<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Washington Independent &#187; Illegal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://washingtonindependent.com/tag/illegal/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://washingtonindependent.com</link>
	<description>National News in Context</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:17:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Will SCOTUS Really Hear the Al-Marri Case? Not so fast&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/21230/will-sct-really-hear-the-al-marri-case-not-so-fast</link>
		<comments>http://washingtonindependent.com/21230/will-sct-really-hear-the-al-marri-case-not-so-fast#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daphne Eviatar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Marri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Detainee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[detention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enemy Combatant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war on terror]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=21230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By now you&#8217;ve probably heard that the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of the sole legal U.S. resident detained indefinitely &#8212; yes, that means potentially forever &#8212; without charges, right here on U.S. soil.  All because President Bush decided on his own authority, that this 28-year-old father of five, who was then [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By now you&#8217;ve probably heard that <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/21132/supreme-court-agrees-to-review-another-detention-case">the Supreme Court has decided</a> to hear the case of the sole legal U.S. resident detained indefinitely &#8212; yes, that means potentially forever &#8212; without charges, right here on U.S. soil.  All because <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/19951/s-ct-may-review-indefinite-detention-of-us-resident">President Bush decided</a> on his own authority, that this 28-year-old father of five, who was then living quietly in Peoria, Ill., was a dangerous associate of Al Qaeda. No proof required, and none has been offered in any court of law.</p>
<p>As Matthew DeLong <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/21132/supreme-court-agrees-to-review-another-detention-case">noted earlier</a>, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri&#8217;s appeal, which questions whether the president really has the authority to hold U.S. residents indefinitely without charge. Al-Marri has been detained, mostly in solitary confinement, at a Navy brig in South Carolina since June 2003.</p>
<p>But there&#8217;s a good chance that the Supreme Court will never get to hear al-Marri&#8217;s appeal and rule on this critical constitutional question.  That&#8217;s because, as George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explained on MSNBC&#8217;s &#8220;The Rachel Maddow Show&#8221; Friday, the Bush administration may decide to transfer al-Marri to a regular prison and charge him as a criminal &#8212; purely to keep the issue from reaching the Supreme Court, where the Bush administration may well lose the case. <span id="more-21230"></span></p>
<p>That&#8217;s what the Bush administration did in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen also classified as an &#8220;enemy combatant,&#8221; who was transferred to the criminal justice system so no court could rule on the legality of the administration&#8217;s actions.</p>
<p>The other likely scenario is that a new Obama administration, which will presumably be gung-ho about preserving civil liberties, will take over in January and reverse the government&#8217;s position in the case and decide that al-Marri cannot be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant without charges after all. The Supreme Court probably wouldn&#8217;t hear oral arguments in this case until spring, and it&#8217;s hard to imagine that the new Justice Department, under Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder &#8212; who has  <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/19149/eric-holder-seems-pretty-progressive-on-terrorism-issues">made strong statements</a> about the illegality of Bush&#8217;s detention policies &#8212; is going to defend President Bush&#8217;s executive decision to hold al-Marri indefinitely.</p>
<p>While that would be a good outcome for al-Marri, it could be a loss for civil libertarians, who are hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule definitively that the president of the United States does not have the authority to detain a U.S. resident in a U.S. prison indefinitely without charge, without having to prove to some federal judge somewhere that he poses a real danger.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://washingtonindependent.com/21230/will-sct-really-hear-the-al-marri-case-not-so-fast/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
