Glenn,

As I pointed out in my Oxdown yesterday, the LA Times article you linked also notes that Holder has come out in favor of detention without charges:

Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.

So thanks a lot, Glenn, for darkening my one perceived "silver lining" in the al-Marri case.

Obama needs to come out of the closet and admit he is a republican.

His token gestures.....acknowledging global warming and ending the ban on stem cell research.....hardly qualify him as a democrat.

Although considering our current democratic leaders, maybe it does?

As for the newspapers - I can't wait until all the newspapers in America are dead and gone. Weather forecasters are now more accurate than the average "news" reporter.

While I absolutely support pressing the Obama Admin to change these policies and reject these ridiculous and radical theories, I can't help but thinking - what about Congress? Why is there no (or little) discussion of revising or repealing the AUMF or the FISA amendments or Military Commissions Act? Why no legislation to set the boundaries of the state secrets privilege? Why is closing GTMO left to Obama and the Pentagon?

It seems clear that Obama and his appointees are not interested in a major roll back on executive power (however much they may be better on this issue.) Members of Congress seem better placed to be pressured on these issues, and are the one's that are constitutionally authorized to be making these sorts of decisions in the first place. The more these decisions are restored to Congress, the better shot that citizens have at holding government accountable.

of why the U.S. is in the dire straits it's in. Too many Americans are being misled by the nonsense that passes for mainstream journalism in this country today. How is the average American supposed to decipher all the conflicting information being offered? Unfortunately, many people don't take the time (or have the inclination) to sort through the mess to find the truth.

On a side note, congratulations to you on your Izzy Award. It's gratifying to see you get the recognition you deserve for your efforts to clear waters that are being endlessly muddied by the MSM.

Oh, and a belated Happy Birthday, as well. We all wish you many happy returns.

it's quite terrible how there are all these Internet blogs now that report things without any factual checks, unlike our nation's great establishment media outlets, which have mutliple layers of editors and checks that prevent reckless, inaccurate and unreliable reporting"

You betcha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5uBYkS4dPE&feature=related

I don’t have the exact cite in front of me, but here in California I have periodically seen a case cited in state appellate and supreme court rulings in this type of situation, usually involving prisoner rights or treatment. Despite a change of circumstances (usually initiated by the government to avoid ongoing court review) rendering a given case technically moot, a higher court will still adjudicate the matter on the gounds that the issue presented is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Aren’t there any federal cases or standards similar to this that could be used?

The one formally issued on 9/14/2001?

Thanks for any help answering.

Despite a change of circumstances (usually initiated by the government to avoid ongoing court review) rendering a given case technically moot, a higher court will still adjudicate the matter on the gounds that the issue presented is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Aren’t there any federal cases or standards similar to this that could be used?

Yes - that is a federally recognized mootness exception, and I added a link to that after I posted this.

We really needed this ruling from SCOTUS. I'm don't believe that the Obama adminstration would ever make use of this policy the way Bush did but what about future Presidents? Another Bush or worse, a Huey Long as President and we will be right back in the nightmare.

Of course, with the Court we presently have it's not certain we would have gotten the ruling we would want.

I'm don't believe that the Obama adminstration would ever make use of this policy the way Bush did

Why don't you believe that this would "ever" happen? Not even in the event of a large-scale terrorist attack or other form of societal instability or upheaval?

Why don't you believe it would happen, and what you're view, then, as to why they're taking steps to preserve these powers?

There's still hope that a court will have the opportunity to rule on the legality of the detention in the context of either the criminal prosecution (reason for delay will probably be the government's only defense to a motion to dismiss for a violation of speedy trial rights under the Barker standard) or perhaps a Bivens action. Or am I missing something?

I suppose that since he was only recently charged, his right to a speedy trial has not been violated, technically speaking. From a more human point of view, it clearly has. One should not be able to hold someone for several years, possibly trying to make the case, or at least waiting for the best circumstances to charge him. Perhaps many more years of imprisonment await him; who would want to take the chance of trying him? He might be found innocent. Yet who would want to let him go? That would not not go well with a very noisy minority, and a less noisy majority.

From a blogpost at Roger Shuler's Legal Schnauzer titled "Is Obama Aide Trying to Protect Karl Rove?"--

In light of Greg Craig's advice so far, looks like Rove is not the only thing the Bush mole is protecting (with Obama's approval)--

So how could Team Obama, which clearly is made up of many smart people, be dumb enough to select Greg Craig as White House counsel?

Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a key whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, says Craig has serious conflicts regarding certain members of the Republican Party. And we're not talking about reputable, mainstream Republicans like Richard Lugar or Olympia Snowe. We're talking Dr. Evil himself--Karl Rove.

A February 22 letter, from Simpson attorney Priscilla Black Duncan to Craig, outlines several serious charges against the White House counsel. He has represented Rove in a book deal. His close associate and mentor represents the Bush administration on executive-privilege issues regarding the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

But most troubling is the possibility that Craig violated multiple ethical rules of the legal profession in his direct conversations with Simpson. The letter states that Craig held extensive discussions with Simpson about the possibility of representing her for her testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. After hearing a complete account of Simpson's story, Craig informed her that he had a conflict involving U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and could not represent her.

The tone of the letter makes it clear that Simpson suspects Craig took privileged information he gleaned from her and shared it with Rove or individuals close to him. Such action would represent a serious breach of legal ethics, and my understanding is that Craig could face sanctions, perhaps disbarment, if such a breach were proven.

In the letter, Simpson asks that Craig withdraw from any representation of Obama in matters involving the Bush administration. A New York Times report, however, indicates that Craig was involved in negotiations that resulted in an agreement to have Rove testify in a non-public proceeding before Congress.

And so the circle of elite power turns and grinds . . .

Link to Legal Schnauzer at sig.