That was the ruling that was expected and President Obama covered George W's butt and his attacks on the U.S. Constitution.

Again, it would have been better to leave the ACLU case go forward.....

As it stands, I believe, any one of us can be held without being charged or taken to trial indefinitely.

If Obama did not file for dismissal,the case MAY HAVE gone forward and MAY HAVE HAD a ruling against the NEOCON policy of an " enemy combantant" being held indefinetly on USA soil.

The covering or not covering would be according to the ruling Obama thought the Court would make.

Did you ever go to a carnival and watch the guy with the three cups and a pea? He puts the pea under one of the cups, then moves it around and around, then you guess which cup has the pea. Of course, the pea is never under the cup you pick and you lose your buck.

That is much the same as the game of shuffling prisoners around from one court, one jurisdiction, to another. Apparently, no court can really find the prisoner and bring him to trial. If it looks like that is going to happen, the shuffle begins again.

Ah, well, our alleged government has become a carny con game, anyway, so what 's the difference?

The US Supreme Court refuses to consider whether US presidents have the authority to indefinitely detain a terrorist suspect without charge.
.
.
So we are STILL living under a military dictatorship....some thugs never 'change'

"joehope March 6th, 2009 4:41 pm

You just don't understand anything do you?

"that the case be dismissed, because Marri has now been charged in the federal system."

Sorry, you're wrong, Obama isn't covering for Bush."

THAT WAS posted in reply to:

"herbert r chersonsky March 6th, 2009 4:19 pm

That was the ruling that was expected and President Obama covered George W's butt and his attacks on the U.S. Constitution. ..."

JOEHOPE's actually mistaken. I think to understand why and if right, then it's that it's due to too narrowly considering what herbert r.c. wrote. The two posts further below and which I made at CD this week certainly contribute clarification on what I mean, which is that the Obama administration is covering the butts of the Bush Jr-Cheney administration by continuing to pretend, f.e., that the war on Afghanistan was and (worse) remains justified, which the war has never been. Also, I'm not sure of the details of why Ali al-Marri is treated as an 'enemy combatant', only believing that it's due to accusing him of having fought with Taliban resistance in Afghanistan when the U.S. launched the unjustifiable war on them, and this being treated as fighting with Al Qa'ida, but the Taliban aren't Al Qa'ida, only having some associations or relations with the group (that was actually formed and used by the U.S. CIA, ... etcetera); well, he wasn't truly an "enemy combatant". He would've been fighting with Taliban resistance, defence, against criminal aggressors USA et al.

It's another U.S. or U.S.-and-NATO war of aggression, so the real enemy in this isn't the Taliban; it's the U.S. and NATO that constitute the enemy. And the 9-11 Commission inquiry was extremely bogus, deliberately corrupted after attempts by the Bush Jr-Cheney team failed to totally prevent any inquiry from happening or seeming to happen, and the two posts below provide good information in this regard. Obama is continuing very much of the Bush Jr-Cheney crap and while doing this he's indeed covering up their lies, lack of justification for wars of aggression, etcetera.

The first post is for, "Political Leaders for 911 Truth Launched Today", March 5, 2009.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/05-2#comment-1153661

The next post is for a good 19-video or -clip playlist that provides information everyone with an honest mind or soul and for [real] justice should really make the point of learning about. And it's a considerable amount, yet there's also plenty more of the same sort of information that we should know; although this 19-clip playlist is still okay for a representative sampling of all of the analyses and reports. We can't be truly honest, responsible, and intelligent citizens unless we truly apply ourselves to being honest, responsible and intelligent, which requires being [open-minded], instead of biased, etcetera.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/04-0#comment-1152809

Obama and his administration are continuing much cover-up, and the Dem. Party-controlled Congress did the same since the Congress became a Dem. Party majority. The U.S. "news" media also provides much related cover-up and therefore is also guilty.

If Obama wants to stop playing a role in support of the long cover-up, then he needs to do as called for by the Political leaders for 9-11 truth and all other true 9-11 truth analysts and supporters; not the phony, but the real, true ones. By refusing this very important call, refusing to comply with it, he will indeed be choosing to continue playing a supportive, or (now) more-than-supportive, role in the long cover up.

Real allegiance to real justice and law [requires] complying with what the Political leaders for 9-11 truth are calling for. Anyone who opposes can claim to be really for justice and law, but the words will be [empty]!

The article says, "The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case, said it would have preferred a ruling "that US citizens and lawful residents detained in the US cannot be held in military custody as 'enemy combatants' without charges or trial.""

I DON'T understand why that's in the article, which says that the topic is Ali al-Marri having filed a challenge evidently with or at the US Supreme Court and "as to whether "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely on US soil", while adding that he's a dual Qatari-Saudi Arabian citizen or 'national'. The article doesn't say that he was ever a citizen or legal resident of the U.S.

The article adds that "The Supreme Court agreed in December to consider a petition by Marri's lawyers challenging former president George W. Bush's authority to indefinitely hold US residents and citizens without charge or trial", but ..., as above.

The article additionally says that he "was arrested in late 2001", but doesn't say where the arrest took place, if this was in the U.S. or in Afghanistan, and if it was in Afghanistan, which I am assuming it was, then how is it that he's being considered a U.S. citizen or (past-) legal resident?

If he is also a U.S. citizen, or if he was only (and up to or until his arrest or being declared an "enemy combatant") a legal resident of the U.S., then the article should explicitly specify this, whichever of the two was or is the case. The article doesn't specify this, so I assume that he was only a dual Qatari-Saudi national and wasn't a legal resident of the U.S. in 2001.

Were Guatanamo Bay detainees ever treated as "legal residents" of the U.S.? I haven't heard or read of such a status being granted to them.

The article's a little confusing.

Change we can . . .

oh, never mind.

Seems to fit a lot of articles around here lately.