www.aclu.orgJOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTIONABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office American Civil Liberties Union Homepage Blog of Rights Homepage Support the ACLU
Feb 18th, 2009
Posted by Suzanne Ito, ACLU at 2:39pm

Just Say "No" to Indefinite Detention

This week's New Yorker features a story by the incomparable Jane Mayer about the ACLU's case on behalf of Ali al-Marri, which will be heard by the Supreme Court in April, barring any Obama administration actions like dropping the "enemy combatant" classification and reclassifying, charging him as a civilian, and renouncing the asserted executive detention power.

Mayer writes of the al-Marri case to frame the larger puzzle the Obama administration now faces: how to handle the detainees left to him by President Bush, and how those actions will (or will not) square with our current president's declarations against indefinite detention:

The Obama Administration’s strategy in the Marri case will almost certainly establish legal principles that will have ramifications for future cases, as well as for the two hundred and forty or so similarly designated “unlawful enemy combatants” held in the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. During the Bush years, the designation encompassed not just members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also anyone who associated with them, supported them, or supported organizations associated with them, even if unwittingly. In 2004, a Bush Administration lawyer told a judge that, in theory, an enemy combatant could even be “a little old lady in Switzerland” whose charitable donations had been channelled, without her awareness, to Al Qaeda front groups.
Mayer discusses the specter of the creation of a national security court to deal with the remaining Gitmo detainees and al-Marri. We're against it, but don't just take our word for it — Mayer gives voice to some excellent rebuttals to the need for such a court:
James Benjamin, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York…co-wrote a review of the Marri case, characterizing the switch to military detention as counterproductive. “Definitely, the criminal-justice system can handle someone like Marri,” he told me. “They caught him under the criminal-justice system. And, based on what we know, they were poised to convict him.” What happened to Marri before he was moved “proves the system was up to it.”

Marty Lederman, a former Georgetown Law professor, whom Obama has appointed to be a deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, argues that the Bush Administration’s claims to be acting out of necessity were “nonsense.” In an essay published before he joined the Administration, Lederman wrote, “Even if everything the government alleges about al-Marri’s ties to al Qaeda are true,” he was not a danger “because he was already incapacitated—imprisoned—within the criminal-justice system, where his trial was pending.”
Lederman's piece can be found in its entirety here. You can also read 18 friend-of-the-court briefs filed on behalf of al-Marri that argue in favor of the ACLU's position here.

When President Obama issued the executive order (PDF) asking the Supreme Court to grant the government a 30-day extension to file its brief in the al-Marri case, we took it as a good sign that the new administration is thoroughly reviewing the previous administration's claim that a U.S. resident can be detained indefinitely without trial. We hope President Obama disagrees with that assertion, and returns al-Marri's case back to a federal court, which is where it started, and where it belongs if the government is going to continue to detain him.

Tags: Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, Close Guantanamo, indefinite detention, national security project

We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.

One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites.

We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published.

Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.

3 Responses to "Just Say "No" to Indefinite Detention"

  1. fred Says:

    should begin process on another state to kill the imates who couldnt get the rights and life staighten . usually this term nigger straightens out , who and what ethnic we are disscusing. african american males ,they are to be placed on a firing range anyway according to there own ways .

  2. lokywoky Says:

    fred, your post is incomprehensible. On the one hand I seem to see a lot of racism in it against African-Americans. But that was not the subject of the blog post.

    So...where is this coming from?

    If we do not recognize rights for people we dislike - those rights cease to exist for the rest of us as well. You would be wiser to take heed of that.

  3. Jerry Says:

    1st, WTF Fred... if you are going to spout hate at least use proper spelling.

    2nd, On the subject… what do you think about the speech Obama gave today, 05/21/2009? While the “rule of law” part was right on the mark, he then went on to outline setting up the law to allow preventive, indefinite detention. SCARY! That’s right, let’s make it legal to imprison people with no evidence, no trial, nothing… but what we think they “may” do.

    Well, JUST SAY NO! This is not the change we can believe in!

Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
 

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map

Statistics image