant the Bush administration calls an al Qaeda sleeper agent argued Thursday that their client is being detained unconstitutionally and should be allowed to challenge his imprisonment in court.

Ali al-Marri, the only person being held as an enemy combatant on U.S. soil, has indisputable rights as a legal resident of the United States, including the right to due process and the right to challenge his accusers in a court of law, his lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, told a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The basic question is whether criminal or military law governs this case," Hafetz said. The president "cannot militarize the case of a man in Peoria with the stroke of a pen."

Al-Marri, 41, has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree. Federal investigators searched his laptop, found credit-card numbers on his computer, and charged him with credit-card fraud.

Upon further investigation, the government said, agents found evidence that al-Marri had links to al Qaeda terrorists and that he posed a threat to national security, shifted his case from the criminal system and moved him to indefinite military detention.

Al-Marri has denied the government's allegations and is seeking to challenge the government's evidence and cross-examine its witnesses in court. He also contends that President Bush has no legal standing to imprison someone indefinitely by declaring him an enemy combatant.

Hafetz argued that the Military Commissions Act doesn't repeal defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention. He also argued that al-Marri was improperly classified as an enemy combatant.

A Bush administration lawyer urged the panel to dismiss al-Marri's appeal, arguing that under the Military Commissions Act, the courts have no jurisdiction to hear cases of detained aliens who are declared enemy combatants.

David B. Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, also argued that the government properly classified al-Marri as an enemy combatant, citing what the government said is evidence that he trained at an al Qaeda camp and met with Osama bin Laden and suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Judge Diana G. Motz asked Salmons what would stop the president from declaring anyone an enemy combatant, including those who are citizens of nations not at war with the U.S., including al-Marri.

"What I don't understand is how you make one an enemy combatant," she said. "What did the president look to, to call someone an enemy combatant?"

Salmons said that Congress and the Supreme Court have given the president the authority to fight terrorism and prevent additional attacks on the nation, including declaring those with suspected al Qaeda links as enemy combatants. Furthermore, Salmons argued, al-Marri is "clearly an al Qaeda operative and qualifies as an enemy combatant."

"If the U.S. can do this, it's contrary to the Constitution," Motz said. "It would give other nations the ability to do that by declaring a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant."

Salmons responded: "It's different; we're responding to the attacks of September 11." He added that the government doesn't make such declarations lightly and that al-Marri will receive a combatant status review tribunal in the District of Columbia federal court.

The al-Marri case has drawn friend-of-the court briefs opposing the government's position from liberals and libertarians, including former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials and 29 U.S. law school professors. All contend the government's treatment of al-Marri is unconstitutional, and would set a dangerous precedent in depriving U.S. residents of basic legal protections.

The case, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court, could help define how much authority the government has to indefinitely detain those accused of terrorist acts and to strip detainees of their right to challenge the lawfulness or conditions of their detention.

The court usually issues its opinion several weeks after hearing oral arguments.

[hillaryin08]

Hey, let the guy go free, live in your house, make him a citizen and he will vote Democrat!

When your liberal Messiah Rosavelt threw American Citizens in concentration camps in the 40's, where was the public outrage then?

[johnshaft4]

mrvolleyba- You would vote for Bush again, creton...You are stupid, stupid, stupid. You are the best argument I've seen for mandatory sterilization. Go get yourself 'fixed' before you corrupt Cheney's Broke Back Mountain sheep flock brigade...

[johnshaft4]

mtrvolleyba- Then you have no business on the net.
Do your parents know where you are at and what you are doing? Get away from the key board and PICK UP YOUR 'Etch E Sketch' you stupid banjo playing Deliverance major malfunction birth defect ***...

[tuckerndfw]

Under the Bush crime syndicate's rules, anyone can be executed for anything so long as the crime syndicate proclaims him their enemy.

The Bush crime syndicate has done everything in their power to totally eliminate the constitution, individual freedom, and representative government.

If the terrorists "hate our freedoms," that makes them the same as the Bush crime syndicate and their supporters.

[mrvolleyba11]

"Why did Germany yesterday indict 13 CIA employees for kidnapping a German citizen? Why did Canada just pay $9,000,000 in damages to one of its citizens that was sent by the US for 'special treatment' overseas? You don't really read news, do you?
Posted by JohnShaft4 at 05:32 PM : Feb 01, 2007"

JohnShaft4 - what news are you reading? I searched WWW for any info on these 2 stories you mentioned and not a word!

I think you've been taking the shaft too long john!!!

Kidnapped 380, you mean the ones captured on the battlefields??? ...you are an idiot!!! Reference your BS stories if they are real!!! (because I'll take anybody elses word over yours)

[johnshaft4]

Legendary-
And while we are at it...Why did Germany yesterday indict 13 CIA employees for kidnapping a German citizen? Why did Canada just pay $9,000,000 in damages to one of its citizens that was sent by the US for 'special treatment' overseas? You don't really read news, do you?
One can only hope that that they break the electrodes, and take YOU on a waterboard surfin' safari after you have fun with Lassie...Jeez, where do you 'people' come from?

[kesac4650]

Actually, the Constitution gives two exceptions to the right of Habeas Corpus, and this guy fits one of them.
Of course all of you, who want to scream the sky is falling, and the bad guys are stealing our rights, will never bother to actually read the Constitution, now will you? You will quote it though.
Of course he says he is innocent, why pray tell is that even included in the article?

[johnshaft4]

Legendary-
What dreamland are you living in? The 380 were kidnapped. What 'paper trail' do you refer to? The CIA paid war lords (and other undesirables) between $25,000 and $50,000 for each so called evil doer 'terrorist' that they snitched on. Almost ALL of these innocent people were rivals or simply at the wrong place/wrong time...like coming home. One can only hope that you become a victim of this perverted 'justice'...

[legendary240]

There is a trail of documents that lead to each of these detainees. These guys are not just rounded up and then asked what they did to see what they'll admit to. Yes Paine and Jefferson are correct. But we have to be vigilant and diligent in seeking the truth. Times are too dangerous to be soft-handed.

[gunownerdan]

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
-- Thomas Paine

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
-- Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801

[teeus]

Yow! That is one scary-a$$ picture.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself. Carry on.

[johnshaft4]

Over 380 "enemy combatants" were KIDNAPPED from the THEIR homelands and sent to Gitmo. They were held without charges...They were released after spending close to 4 YEARS in PRISON for NOTHING!!! Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzales are WAR CRIMINALS. THEY should (and will be) charged in the World Court and brought to justice. Think Nuremberg...

[legendary240]

Atta, the "pilot" of one the planes that hit the Towers on 9/11 had a wife and kids too. They don't value their own people any more than they value us "kaffirs". I am sure there are reasons this mullethead is being detained. What reasons beyond curiousity do we have that justify the government having open records on sensitive opertaions?

[johnshaft4]

The nerve of some people! How dare anyone challenge the power and authority that King George has vested upon himself and affirmed by henchman Gonzales! As Gonzales has stated the "Constitution is quaint..." Why waste the taxpayers dollars on actually charging someone with a crime and having a trial when King George can streamline the whole process? King George and Gonzales read your snail mail, open your e mail, listen in on your phone calls, access your bank/credit, atm/credit card records. They ALREADY know who is naughty or nice...Simply trust 'em...As enlightened King George has said "...the Constitution is just a piece of paper..." and "You are either with us or AGAINST us" (meaning "them".) Get with the 'program'!!!