Of course, from the looks of the guy, I never would have guessed he was a terrorist./sarc

It seems to me that terrorist infiltration, whether by illegal border crossings or masquerading at customs, constitutes a circumstance of invasion. The key question then should be whether the individual in question falls into that category.

Yes, if they’re here illegally or they’re not US citizens.

If I have my law right, the Court ruled in Hamdi that the President had the authority under the AUMF to detain terrorists or suspected terrorists. But they ruled that they must be given some sort of status review on their detention.

However, if they’re tried (as opposed to detained), then we must give them habeas rights (all of which to be determined).

But Mari was here legally and picked up in the US and not overseas and has been held here. Those held at Guantanamo were captured abroad and were not US citizens.

So, does Mari go before a military status review tribunal to determine whether he can be detained? Or does he have habeas rights before a civilian court?

My guess: 5-4 with Kennedy deciding in favor of Mari.

Yeah, I’m really gambling aren’t I?

That’s a lot of facial hair to carry around.

definition:

Hair Qatar: a middle easterner that acts like a jihadi but only goes through the motions.

9/11 was such an invasion.

The Pentagon itself was hit, for the first time in history.

Thus habeas does not apply in this terrorist sleeper’s case.

(Meanwhile, they should leave a nice new bathrobe with a real strong belt in his cell for the holidays.)

Under the Geneva Convention, enemy combatants must not be subject to the civilian court system of the detaining power if a soldier in its own military is not subject to same system for on-duty behavior. They must be subject to the identical courts-martial system to which our own soldiers are subject.

But isn’t the argument that these are unlawful combatants and therefore the GCs rules don’t apply?

And we still have the little issue called the Supreme Court and US laws. Recall that international laws or treaties, even if ratified, cannot override or cancel out the Constitution. E.g., a international law or treaty provision cannot cancel out the First Amendment.

If the combatant is determined to be a civilian, he must be repatriated. That means that Ali al-Marri gets a one-way ticket to Qatar if he’s released.

All is good.

I can remember back in the 90s people being held as well. There is nothing new here. I wish I could remember the year, but a bunch of people jumped a ship from some Asian country and they were picked up. The government could not decide whether to give them asylum or deport them so they kept them locked up for years.

Terrye on December 5, 2008 at 4:58 PM

During the Mariel (sp?) boat lift in the 1980s, when Cuba was dumping its prison population on the US, weren’t a number of Cubans basically imprisoned in the US for years, w/o charges? IIRC, Arkansas was the worst offender of this. Which was directly attributable to the governor at the time, I wonder what became of him, and which party he was from . . .

Nut graf:

One catch is that I assume the Court would likely dismiss the case without a decision if the incoming Obama Adminstration decides to detain Al Marri on some ground other than that he is an “enemy combatant.” And it’s hard to see why the new Administration wouldn’t do that. My recollection was that Al Marri was about to go to trial on credit card fraud charges in federal court before he was transfered to military custody. Unless there are some procedural issues that I’m not thinking of, he can go back to being so charged.

I have to wonder if there is more to this than we know. Why not just ship him to Gitmo?

Because he was, apparently, a legal resident of the US who was captured here.

The Court has ruled – and Congress legislated – that legal residents of the US have the same Constitutional rights as US citizens.

My guess is that they have evidence on him that would be inadmissible in court.

I can remember back in the 90s people being held as well. There is nothing new here. I wish I could remember the year, but a bunch of people jumped a ship from some Asian country and they were picked up. The government could not decide whether to give them asylum or deport them so they kept them locked up for years.

Sounds strange.

If this guy is guilty, he deserves to be punished. But we all deserve for him to have a public trial so that we can find out the truth.

Why don’t we just thank him publicly for his cooperation in prison in busting terror cells and release him back to his jihadi brothers?

Sure, we’ll include a copy of the Talmud as a going-away present too.

Maybe some copies of Rushdie’s works too.

$100 gift certificate to Bob Evans.

Even with Padilla, a similar case (although Padilla was a US citizen), they brought him before civilian courts.

If Marri was here legally, then he should be afforded full constitutional protections.

Should? Must.

Either the evidence is slim or determined to be inadmissible in court or someone really screwed up.

rbj on December 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM

At the same time, I’m not aware that either of those Ohio groups are jumping in to the matter of the invasion of Joe the Plumber’s privacy. Fortunately, the Columbus Dispatch is following the matter, and some Ohio legislators are offering some legislation because two officials weren’t fired–mere one-month vacations (paid) for the Christmas season.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/05/whistleblower-exposes-the-joe-the-plumber-snoopers-cover-up/

WTF.

/Rough week for pro footballers!