The time to speak on this injustice is coming, and people wonder what Teh One will speak – which right here tells me there’s a problem

Just a month after President-elect Barack Obama takes office, he must tell the Supreme Court where he stands on one of the most aggressive legal claims made by the Bush administration — that the president may order the military to seize legal residents of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime.

I am afraid there’s no “present” button on this one and New York Times is not all that optimistic on the side Teh One will pick

The new administration’s brief, which is due Feb. 20, has the potential to hearten or infuriate Mr. Obama’s supporters, many of whom are looking to him for stark disavowals of the Bush administration’s legal positions on the detention and interrogation of so-called enemy combatants held at Navy facilities on the American mainland or at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

So pessimistic in fact, they create a new word

And staying the course in the Marri case would outrage civil libertarians.

Nice! So, now, not being fascistic makes me a libertarian? (a civil one as opposed to a rude one?)

“If they adopt the Bush administration position, or some version of it,” said Brandt Goldstein, a professor at New York Law School, “it is going to be a moment of profound disappointment for everyone in the legal community and Americans generally who believe that the Bush administration has tried to turn the presidency into a monarchy.”

What a roundabout way to say it: it will be the clear sign that Obama intends to keep that monarchy

“If, as President-elect Obama has pledged, the rule of law in America is to be restored,” Mr. Hafetz said, “then Mr. al-Marri’s military detention must cease and the lower court’s ruling upholding the president’s power to order the military to seize legal residents and American citizens from their homes and imprison them without charge, must be overturned.”

To be unveiled soon