It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


High court ends al-Marri challenge, upholds president's powers

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:42 PM

High court ends al-Marri challenge, upholds president's powers

The president has the authority to detain people without charge, the Supreme Court decided today, dismissing a challenge by suspected al-Qaeda operative Ali Al-Marri.

Last week, President Obama ordered al-Marri transferred from military to civilian custody to face federal charges of conspiracy and providing support to terrorists. For 5½ years he has been held as an enemy combatant in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. He can now be transferred to a civilian jail.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Komodo]

Mod Edit: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Do Not Sensationalize Title

[edit on 3/14/2009 by semperfortis]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:42 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!! There's something that doesn't seem right to me here!!!

First off, I can't believe this ever made it to ATS! If it did, google never brought it up. This is from last week, but, I thought it significant to post as breaking.

2nd, I got this article off of which, as usual, had the link to the USAtoday site. As I normally do, I went to the site that AJ had linked and did a quick wiki of the word...


just because I wasn't sure what the word meant.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:54 PM
Here's what Wiki states:

A vacated judgment makes the original judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is the result of the judgment of an appellate court which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court.

A trial court also has the power, under certain circumstances (usually involving fraud or lack of jurisdiction over the parties to a case) to vacate its own judgments. Relief from judgment in the United States district courts is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A vacated judgment frees the parties to re-litigate the issues subject to the vacated judgment. Indeed the Seventh Circuit noted that a vacated judgment "place[s] the parties in the position of no trial having taken place at all." United States v. Williams, 904 F.2d 7, 8 (7th Cir. 1990).

When I re-read what USA stated..

The president has the authority to detain people without charge, the Supreme Court decided today,

I couldn't believe what I was reading!! I'm I really reading this correctly in that accroding to Wiki....

*the President does NOT have the power to detain civilians indefinitely because it was voided by the SC

*but according to USA today, and their statement above, it says he DOES!

Now on the USA link at the bottom of the article, it links another source for full info .. which is .. The Legal TImes

In a statement in response to the high court action, ACLU staff attorney Jonathan Hafetz said,

“While we would have preferred a Supreme Court ruling that U.S. citizens and lawful residents detained in the U.S. cannot be held in military custody as 'enemy combatants' without charges or trial, the Supreme Court nonetheless took an important step today by vacating a lower court decision that had upheld the Bush administration's authority to designate al-Marri as an 'enemy combatant.' Congress never granted the president that authority and the Constitution does not permit it. We trust that the Obama administration will not repeat the abuses of the Bush administration having now chosen to prosecute Mr. al-Marri in federal court rather than defend the Bush administration's actions in this case."

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:10 PM
Nice find, and good research.

Now if we could just get people to realize that every day for the last 7 or 8 decades, the federal government has become frighteningly powerful; mores so than the Constitution would ever allow...., if they'd just abide by it.

Presidents are necessary in our Republic because political stalemate can kill a country or cause great harm in times of emergency, and someone must be willing to make tough choices to deal with that.... but this Federal government (regardless of the make believe 'party') seems to want to not be accountable for those decisions.

This will in fact get worse because these people, the party politicians, LOVE power and CELEBRITY IMMUNITY. Celebrity immunity comes from the declarations of the MSM 'telling' us what he can do, and leaving no recourse for challenge.

Starred and Flagged

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Maxmars]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Thanks Max!

I wish the rest of ATS members would really look into this for the simple fact that it really does let us know what is really going on with MSM. IMO...this is PROOF! Straight up! The MSM is twisting the words what is really going on & it's NOT in our favor!!

Yea, i always wondered why our forefathers never decided to make a 3rd party and just leave out the president and VP. If you do get a stalemate, well, then it goes back to the table. Simple if you ask me.

Experiencing what they were fighting to get away from, which was a man in complete power, why would they accept this again knowing that the temptation for more power would/could be a revisit of past history?

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:44 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


new topics

top topics

log in