Man, just think: We could have lost millions!
By Thoreau
(Hat-tip to Hit and Run)
In spring Supreme Court is going to hear the case of Ali al-Marri, an accused enemy combatant who was allegedly planning, well, I’ll let the article speak for itself:
when Mr. Marri was on the verge of a trial on credit card fraud and other charges, President Bush declared him an enemy combatant, moving him from the custody of the Justice Department to military detention. The government says Mr. Marri is a Qaeda sleeper agent sent to the United States to commit mass murder and disrupt the banking system.
First, this is a test case for the Obama administration: Will they render the case moot by charging him with crimes in a criminal court before the Supremes hear arguments for unchecked detention? Or will they defend this claim of unchecked executive power in court? I’m hoping for the same thing that you’re hoping for, I’m obviously less optimistic then you are, but only time will tell for sure.*
Second, regardless of whether the case goes to the Supremes or a regular jury or whatever other venue, you gotta feel sorry for the government’s lawyers:
“Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Marri was going to launch attacks against our financial institutions, attacks that could have cost them millions of dollars.”
Man, remember the good old days when bank losses less than a trillion were actually considered a big deal? Good times, man, good times.
*Let’s make a bet: If Obama goes ahead with the case, then whoever takes the bet donates $50 to the ACLU to help them fight this. If Obama charges Marri with a crime and tries him before a jury, I’ll donate $50 to the first taker’s favorite charity. I am actually slightly optimistic that I’ll lose this bet. Any takers?
Comment by Ugh —
December 5, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
How about releasing al-Marri outright?
Comment by Avram —
December 5, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
Hey, this is serious. If al Qaeda had succeeded in disrupting the banking system, recent events have shown that we would have had no choice but to hand them a trillion dollars or so.
Comment by BubbaDave —
December 5, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
I’ll take that bet. If the Obama administration charges Marri with a crime or releases him due to insufficient/inadmissible evidence, $50 to Habitat for Humanity. If
Iwe all lose, $50 to the ACLU. Who do you want to hold the stakes?Comment by Thoreau —
December 5, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Deal.
Stakes? I was just going to take your word that you will donate if we all lose. But if you want, maybe we can ask Jim to oversee this?
Comment by BubbaDave —
December 5, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
My short attention span means we’re all better off if I fork over the cash now so we don’t have to count on my remembering later. Jim’s fine, or I trust you with the money. Just not myself. A man’s gotta know his limitations.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
December 5, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Hey, he’s clearly Lex Luthor dangerous — he succeeded in disrupting the banking system, even from the inside of a jail cell!
Comment by BubbaDave —
December 5, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Has anybody ever seen al-Marri and Phil Gramm together? Hmmm?
Comment by Chris E. —
December 6, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
On Rachel Maddow last night, Jonathan Turley said he hopes that the Obama administration does go ahead with the case – and then, basically, that they throw it. He wants to see Bush’s doctrine of executive power to be shot down by the Supremes, to establish a clear precedent.
Of course, with this court, you can’t be sure that they would shoot it down, even if Obama’s lawyers were to take a dive…
Comment by joe from Lowell —
December 6, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Chris E. raised the third possibility, but there’s also a fourth: trying al-Marri in front of a military court. Which, itself, needs to be divided into “trying him before a real military court” and “trying before a Detainee Treatment Act kangaroo court.”
Comment by Thoreau —
December 6, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
BubbaDave-
I have your email. What if I just contact you when the bet is decided?
Also, how do you want to decide it if he’s sent to a military court?
As far as I’m concerned, Obama throwing the case is not really something that we can include in the bet. It’s too tough to judge for the purpose of deciding a bet. If Obama goes to court with it, I don’t care how incompetent the lawyers are, for the bet it counts as Obama making a claim of executive power.
Now, as far as judging Obama (rather than just the outcome of the bet) I’d be reluctant to give him credit for anything short of the lawyers showing up and refusing to offer a brief or argument, and asking the Supremes to simply rule on the merits of the case made by Al-Marri’s lawyers.
Comment by BubbaDave —
December 6, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
That works for me. Subtract “.politics” to get an address with less aggressive spam filtering.
To me, the question of a military court depends on the rules of evidence; if they hold to a traditional evidentiary standard I win, if they go by the “hearsay and torture” Bushista rules we all lose and the ACLU gets my money.
As far as the bet goes, you’re right that throwing the case can’t be included. As far as moral judgements go, if Obama orders al-Marri released pending the Supreme Court decision and gives the defense full access to the information they need and either makes no argument or makes a patently ridiculous argument “Yes, Justice Scalia, it is the government’s position that President Obama can at any point declare all Italian-Americans enemy combatants and then put you to work picking cotton on his plantation for the rest of your life,” then I’ll be morally satisfied with a decision to take it to the Supremes. (Plus I really, really, REALLY want to see the look on Scalia’s face after that hypothetical argument).
Comment by Thoreau —
December 6, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Alright, it’s a deal: In a few months either the ACLU or Habitat for Humanity will have another $50 to do their good work.
Comment by Kal —
December 8, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
“I’m obviously less optimistic then you are”
Doubt it. Not all of your readers are soft-headed liberals. (:p)