"Enemy combatant" will be early test for Obama (Ali al-Marri, accused al Qaeda "sleeper" agent)

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 1/07/09 | Harriet McLeod

[NormsRevenge]

CHARLESTON, South Carolina (Reuters) – The case of Ali al-Marri, accused of being an al Qaeda "sleeper" agent and held for 5-1/2 years at a U.S. military prison in South Carolina, will be an early test for President-elect Barack Obama.

In his first month in office, Obama will have to tell the Supreme Court whether he will abandon his predecessor's claim that anyone the president deems a national security threat can be imprisoned indefinitely without charges in the United States.

Marri is the only person still held in the United States as an "enemy combatant." His case is a test of the limits of presidential power and could also affect any plan to bring some of the 250 prisoners being held at a U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. shores.

The Supreme Court set a February 20 deadline for the new administration to file legal briefs in the case, forcing the hand of Obama, who takes office on January 20.

"The administration has to decide whether they're going to pursue the case, whether they're going to repatriate him," said Andrew Savage, one of Marri's lawyers and one of the few civilians allowed to visit him in the 5 1/2 years he has been held at the U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina.

Obama has strongly criticized some of Bush's "war against terrorism" policies but he has not publicly taken a position in Marri's case.

[NormsRevenge]

Ali al-Marri, who has been held for 5-1/2 years at a U.S. military prison in South Carolina, is seen in this undated photograph released to Reuters on January 6, 2008. An early test for President-elect Barack Obama will be the case of suspected al Qaeda 'sleeper' agent Marri, which will force Obama to take a position on his predecessor's claim that anyone the president deems a national security threat can be imprisoned indefinitely without charges in the United States. (Handout/Reuters)

[PaleoBob]

When Obama shows weakness, al Qaeda will know what to do.

[Sherman Logan]

his predecessor's claim that anyone the president deems a national security threat can be imprisoned indefinitely without charges in the United States.

I don't believe GW made any such claim. For instance, I don't think he ever claimed he could hold US citizens under such conditions.

However, if the claims about the conditions under which he was held are accurate, shame on the prison.

If Obama is smart, he'll kick the whole issue right back to Congress, as GW should have done.

These guys are engaged in war against us, so they aren't criminals in the traditional sense. Yet they also aren't honorable POWs, as they are not legal combatants. We need a third category, and the president should leave it up to Congress to decide what that category is and how these guys should be handled.

One thing that is essential. We need a fair way to determine whether an individual falls into this new category. Not a full-blown trial with all the protections awarded a US citizen accused of a crime, but a fair way of sifting the sheep from the goats.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Looks like we have Obama’s choice to run the dept of homeland security. I’m sure the liberal bloggers will approve of this choice so it’s a done deal.

[haroldeveryman]

“If Obama is smart, he’ll kick the whole issue right back to Congress, as GW should have done.”

Doesn’t the Constitution hold the president responsible for national defense? Obama has been presented with a great opportunity to demonstrate his willingness to take the terrorist threat seriously.

If Obama is smart he’ll take this one on himself. Come on, Barry, show the citizenry that your not an empty suit.

[Paige]

Dig in and be prepared my friends and acquaintances from the Right.

Obama can't find his voice or man up when he needed to let the world know where he stands on the Israeli/Hamas situation. Obama hid behind W on this one. When W is gone he has to stand on his own. This is the part that honestly scares me.

[Sherman Logan]

Doesn’t the Constitution hold the president responsible for national defense?

Nope. The Pres is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. But Congress is tasked with making the laws under which those forces operate. It seems to me that how terrorists will be treated falls more under the congressional power than the presidential power, certainly once the situation is no longer an emergency that must be dealt with immediately, in which case a presidential response is entirely appropriate.

Under our Constitution I don't think the President should be making decisions about long-term imprisonment or even capital punishment, even of non-citizen enemy combatants.

We have laws to punish criminals and to imprison legal POWs till peace is made. Much of the acrimony over our treatment of captive terrorists has arisen because we insist on forcing them into one of these two categories, into neither of which they fit.

So develop a new category for terrorist illegal combatants. I think this should be done by Congress, not the President.

[piasa]

AL MARRI TIMELINE ON THIS THREAD:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/934434/posts?page=5#5

[piasa]

AL MARRI IS LINKED TO :

* Abdelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar of Alexandria, Va
* Muhammad Hamid Khalil Salah of Chicago {see BMI- BMI has developed property in Indianapolis, IN, Baltimore, MD and other locations— perhaps Rezko connections? }
* Sheik Jamal Said of Bridgeview, IL
* Sami Al-Arian of Tampa, FL
* Rabih Haddad [See GRF]
* Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi , an unindicted co-conspirator in the case of terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui
* an Iraqi named el Saddiq
* Abu Khabab al-Masri [see CurdledMilkPlot]
* Muhammad Atef

and

* Islamic American Relief Agency
* GRF
* Hamas
* Islamic Foundation of Peoria
* Al Farooq aka al Faruq training Camp

[Cindy]

Thanks piasa,

I’m going to link to the old and new threads.

Thank you for all the additional info.

[haroldeveryman]

“We have laws to punish criminals and to imprison legal POWs till peace is made .... So develop a new category for terrorist illegal combatants. “

Actually we do have a such a law. In the majority opinion in the 2006 Hamdan case (which went in favor of the defendant), the Supreme Court told Pres Bush that such a law was needed. Bush asked Congress to draft a law covering the detention of foreign terrorist combatants and specifying a denial of habeas corpus. Congress drafted and passed is law.

Oh, by the way, in a subsequent high profile case, the Supreme Court majority ignored the law (as well as 200 years of US precedent and another 900 years of English common law) and proclaimed habeas corpus rights foreign enemy combatants.

So apparently, the Supreme Court doesn’t really need a law any more than it needs a constitution.

[Sherman Logan]

The Constitution allows Congress to pass a law of this type, then limit the jurisdiction of the Court to review it.

But a wishy-washy Congress will never use this power.

To be fair, the only time this power was used, during Reconstruction, does not give us a lot of reason to be enthusiastic about it.