CHARLESTON, S.C. - A month after the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) said people held as enemy combatants may challenge their detention, a defense lawyer still is trying to meet with a man who has been held for more than a year at the Charleston Naval Consolidated Brig.
Attorney Andy Savage filed a motion in federal court last week demanding to see Ali Seleh al-Marri, a native of Qatar who has been held without access to family, friends or attorneys.
"The Supreme Court's decision is clear: There's no wiggle room," Savage said Monday.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to hold someone indefinitely and said detainees should be able to challenge the government.
"He is in fact a civilian, not a combatant," said Savage's motion, which also demands government either release al-Marri or charge him with a crime.
Citing the Supreme Court decision, al-Marri's attorneys had asked Assistant Solicitor General David Salmons earlier this month about seeing their client and were told the government still could not allow him to see a lawyer, according to the latest motion.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department (news - web sites), refused to comment.
Al-Marri has not received as much publicity as two other brig detainees, Yaser Hamdi, the man whose case led to the Supreme Court decision, and Jose Padilla. The two others were both born in the United States.
In December 2001, federal agents searched al-Marri's apartment in Illinois and allegedly found a computer with lectures by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), bookmarked Web sites about industrial chemicals and hundreds of credit card numbers.
The government alleged al-Marri, who was studying at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill., was a sleeper cell operative and that calls were made from his cell phone number to an al-Qaida lieutenant who sent money to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
He was charged with credit card and bank fraud. Al-Marri was allowed to see his attorney and was supposed to go to trial last year, but prosecutors dropped the charges and the government designated him an enemy combatant.
Let see. Person by all it seems was here legally. Originally charged with for all intents and purposes petty crimes. Charges dropped and his status is changed to enemy combatant. Taken into custody on American soil, granted he is not a US citizen, but so far I see nothing that he was here illegally. Was when charged under the original findings allowed to meet with council, and then all of a sudden is determined not to be allowed to meet with them anymore. Is someone seeing a problem with this? If he'd had anything to share don't you think he would have done it in those first meetings with legal staff? Why is he now not allowed to see a lawyer? And for all appearances the same one he got to meet with in the beginning?
Find the story here
Hybrid Mode
