WASHINGTON, May 24, 2008
Can Anyone Be An "Enemy Combatant"?
"Sleeper Cell" Case Questions Bush Authority To Detain U.S. Residents Indefinitely Without Trial
-
Photo
Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig. He has no lawyer. He has not been brought to trial. And the Bush administration claims it has the power to keep him there as long as it wants. (GETTY)
-
Interactive
Sept. 11 And Since
Reflecting on the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the day that changed America.
But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.
Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al Qaeda sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.
To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
There is little middle ground between the two sides in al-Marri's case, which is before a federal appeals court in Virginia. The government says the president needs this power to keep the nation safe. Al-Marri's lawyers say that as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe.
A Qatari national, al-Marri came to 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 arrived on a student visa seeking a master's degree in computer science from Bradley University, a small private school in Peoria, Illinois.
The government says he had other plans.
According to court documents citing multiple intelligence sources, al-Marri spent months in al Qaeda training camps during the late 1990s and was schooled in the science of poisons. The summer before al-Marri left for the United States, he allegedly met with Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The two al Qaeda leaders decided al-Marri would make a perfect sleeper agent and rushed him into the U.S. before Sept. 11, the government says.
A computer specialist, al-Marri was ordered to wreak havoc on the U.S. banking system and serve as a liaison for other al Qaeda operatives entering this country, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Rapp, a senior member of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Quote
According to Rapp, al-Marri received up to $13,000 for his trip, plus money to buy a laptop, courtesy of Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who is suspected of helping finance the Sept. 11 attacks.Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back.
Lawyer Jonathan HafetzA week after the attacks, Congress unanimously passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It gave President George W. Bush the power to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the attacks.
The FBI interviewed al-Marri that October and arrested him in December as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. He rarely had been attending classes and was failing in school, the government said.
When investigators looked through his computer files, they found information on industrial chemical suppliers, sermons by bin Laden, how-to guides for making hydrogen cyanide and information about chemicals labeled "immediately dangerous to life or health," according to Rapp's court filing. Phone calls and e-mails linked al-Marri to senior al Qaeda leaders.
In early 2003, he was indicted on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. Like anyone else in the United States, he had constitutional rights. He could question government witnesses, refuse to testify and retain a lawyer.
On June 23, 2003, President Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Mr. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.
A military jail allowed more options. Free from the constraints of civilian law, the military could interrogate al-Marri without a lawyer, detain him without charge and hold him indefinitely. Courts have agreed the president has wide latitude to imprison people captured overseas or caught fighting against the U.S. That is what the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is for.
But al-Marri was not in Guantanamo Bay.
"The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."
Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard University, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al Qaeda safe house in a U.S. suburb?
Sulmasy says no. That is how Congress wrote the bill and "if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language," he said.
That would require the politically risky move of pushing legislation to make it harder for the president to detain suspected terrorists inside the U.S.
By Matt APuzzo
© MMVIII, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 120 Comments"Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely."
Ron Paul is what we needed. Instead we get same ole.
Posted by jboxton at 11:28 AM : May 24, 2008
I will agree "He is a ''monster''" if you can "prove" it...until then he just like you...
Posted by jboxton
Well, I could easily answer that question but the question itself indicates that you don''t have the requisite intelligence or understanding of our form of government to understand the answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jboxton at 11:28 AM : May 24, 2008
It doesn''t make any difference whether he''s a monster or not,Ace.The argument that the government is making,which by the way is bbullshit,gives them the right to kick YOUR door in,drag YOU off to the slam,and hold YOU indefinitely for no reason at all other than some cop may not like you,moron.I can only hope that the idiots of your ilk,that find nothing wrong with this,one day find themselves standing in line waiting to take a ride up the chimney for no reason other than your beliefs.
Reread the article, he came here on a student visa, he is not a citizen.
If this guy is truely guilty then try him in a court of law. Prove the case against him, show the sources, etc. If not then set him free where ever it is that he and his family came from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jboxton at 12:04 PM : May 24, 2008
It doesn''t make any difference.I think the country would be a hell of a lot better off if we started shooting fatcat republicans,you want to throw me in jail?
Has ties to al Queda?????
If you bet money on a football spotsheet, you have ties to the mafia also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by matvei1107 at 12:15 PM : May 24, 2008
************''s been snackin'' on paint chips.
Was "gerge" intentional?Wouldn''t it mean that McCain is "regerge",as in regergitate?
Just about all of us have either met one of these Enemy Combatants or seem them on the streets. They are called GANG MEMBERS. They threaten others, terrorize entire cities and cause economic loss totaling in the billions just the same as a foreign terrorist would. They should be monitored and once verified by several sources that they are indeed gang members, they should be held offshore with no constitutional rights until the end of their natural life. Imagine the improvement in the cities, imagine how "potential" thugs would think twice before terrorizing his school and his city...
Don''t whine you useless piece of trash "rights" obsessed liberals.. Get behind it, endorse it and lets clean up America!
If a person is a minority it is a gang.
If they are white it is a militia.
Same people differeny color.
I don''t know about "anyone" but GW Bush is certainly an enemy combatant. The damage he''s done outscales anything any individual terrorist has done.
Posted by sblake63 at 12:50 PM : May 24, 2008''
Sure, we will start with YOU.
If a person is a minority it is a gang.
If they are white it is a militia.
Same people differeny color.
Posted by WDRussell1 at 12:54 PM : May 24, 2008
____________________
Remember the commercials from the negro college fund back in the 70''s ? "A mind is a terrible thing to waste"... Well LMFAO@ you. Read the text of my statement. Gangs are an organized group who''s intent is to control sections of a city and terrorize it''s inhabitants with fear and death. That is EXACTLY what a terrorist does. And not to defend terrorists, but at least they do it for some "cause" they believe in. Gangs do what they do out of instinct no better that the methods of an ANIMAL.
Gang members are much lower forms of trash than terrorists are no matter what their color is. Both should face deportation or a firing squad.
*** liberals and "chip on their shoulder" people who read posts that mention inner cities or gangs so they automatically think it''s with racist intent. Your so tuned into "hey don''t you dare insult my color" that they are holding us all back. We''ll never solve problems with touchy feely human trash like WDRussell1 around.
Move the He11 out of the way lol and let those of us who care get some WORK done LOL!
Posted by jboxton at 11:28 AM
NO ONE is saying that he should be SET FREE!!!
But how can ANY American citizen feel comfortable about this. Give him a FAIR TRIAL. If he''s found guilty, fry him; if not, ask yourself what you would want the government to do if YOU were found not guilty...because tomorrow, it COULD be you.
This is starting to look like the old Soviet Union. It''s unbelievable that this could happen in America. What''s next-neighbors ratting each other out because they say something critical of the government? It''s a slippery slope folks, and we''re sliding fast!
A free and open trial with all the evidence presented, then we know for sure.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------
Posted by jboxton at 11:28 AM : May 24, 2008
It doesn''''t make any difference whether he''''s a monster or not,Ace.The argument that the government is making,which by the way is bbullshit,gives them the right to kick YOUR door in,drag YOU off to the slam,and hold YOU indefinitely for no reason at all other than some cop may not like you,moron.I can only hope that the idiots of your ilk,that find nothing wrong with this,one day find themselves standing in line waiting to take a ride up the chimney for no reason other than your beliefs.
Posted by jesterbelle at 12:08 PM
But idiots like jboxton think that THEIR safety is guaranteed, because THEY think they''ve done nothing ''wrong''. When the government gets to decide to strip you of your rights because THEY decide you''re wrong (for whatever reason they choose), that argument flies out the window and your butt will be toast.
Posted by patriot12436 at 12:11 PM
The article does not definitively state whether or not he BECAME a citize, but it does state (in boldface):
''Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a CITIZEN and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.''
Scilia and Thomas, believe it or not siding with the majority said that a person wasn''t entitled to a new trial based solely on the fact that they were innocent.
See Herrera v Collins
Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
America=the Constitution; nothing more or less will do.
I say that you should ''get behind it, endorse it'' or get the F out of this country!
So you assume that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint MUST be black?
It''s economic blackmail and fearmongering. Anyone who isn''t willing to speak out against it is a wuss.
Exactly, thank you!
Amazing how much England then compares with Bush''s America now.
And this was said by his own brother! No one (not even his own brother) is trying to claim that this guy is necessarily innocent and should be set free. But if the gov''t has conclusive evidence of his crimes, let them try him and give him an appropriate sentence.
Posted by bajajohn1 at 01:37 PM
Very appropriate and timely point. Thank you.
Tomorrow, it could be YOU!
This is NOT the America our veterans fought for!
If this stands then what is to stop the arrest of someone just because there unpopular with the current goverment. This could include anyone for any reason or no reason at all.
I do hope Bush leaves in January 2009.
U.S. has become to mean UNDER SEIZE by the emperor Bush.
6 years to build a case? How inept can our government be? At this point I wouldn''t believe anything they had to say, way to much time has past for them to fabricate a story, doctor evidence. And even if it got to trial the government will say they can''t produce evidence against him because it would breach national security and claim executive privilege when the defense wants to cross-examine the government%u2019s witnesses.
Of course the storm has been building for 3 years now and the GOP morons refused to listen to the voice of America well they will be listening in November when they are swept away with the tide.
#5 lets face it, bill clinton was only impeached because at that time the republican had enough of a majority to do so. the democrats at this point do not.
Posted by liberalameri at 12:20 PM : May 24, 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
liberalameri, Re. #4.
Many people have this misconception about why Bush has not been impeached.
Democrats have a substantial majority in the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives has sole power of passing "articles of impeachment" with a simple majority vote.
The senate then tries the case and must convict by a two-thirds majority vote.
It is true that democrats do not have a sufficient majority to convict without some republican votes, however an impeachment trial would make many areas open to investigation that are not available other wise the president could not rely on executive privilege in an impeachment trial) and no one knows what evidence would be uncovered.
Democrats alone, specifically by Majority leader, Pelosi, who refuses to even allow consideration of it, have from the start of this congress, blocked impeachment.
#5
The republican majority at that time was similar to the democratic majority today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DefndLiberty
Isn''t that crazy? You can say motherfu*ker, co*ksucker, a*shole, and douch*bag, but you cannot say the proper name Di*k. What a puritanical outfit we have being run here in the U.S.
Incidentally, in the Book of Bush anyone can be an enemy combatant at any given time. Our "leaders" can use their own discretion, or lack of it.
Posted by dragonwagon5 at 02:33 PM : May 24, 2008
Hair crimes eh...so how come are Bon jovi still free to walk the streets?
"Government Lawyers".......
Can you say, "Gestapo"???.....
I KNEW that you could.......LOL....
This administration and their supporters/apologists are the biggest surrender%u2019s/defeatists in American history.
By giving up and/or destroying our constitutional rights in the name of national security, they have surrendered the one thing worth fighting and dying for, FREEDOM..
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by bajajohn1 at 03:13 PM : May 24, 2008
+ report abuse
But you must remember that the Little Drunk believes the Constitution to be: "Just a G*da*n piece of Paper"!!!.....The fact he isn''t polishing a bench in a Federal Prison Cell, awaiting execution for Treason, is proof positive we now live in a Dictatorship.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 120 Comments