Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Enemy Combatant Case

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM EST
Tags: detainees (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Ali Saleh Kahlan al Marri, a U.S. legal resident originally from Qatar who has been held since 2001 in the Navy Brig in South Carolina. He was seized in Peoria, Ill.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond ruled in July that the president had the power to detain Marri under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. But the court also said he could challenge his designation as an enemy combatant before a district court in South Carolina.

The question: Can the military indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen or legal resident seized on American soil? Background on 4th Circuit decision here. The ACLU has more on today's Court action.

< Friday Afternoon Open Thread | Joshua Kezer Deserves a New Trial >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Enemy Combatant Case | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

FDR (none / 0) (#1)
by bocajeff on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST

BTD has been going on and on about FDR for the past weeks. FDR didn't have a problem with detaining American citizens indefinitely without court hearings -

I say, what's good for FDR is good enough for me.

I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#2)
by CST on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST

The supreme court didn't agree back then. Let's hope this one follows suit.


Sadly (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Peter G on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:44:24 PM EST

... the Supreme Court did approve the mass detention of West Coast Japanese residents and Japanese-Americans, as ordered by FDR. What is particularly interesting, in retrospect, is that the "factual" justification for the Japanese internment program, as concocted by the War Dept and presented to the Supreme Court by the Justice Dept in those cases, was later revealed to be falsified and untrue. I have heard Justice Souter give a talk on this subject, making clear that the present Court has that history in mind and hopes not to be "twice burned" by representations about the "necessities" of "war" that they are told cannot be questioned.


: given the makeup of the (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:51:12 PM EST

present USSC, i am underwhelmed by the prospect that they'll actually force the administration to provide tangible evidence supporting their claims, of a national security basis for detaining people in this country, without charge, potentially forever.
hey, it worked for King George III! unfortunately, it also worked for FDR, one of the few (really) black marks on his presidency.

I doubt Obama will be much different. (none / 0) (#3)
by Salo on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM EST

And why would he be any different?


Orin Kerr (none / 0) (#6)
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:06:58 PM EST

has a good post regarding the ability of the Obama Administration to render the issue moot.

maybe I'm not understanding correctly (none / 0) (#7)
by lilburro on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST

he's suggesting that the Obama admin might prefer to sidestep the issue by ending his detainment. But how is that a good thing? It puts central constitutional issues at the mercy of political leanings.

What is Obama going to do with the category "illegal enemy combatant" anyway?


: Well (none / 0) (#8)
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:20:10 PM EST

the point is that Obama, perhaps, will not feel the need to try and hold anybody indefinitely without trial, so there will be no need to test the principle in the Supreme Court.