'Sleeper cell' case questions Bush authority

CptSternn · 05-26-2008, 02:13 AM

WASHINGTON - If his cell were at Guantanamo Bay, the prisoner would be just one of hundreds of suspected terrorists detained offshore, where the U.S. says the Constitution does not apply.

But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.

Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gases and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

There is little middle ground between the two sides in al-Marri's case, which is before a federal appeals court in Virginia. The government says the president needs this power to keep the nation safe. Al-Marri's lawyers say that as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe.

Computer specialist comes to America
A Qatari national, al-Marri came to the U.S. with his wife and five children on Sept. 10, 2001 — one day before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. He arrived on a student visa seeking a master's degree in computer science from Bradley University, a small private school in Peoria, Ill.

The government says he had other plans.

According to court documents citing multiple intelligence sources, al-Marri spent months in al-Qaida training camps during the late 1990s and was schooled in the science of poisons. The summer before al-Marri left for the United States, he allegedly met with Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The two al-Qaida leaders decided al-Marri would make a perfect sleeper agent and rushed him into the U.S. before Sept. 11, the government says.

A computer specialist, al-Marri was ordered to wreak havoc on the U.S. banking system and serve as a liaison for other al-Qaida operatives entering this country, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Rapp, a senior member of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

According to Rapp, al-Marri received up to $13,000 for his trip, plus money to buy a laptop, courtesy of Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who is suspected of helping finance the Sept. 11 attacks.

A week after the attacks, Congress unanimously passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It gave President Bush the power to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the attacks.

FBI investigates
The FBI interviewed al-Marri that October and arrested him in December as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. He rarely had been attending classes and was failing in school, the government said.

When investigators looked through his computer files, they found information on industrial chemical suppliers, sermons by bin Laden, how-to guides for making hydrogen cyanide and information about chemicals labeled "immediately dangerous to life or health," according to Rapp's court filing. Phone calls and e-mails linked al-Marri to senior al-Qaida leaders.

In early 2003, he was indicted on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. Like anyone else in the country, he had constitutional rights. He could question government witnesses, refuse to testify and retain a lawyer.

On June 23, 2003, Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.

A military brig allowed more options. Free from the constraints of civilian law, the military could interrogate al-Marri without a lawyer, detain him without charge and hold him indefinitely. Courts have agreed the president has wide latitude to imprison people captured overseas or caught fighting against the U.S. That is what the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is for.

But al-Marri was not in Gitmo
"The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."

Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al-Qaida safe house in a U.S. suburb?

Sulmasy says no. That's how Congress wrote the bill and "if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language," he said.

That would require the politically risky move of pushing legislation to make it harder for the president to detain suspected terrorists inside the U.S.

Al-Marri is not the first prisoner who did not fit neatly into the definition of enemy combatant.

Two U.S. citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, were held at the same brig as al-Marri. But there are differences. Hamdi was captured on an Afghanistan battlefield. Padilla, too, fought alongside the Taliban before his capture in the United States.

By comparison, al-Marri had not been on the battlefield. He was lawfully living in the United States. That raises new questions.

Did Congress really intend to give the president the authority to lock up suspected terrorists overseas but not those living here?

If another Sept. 11-like plot was discovered, could the military imprison the would-be hijackers before they stepped onto the planes?

Is a foreign battlefield really necessary in a conflict that turned downtown Manhattan into ground zero?

Also, if enemy combatants can be detained in the U.S., how long can they be held without charge? Without lawyers? Without access to the outside world? Forever?

These questions play to two of the biggest fears that have dominated public policy debate since Sept. 11: the fear of another terrorist attack and the fear the government will use that threat to crack down on civil liberties.

"If he is taken to a civilian court in the United States and it's been proved he is guilty and it's been proved there's evidence to show that he's guilty, you know, he deserves what he gets," his brother, Mohammed al-Marri, said in a telephone interview Friday from his home in Saudi Arabia. "But he's just been taken there with no court, no nothing. That's shame on the United States."

Court says Bush crossed the line
Courts have gone back and forth on al-Marri's case as it worked its way through the system. The last decision, a 2-1 ruling by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, found that the president had crossed the line and al-Marri must be returned to the civilian court system. Anything else would "alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic," the judges said.

The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.

"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

The court seemed torn.

One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.

Another judge said the question is not whether the president was generous in his use of power; it is whether the power is constitutional.

Whatever the decision, the case seems destined for the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the first military trials are set to begin soon against detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Al-Marri may get one, too. Or he may get put back into the civilian court system. For now, he waits.

CptSternn · 05-26-2008, 02:17 AM

The most disturbing part of this is the bush administrations lawyers statement:

Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

Yeah, because thats what the Founding Fathers had planned for America. Another king george who can arrest people with no evidence, hold them for years without trial, and keep them from ever seeing an attorney while they plead their case to the media in efforts to sway public support for his illegal activity.

The most telling part of this case is the 'evidence' they have has never seen a court or a lawyer. Why? Because they know it won't hold up in court, if it indeed even exists.

Personally, I would be very bothered if my government decided it could create its own gulag and put citizens there indefinitely without any trial.

Tumor · 05-26-2008, 04:40 AM

Didn't Tom Clancy already put forth a scenario similar to this?

ThreeEyesOni · 05-26-2008, 07:31 AM

The thing about this whole matter that has caused me the most concern is the fact that apparently they were aware of this guy and claim to have known his connections, yet it wasn't until after the 9/11 attacks that they did anything. This would leave me to believe either (a) the evidence they have is a complete waste and is meaningless (b) they were originally just fine with waiting around to see what he'd do first.

I don't terribly like either of those.

Renatus · 05-26-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tumor

Didn't Tom Clancy already put forth a scenario similar to this?

So did George Lucas, though as far as we know Bush doesn't have a force lightning attack.

ThreeEyesOni · 05-26-2008, 09:14 AM

That's the Pope you're thinking about. The president has a covert group of zombies at his disposal, all of which have been raised on the brains od the finest political minds availalbe.

They are very, very hungry.

LaBelleDameSansMerci · 05-26-2008, 10:47 PM

TEOni, is the implication that there aren't many fine political minds? The cynic in me is inclined to agree.

I don't think the President would be smart enough to use a force lightning attack, anyway.

ThreeEyesOni · 05-27-2008, 09:04 AM

He is the man who almost blew up a hydrogen powered car by trying to plug a live power cord into the hydrogen fuel jack at a press conference on the White House lawn. >_>

LaBelleDameSansMerci · 05-27-2008, 05:27 PM

HAHAHAHA Are you serious?
I bet one of his oil friends told him to do it so that the hydrogen car would be deemed unsafe.... -.-

He also managed to fall off a Segway, which are apparently pretty difficult to fall off of.

CptSternn · 05-30-2008, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

HAHAHAHA Are you serious?
I bet one of his oil friends told him to do it so that the hydrogen car would be deemed unsafe.... -.-

He also managed to fall off a Segway, which are apparently pretty difficult to fall off of.

The bush admin LOVES hydrogen. Why? Well, the answer is two fold...

First, hydrogen technology is 'new'. Electric cars have had decades of testing - there has been very little hydrogen technology out there and very little testing. By using his 'alternative energy' budget to fund hydrogen cars, he effectively set back alternative energy research into cars that work on things other than oil by decades. It's like starting all over again with a new medium. While electric cars could be on the market in a few years, hydrogen cars will take a few decades to make it to market, thereby insuring that oil will still be king for a while. Also, everyone has access to electricity - there are no hydrogen filling stations, and won't be, until after they research the cars, meaning even longer periods before you will see any benefits from the research.

The second reason - do you know which companies own the only hydrogen production plants in America? Take a wild guess. Ok, I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with 'm-alliburton'. When hydrogen fuel is needed, there is only one company that currently produces it in huge factories. Whats even more ironic, they use coal to produce it - and create almost as much pollution making the hydrogen as the cars that burn oil would produce when in use.

ThreeEyesOni · 05-30-2008, 06:22 PM

Dude, I know that you have a huge and angry bug up your ass in regards to the American government and government in general (and I can't entirely fault you on some of those reasons), but you seem to have the tendency to go on conspiracy theory tangents like mad.

For starters, electric cars have decades of testing that repeatedly comes back as "crap for anything other than inner-city use." Why? Mostly due to battery technology and the fact that it sucks. There are a terribly small number of ways to store energy artificially and there just isn't currently a battery system available that can store the power needed without being insanely expensive or heavy. Because of this electric cars have to be tiny, slow, and a very limited range. In other words, they're only really viable in areas that likely have mass transit, and it's pretty clear that no one uses mass transit as much as they should, not to mention that many mass transit systems are getting to be dinosaurs ready to fall over and rot. The cars themselves are easy, it's the fact that there's no power source available.

Hydrogen is light, easily stored, and produces tremendous energy. Energy that can either be used to run a car directly (which is possible with diesel cars with a few hours worth of simple modifications) or to fuel an in-car generator that produces electricity to run magnetic motors (although again, with the magnetic motors you run into power concerns; both in the electrical and horsepower sense).

The people that have been working on electric cars have been doing it on their own and aren't likely to be stopping anytime soon. There is no "decades" of setback, mostly because of the previously mentioned matter that it's the battery issue causing the developmental bottleneck.

As far as hydrogen production, there is never in our near future going to be a widespread development of hydrogen fuel stations. And by "widespread" I mean enough so that the millions of cars on the road could get in and be fueled without a huge queue forming. But guess what? You don't have to go to some fuel station because hydrogen can be made from frickin water. Pop a electrolysis station in your garage and you're set.

CptSternn · 05-31-2008, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeEyesOni

For starters, electric cars have decades of testing that repeatedly comes back as "crap for anything other than inner-city use." Why? Mostly due to battery technology and the fact that it sucks. There are a terribly small number of ways to store energy artificially and there just isn't currently a battery system available that can store the power needed without being insanely expensive or heavy. Because of this electric cars have to be tiny, slow, and a very limited range. In other words, they're only really viable in areas that likely have mass transit, and it's pretty clear that no one uses mass transit as much as they should, not to mention that many mass transit systems are getting to be dinosaurs ready to fall over and rot. The cars themselves are easy, it's the fact that there's no power source available.

Your not up on whats happening now are you? I suggest you watch a film from about two years ago called Who killed the electric car. It's narrated by Martin Sheen and has dozens of famous people as well as politicians in it who go into great detail about the electric car and disprove pretty much everything you asserted above. They have batteries that last almost 200 miles. The average American drives less than 40 miles a day. In fact, the 200 mile capacity equals that of many SUV's and would work well within the range of over 80% of Americans, if they decided to use an electric powered vehicle.

They actually have interviews with a few batteries makers and go into this point in great detail. They speak with industry engineers who designed the batteries - men who work for major auto companies. I would encourage you to watch this film before spreading more misinformation out there based on your incorrect knowledge or assumptions.

Quote:

Hydrogen is light, easily stored, and produces tremendous energy.

It's also highly flammable, making the car one big bomb. Even a small rear-end collision could take take out other cars in a substantial area around the blast. Remember the Hindenburg? Again, this is in the film.

Quote:

The people that have been working on electric cars have been doing it on their own and aren't likely to be stopping anytime soon. There is no "decades" of setback, mostly because of the previously mentioned matter that it's the battery issue causing the developmental bottleneck.

Yes, research HAS been set back. Sure private companies are still researching but the US government pulled 100% of all research around electric cars and put 100% of that money into grants for hydrogen research. The US government no longer funds the research into electrical alternatives. Watch the film - they have a few congressmen who talk about this.

Quote:

As far as hydrogen production, there is never in our near future going to be a widespread development of hydrogen fuel stations. And by "widespread" I mean enough so that the millions of cars on the road could get in and be fueled without a huge queue forming. But guess what? You don't have to go to some fuel station because hydrogen can be made from frickin water. Pop a electrolysis station in your garage and you're set.

You can't just whip up hydrogen in your home. Water is H20, but you can't make it out of raw materials in your home either. The hydrogen used to power cars has to be manufactured, and as I said, there are only a few places in America that do this. This, like the other points I made, are covered in great detail in the film.

You really should watch the film before you come back here and try and make assertions based on what can only be called incorrect facts.