Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft Resist Application of US Supreme Court Detainee Decision

In the Hamdi decision the Supreme Court ruled that US citizen detainees have a right to bring a habeas case to challenge their detention and that they should have access to counsel for it.

Why then is the Bush-Rumsfeld Dept. of Defense, abetted by the Ashroft Justice Dept. refusing to allow a lawyer access to Ali Saleh al-Marri? Is it because he is not a US citizen?

Charleston attorney files motion to see man held as enemy combatant at Naval Brig: Attorney Andy Savage filed a motion in federal court last week demanding to see al-Marri, who has been held without access to family, friends or attorneys.

The US Supreme Court last month ruled it was unconstitutional to hold someone indefinitely and says detainees should be able to challenge their detention.

The motion Savage filed says al-Marri's attorneys asked assistant prosecutor David Salmons about the matter and was told the government could not allow him to see a lawyer. A spokesman for the Justice Department refused comment.

I do not see how Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri's Qatari citizenship will suffice to block his right to a hearing, and to counsel to prepare for it. And I can't imagine any other grounds the government could have for this behavior.

Update: Scrivener's Error says that I am not cynical enough.

Further update: The article I linked to above now says, “Attorney Mark Berman says the Justice Department approved meetings with Ali Seleh al-Marri in a phone call on Tuesday night, and the lawyer expects to meet with al-Marri within two weeks.” That's good.

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft Resist Application of US Supreme Court Detainee Decision

  1. Chris says:

    The grounds are pretty obvious to me, though one with a fetish for the Constitution may question the legitimacy of these grounds. Remember that the President “agreed” with White House attorneys that as CIC he need only follow the law and international treaties when it is convenient to do so. He’s never repudiated that position. As the SCOTUS has just made the law inconvenient, ergo…2 + 2 = ??

    Put differently, our neo-con rulers have now clearly said that to save our republic from the terrorists, we’re going to do away with the republic. Ohhhh-kay.

  2. Jean says:

    Put differently, our neo-con rulers have now clearly said that to save our republic from the terrorists, we’re going to do away with the republic. Ohhhh-kay.

    Well yes. THat is the Bush MO. But you’re not supposed to figure it out. Modern conservatives have hired linguists to teach them how to convince the public that up is down. This is entirely predictable and consistent with the conservative theme.

    Another example is the recent NYT article about Bush’s determination to persuade courts to dismiss (product liability) lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical companies or manufacturers if the drug/product was approved by the FDA. Now consider the political influence in shaping FDA decisions….
    Access to the courts for victims of product design or manufacturing defect undermines public health, according to Bush.
    As a victim of a product design defect, I take issue with this – even though the decision would not now directly affect me. The idea that presenting the question to a jury ‘undermines public health’ certainly demonstrates Bush’s disdain for democracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *