[Orin Kerr, May 1, 2009 at 1:04am] Trackbacks
Al-Marri Pleads Guilty To Providing Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist Group:
News here; he's facing up to 15 years, although he will get some amount of time served deducted from that. And so the issue of the lawfulness of his military detention goes away, or at least becomes a problem for another day.
Oren:
Does the plea preclude a (certain to fail) Bivens action?
5.1.2009 7:01am
Benjamin Davis (mail):
Good question. Gee putting him in court leads to a plea deal and up to 15 years. So much for the vast need for military commissions and the rest of the panoply improvised.

Great piece at CNN Oren.
Best,
Ben
5.1.2009 8:41am
Hannibal Lector:
So much for the vast need for military commissions and the rest of the panoply improvised.
This comment is a non sequitur unless it is based on the questionable assumption that none of the evidence against him came from the "panoply improvised" or from information obtained from him while he was held as an enemy combatant.
5.1.2009 8:49am
Anderson (mail):
unless it is based on the questionable assumption that none of the evidence against him came from the "panoply improvised" or from information obtained from him while he was held as an enemy combatant

Why, exactly, is it a "questionable assumption" that illegally obtained evidence was not used against him?
5.1.2009 10:20am
Oren:

Why, exactly, is it a "questionable assumption" that illegally obtained evidence was not used against him?

No evidence was ever used against him because he never went to trial. So, it's a damn near certainty that no evidence, illegal or otherwise, was used against him.
5.1.2009 10:45am
martinned (mail) (www):
Hang on, can he also get a deduction for the time he was imprisoned as an "unlawful enemy combattant"?
5.1.2009 10:48am
Hannibal Lector:
Why, exactly, is it a "questionable assumption" that illegally obtained evidence was not used against him?
Anderson--what are you trying to say?
No evidence was ever used against him because he never went to trial. So, it's a damn near certainty that no evidence, illegal or otherwise, was used against him.
This argument is Pickwickian . The reason he chose not to go to trial was undoubtedly because the evidence against him appeared sufficient to guarantee a conviction.
5.1.2009 12:32pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

Hang on, can he also get a deduction for the time he was imprisoned as an "unlawful enemy combattant"?


According to the AP article I read, his lawyers are going to attempt that.


The reason he chose not to go to trial was undoubtedly because the evidence against him appeared sufficient to guarantee a conviction.


His lawyers are quoted as saying that once they saw the evidence, that convinced them to plea.

Though I thought we just had innocent goat herders in custody so I don't understand this "evidence" thing.


Gee putting him in court leads to a plea deal and up to 15 years. So much for the vast need for military commissions and the rest of the panoply improvised


So, in 10-12 years at most he will just go back to being a terrorist. Hope that makes you feel better, it does not do much for me.
5.1.2009 12:40pm
Benjamin Davis (mail):
If you do not like the possible sentence, get the law changed back to something in the 18th century like death for all kinds of crimes. It would not work for him, but would work for any future acts he did that were considered terrorist.
Best,
Ben
5.1.2009 1:40pm
John Moore (www):
What in the law distinguishes his case from the German saboteurs who arrived in the US by submarine during WW-II and were executed? Is this a plea bargain, or a simple guilty plea?
5.1.2009 1:56pm
Oren:

This argument is Pickwickian . The reason he chose not to go to trial was undoubtedly because the evidence against him appeared sufficient to guarantee a conviction.

Meaning that the evidence also appeared likely to be admitted in court. Lawyers are rarely convinced to plead guilty by seeing convincing but inadmissible evidence.
5.1.2009 2:31pm
My Middle Name Is Ralph:

So, in 10-12 years at most he will just go back to being a terrorist. Hope that makes you feel better, it does not do much for me.


Do you support a life sentence for every criminal?
5.1.2009 3:40pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

Do you support a life sentence for every criminal?


No.

For every member of a terrorist organization that kills Americans, yes.

Death or life.
5.1.2009 5:28pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):

Do you support a life sentence for every criminal?


I support the possibility of a death sentence for any felony conviction. The possibility should be remote in many cases but it should still be present.
5.2.2009 2:28am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Link B I Strike Block Quote
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.