Posted on 03/04/2009 3:13:51 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
The Obama administration on Wednesday renewed its request that the Supreme Court drop the case of a suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent and not rule on whether a president can indefinitely detain terror suspects in the United States. In papers filed to the court, government lawyers say the case of Ali al-Marri should be dismissed because he has now been charged in civilian criminal court.
Acting Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said for the justices to make a finding in the case would "render a hypothetical pronouncement that would not affect the legal rights of (al-Marri) or any other person."
Al-Marri's claim is "entirely abstract" now that he faces trial, Kneedler wrote.
The Obama administration last week sought to dismiss al-Marri's case before the Supreme Court, shortly after prosecutors unsealed a criminal indictment against him.
A legal U.S. resident studying at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill., when he was arrested in late 2001, al-Marri has been held for more than five years in a military brig in Charleston, S.C., after President George W. Bush declared him an enemy combatant. His lawyers have challenged the president's authority to detain—without charge—people legally in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
.
No comment. Just rage.
(thanks to Jet Jaguar for the tip)
Obama's 6th week in office
The Obama administration renewed its request that the Supreme Court drop the case of a suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent and not rule on whether a president can indefinitely detain terror suspects in the United States. In papers filed to the court, government lawyers say the case of Ali al-Marri should be dismissed because he has now been charged in civilian criminal court.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96NGFUG0&show_article=1&catnum=0
Full list at www.nachumlist.com
I hope our soldiers are watching.
Oh good, you got this one. :o)
blood-boiling.
:)
This engenders rage that I haven't felt since I was young and immature.......
Your rage can be calmed, I think. Obama is seeking to preserve a ruling by the lower court that was favorable to the Bush administration's position, regarding executive power to detain and hold suspected terrorists outside of judicial oversight.
I agree with the X CIA agent on Fox news. Lets just shoot the sucker. Geneva Convention don’t’sh know! Not in uniform. Not playing by the rules of war.
Isn’t this what the Bush administration did with the Padilla case, moving hime to the criminal courts before the SCOTUS got a chance to rule on his detention?
Excellent resource .......good job !
I shared that with my e-mail list this afternoon !
Thanks !
It sounds as though the O man is learning the realities of his job, versus ideology.
Yes. Bush had a very favorable ruling from the 4th Circuit, anticipated an unfavorable ruling from SCOTUS, and dodged the hearing by rendering the case moot. SCOTUS hadn't granted cert in the Padilla case, and three Justices dissented from the denial of cert in Padilla's case.
The precise issue of law is different in the Al Marri case, but the general mechanism of avoiding greater incursion into the executive, by the court, is in play.
Wow, someone might wanna remind Hussein that he is only the head of the executive branch of the government...his plan to rule all three branches has not yet come to fruition, so he’ll not be the ONE in charge of SCOTUS.
At least not yet.
And he is supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer?? Lotsa larfs.
Had enough yet?
Obama intel chief violating Iran sanctions
(sits on the board owned by the Chinese government )
worldnetdaily.com | March 04, 2009 | Aaron Klein
Posted on 03/04/2009 3:09:45 PM PST by patriotmediaa
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2199363/posts
New Health Czar Challenges Obama’s Ethics Reforms
American Spectator | 3.3.09 | Philip Klein
Posted on 03/03/2009 2:24:11 PM PST by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2198454/posts
Geithner Touts Tackling Tax Evaders After Failing to Pay Own Taxes
March 3, 2009 | March 03, 2009 | staff
Posted on 03/03/2009 4:20:20 PM PST by Baladas
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2198546/posts
Oh, there is more.
Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/vets.health.care/
/mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.