Wednesday, March 11, 2009

UPDATE FROM DAVID REMES

FOR THOSE OF YOU INTERESTED IN THE GOVERNMENTS MISREPRESENTATIONS TO EITHER (OR BOTH) THE SUPREME COURT OR THE DISTRICT COURT, THIS FOLLOW UP FROM DAVID REMES:

Here's the line from the SOLICITOR's reply brief in the Supreme Court in al-Marri (when transfer request was pending):

***

"And because the President’s Memorandum removes the existing designation of petitioner as an enemy combatant subject to military detention, any future detention—were that hypothetical possibility ever to occur—would require new consideration under then-existing circumstances and procedure."

Here's the line from the GOVERNMENT's new filing asking the district court seeking to stay the habeas cases:

"Finally, there is no reason to question the finality of any decision to transfer a detainee made in the Executive Order review process, given the Executive Order’s mandate and its purpose." [FN]

[Fn] "These mootness arguments were recently considered by the Supreme Court in granting the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot and vacate the judgment below in Al-Marri v. Spagone, --- S. Ct. ----, 2009 WL 564940 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2009). There, the Government indicated its intent to transfer the petitioner from military custody to the custody of the Attorney General for criminal prosecution and end his military detention. Id. The Government did not change his enemy combatant designation before transferring him."

***

Not to mention the transfer was not opposed and that the relief sought in the habeas petition-- release from military custody (via civilian charge)-- was provided.

1 comment:

walter said...

David, you have gone round the bend! Good luck!

We are simply enjoying life on a little 18 acre farm in the countryside near Middleburg.

Take care of yourself.

WalterWoodson