Last month I wrote a post on Jose Padilla and why I thought that he should matter to everyone in the US: because he is a man charged with no crime, held now for over thirteen months virtually incommunicado by a government who will not tell anyone -- not even Padilla himself, or his attorney -- the reason why he has been detained for so long. Despite a great deal of media frenzy about Padilla, to date no charges have been filed, no charges have been suggested, and no timeline for when these things might be forthcoming, has come forth.
Today I'd like to talk about Ali Marri.
Who the hell is Ali Marri? Never even heard of him until today actually. Turns out he's been charged with lying to the FBI while being questioned in the wake of 9/11 and also in an unrelated credit card fraud case.
He may also turn out to be one of the most important court cases in American history. I mean this without hyperbole.
Mr. Marri has been slowly working his way through the legal system for some time now, waiting for seperate trials on each of his charges. Mr. Marri apparently has a pretty good lawyer, and things have not been going particularly well for the DoJ on this case.
Mr. Marri's trial was finally set to begin later this month. So far his attorney has successfully pleaded several motions, including the disqualification of a government witness.
And last week, out of the blue, Mr. Marri was declared an "enemy combatant" and remanded to the custody of the Pentagon.
In this instant, no motion was filed with the court. No evidence as to Mr. Marri's "enemy combatant" status was presented, nor was any explanation of why the government has taken more than eigtheen months to determine this status.
No evidence or explanation was offered, and none was asked for.
As an editorial from The Washington Post pointed out, the significance of this situation cannot be overstated: it is a confirmation that there is no standard by which the government is deciding how to treat accused terrorists. The Marri removal-and-transfer order shows that the process is entirely ad hoc and arbitrary, which is one of the distinguishing characteristics of a dictatorial regime. That’s why free nations have prized the “rule of law” so highly — because a necessary prerequisite of a free society is that people answer to a fixed law rather than to arbitrary decrees of public officials.
Marri's attorney filed a petition of habeus corpus with the Supreme Court on the 8th of July. As you may know, the Bush administration and AG Ashcroft have asserted that th declaration of an individual as an "enemy combatant" qualifies him as exempt under the habeus corpus provisions of the Constitution, which states:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>“The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the Supreme Court rules that Bush (as commander-in-chief of the military, President Bush is now the responsible party for Mr. Marri) must comply with habeus corpus provisions, then the entire gang down in Guantanamo will be next. If the Supreme Court rules that Bush does not, it will have made it's official position that the administration can simply cast about words -- without a shred of supporting evidence -- and whisk people away into military custody, held to different legal standards and denied the rights guaranteed them under the Constitution.
That is a huge deal, for a case that didn't even make it onto the nightly news. I can hardly wait to see it's outcome.
Phaedrus
Today I'd like to talk about Ali Marri.
Who the hell is Ali Marri? Never even heard of him until today actually. Turns out he's been charged with lying to the FBI while being questioned in the wake of 9/11 and also in an unrelated credit card fraud case.
He may also turn out to be one of the most important court cases in American history. I mean this without hyperbole.
Mr. Marri has been slowly working his way through the legal system for some time now, waiting for seperate trials on each of his charges. Mr. Marri apparently has a pretty good lawyer, and things have not been going particularly well for the DoJ on this case.
Mr. Marri's trial was finally set to begin later this month. So far his attorney has successfully pleaded several motions, including the disqualification of a government witness.
And last week, out of the blue, Mr. Marri was declared an "enemy combatant" and remanded to the custody of the Pentagon.
In this instant, no motion was filed with the court. No evidence as to Mr. Marri's "enemy combatant" status was presented, nor was any explanation of why the government has taken more than eigtheen months to determine this status.
No evidence or explanation was offered, and none was asked for.
As an editorial from The Washington Post pointed out, the significance of this situation cannot be overstated: it is a confirmation that there is no standard by which the government is deciding how to treat accused terrorists. The Marri removal-and-transfer order shows that the process is entirely ad hoc and arbitrary, which is one of the distinguishing characteristics of a dictatorial regime. That’s why free nations have prized the “rule of law” so highly — because a necessary prerequisite of a free society is that people answer to a fixed law rather than to arbitrary decrees of public officials.
Marri's attorney filed a petition of habeus corpus with the Supreme Court on the 8th of July. As you may know, the Bush administration and AG Ashcroft have asserted that th declaration of an individual as an "enemy combatant" qualifies him as exempt under the habeus corpus provisions of the Constitution, which states:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>“The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the Supreme Court rules that Bush (as commander-in-chief of the military, President Bush is now the responsible party for Mr. Marri) must comply with habeus corpus provisions, then the entire gang down in Guantanamo will be next. If the Supreme Court rules that Bush does not, it will have made it's official position that the administration can simply cast about words -- without a shred of supporting evidence -- and whisk people away into military custody, held to different legal standards and denied the rights guaranteed them under the Constitution.
That is a huge deal, for a case that didn't even make it onto the nightly news. I can hardly wait to see it's outcome.
Phaedrus
