Since the nation's founding, persons lawfully residing in this country have correctly understood that they can be imprisoned for suspected wrongdoing only if the government charges them with a crime and tries them before a jury.

So ends the IHT's report that the Supreme Court decided on Friday to hear the case of Ali al-Marri (at left, credit), the only person still held in military detention within the US. After the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled in June 2007 that Al-Marri must be charged or released, the case was reheard en banc. In a decision split into 2 separate 5-4 majorities on 2 different issues, the court held that the president has the necessary authority to detain Al-Marri, but that Al-Marri has not had a sufficient opportunity to challenge his detention.
Al-Marri came to the United States to study computer science and was living with his family in Peoria, Illinois when he was arrested in December 2001 amidst the nationwide roundup of men of Middle Eastern origin that followed the September 11th terrorist attacks. Eventually charged with credit card fraud, Al-Marri was about to stand trial 18 months later when President Bush designated him an enemy combatant. Just like José Padilla, (right, credit) Al-Marri was transferred to the U.S. Navy Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. But unlike Padilla, who was eventually transferred back into the criminal justice system where he received a trial, Al-Marri has remained in isolation at the brig since mid-2002. By the time the Supreme Court rules on his case later this term, he will have been there for 7 years, and the question he will put before the court will have been waiting almost 8 years to have been answered:

Does the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 115 Stat. 224, authorize — and if so does the Constitution allow — the seizure and indefinite military detention of a person lawfully residing in the United States, without criminal charge or trial, based on government assertions that the detainee conspired with al Qaeda to engage in terrorist activities?

Let's hope the Court tackles - and answers - this question head on.