Video: ACLU Lawyers on Landmark Al-Marri Case

As we mentioned earlier today, the Supreme Court will hear the case Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a legal resident of the United States, who has been detained in solitary confinement at a Navy brig in South Carolina since June 2003 without charge or trial.In this short video, ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro and ACLU National Security Project Staff Attorney Jonathan Hafetz discuss this landmark indefinite detention case.

If you get an error message while attempting to view this clip, please reload the page or press F5.
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from .
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see You Tube’s privacy statement on their website and Google’s privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU’s privacy statement, click here
Add a comment (6)
Read the Terms of Use

Liberalism and its fairness and equality before the law
is the philosophy of Democracy, most all else is rationalese for the costumes of authoritarianism

Mary A. Rich

I am wondering whether Pres. Bush's actions and those of his administration who supported his illegal actions
would be a reason for impeachment.
I am appalled by the ignoring of the constition in this instance. I hope that for the sake of of our country's pride in our system of justice that
justice will prevail.


How can a President make a law that violates the Constitution without it being laughed out of the Supreme Court? Is this not the definition of tyranny?

Isidoro Rodrigu...




I write as a US. citizen, as a Nam Vet who swore 44 years ago to defend the Constitution, as a former appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administration, as a independent federal civil/human rights litigation attorney who for more than 32 years has successfully represented Hispanics against the malfeasance of DOJ,1 and a supporter of President-elect Obama, because irrespective of being a Republican, Democrat, or Independent the Senate must immediately act to restore the Rule of Law in the U.S. Department of Justice (See Adam Cohen, “Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law,” The New York Times, November 14, 2008).

For this reason I oppose the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General because he is a defendant in a pending action under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 and civil RICO action to be filed in the U.S. District Court for D.C., based on the following evidence in the record that establishes that as a Beltway attorney/lobbyist he is the linchpin in a criminal conspiracy since 2003:

First, for five years after my Son was shanghaied to the Republic of Colombia in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204, he did obstruct my Federal and Virginia statutory rights as a Father to compel DOJ to secure my right to international visitations with my U.S. citizen Son, pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on Missing and Abducted Children (“Treaty”), and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act VA Code § 20-124.1 et seq. (“UCCJEA”); and,

Second, in retaliation for my litigating to enforce my rights under Treaty and UCCJEA and petitioning Congress (See, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1513, he conspired to punish, stigmatize, and deprive me of my right to employment as an attorney.2

Thus, my opposition to Eric Holder is a continuation of my petitions of 2005 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees: (a) for an investigation of the collusion of the Federal Courts and DOJ by abuse of the Judicial Conference Act and the Rules Enabling Act to usurp the authority of Congress, the Constitutional mandates of checks and balances, as well as separation of power, and to deprive citizens of substantive rights; and, (b) my petition opposing the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts for his false statement to Congress aiding and abetting the obstruction of my right to compel DOJ to enforce my rights as a Father under the Treaty and UCCJEA (See

Consequently based on the above evidence of malfeasance the Senate must take the opportunity during the confirmation proceedings of not only Eric Holder, bu of all appointments to DOJ to hold hearings on past violations of the Rule of Law and Congressional mandates. For example, the Senate must inquire into the abuse of the Rules Enabling Act to use both summary judgement and Feldman abstention doctrine which has permitted State Court to deprive citizens of due process and parental rights under the Treaty, the surreal holdings of absolute Judicial and Executive Branch immunity for liability from suit for criminal and tortious acts which injure Fathers rights, the denial of RICO civil jury trial on claims of judicial and ministerial malfeasance, and the policy of denying access to an impartial court and the protection to victim of malfeasance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771, through secrete proceedings with DOJ by abuse of the Judicial Conference Act.3

This is because the lessons from history have shown that,

Once certain checks and balances are destroyed, and once certain institutions have been intimidated, the pressure that can turn an open society into a closed one-turn into direct assaults; at that point events tend to occur very rapidly, and a point comes at which there is no easy turning back to the way it used to be. Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, p. 14, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2007.4

Therefore, at this critical time for our Republic the Senate must restore the Rule of Law, as well as the integrity and public confidence in DOJ by assuring compliance with the words inscribed on the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building: “No Free Government Can Survive That Is Not Based on The Supremacy of Law. Where Law ends, Tyranny Begins, Law Alone Can Give Us Freedom.”

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that I have your support to be given an opportunity to testify and present evidence in opposition at the Senate confirmation hearing of Eric Holder.

Very truly yours,

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.

1After I argued and won Martinez v. Lamagno and DOJ/DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only known U.S. license practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, see also Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997)(Litigation that successfully stopped the unlawful seizing by DOJ of all nonresident Hispanic bank accounts in the U.S.)[Web:]

2In retaliation for filing Rodriguez et al., v. National center for Missing and exploited Children et al., Civil Action No. 030120, 2005 WL 736526 (D.C. Cir. March 31, 2005), to compel DOJ to secure visitation rights under the Treaty and UCCJEA, Eric Holder filed fraudulent bar complaints in 2003 with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”). But, the VSBDB issued a void orders as a kangaroo court since the General Assembly granted the power to revoke an attorneys license only to courts-of-record and judges. [See 2007 Petition for Impeachment of Va. Supreme Court, et al.,; see also

3The evidence confirms that in retaliation the Federal Courts have: (I) refused to empanel a Special Grand Jury and denied me access to an impartial court to compel DOJ to protect me as a victim of federal crimes as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), In re Isidoro Rodriguez US S Ct. No. 08-339, Writ denied on November 17, 2008 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3); (II) deprived me of my right to a jury trial in the D. C. under RICO-based on the holding of absolute Judicial and Executive immunity from tortious and criminal liability-and declared lack of venue to maintain a RICO action in D.C., Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., US S Ct. No. 08-411, Cert. denied December 1, 2008; and, (III) denied me of procedural and substantive due process right by refusing to enjoin the illegal attorney disciplinary system of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Chief Justice, Sup. Ct. of VA, et al., US S Ct. No. 08-574, Cert. denied on December 8, 2008.

3The dangers to our Republic and citizens by collusion of DOJ with the Federal Courts are real. ". . . the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear . . . that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures . . . the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit . . . " Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret). The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. Dra. Irene Rodriguez
A member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court; Admitted Rep. of Colombia
of the U.S. Ct. of App for 2nd, D.C., and Fed. Cir.; and U.S. Tax Ct.

Northern Virginia Office: South American Office:
7924 Peyton Forest Trail World Trade Center
Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560 Calle 76 No. 54-11, Office 313
Telephone: 703.573.1571/telefax: 571.423.5066 Barranquilla, Colombia
Mobil: 703.470.1457 Telephone: 011.5753.605288
Web: Web:

Nezer Khan

Holding People indefinately by using the term "Enemy Combatants" is illegal according to The United States Constitution, and The Geneva Convention. This Illegal use of the term "Enemy Combatants" clearly shows that the Bush Administration operates outside the Rule of Law, and has no legal stance in a democratic society to impose such indefinite confinement against the accused.


lets hope that charges can be bought and he can now stand trial. If found innocent substantial compensation should be forthcoming, if found guilty (the charges are serious) he should go to prison where he deserves to be but have the 5.5 years that he has spent in confinement removed from his sentence.

Stay Informed