user: News: ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) — A former Guantanamo detainee who was transferred to his native Algeria earlier this month has been indicted, the Algiers prosecutor's office said Monday.

Aziz Abdul Naji was also placed under judicial supervision Sunday, the office said in a statement, though it did not say what he had been charged with or what the supervision entailed.

Naji was transferred to Algeria on July 18. Captured in Pakistan in 2002 and held in Guantanamo, Naji fought his repatriation, saying he feared he would be mistreated or even killed in Algeria.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Naji lost his case earlier this month, clearing the way for him and five other Algerian Guantanamo inmates to be repatriated. The six have said they would rather remain at the prison camp at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba than return to their home country where political turmoil has claimed thousands of lives in recent years.

Human rights groups also warned of possible dire consequences for Naji and another Algerian ex-Guantanamo inmate, Fahri Saeed bin Mohammad, whose repatriation was expected.

Monday's statement, which was quoted in a report by the official APS news agency, said Naji's indictment came after he had been held for an unspecified amount of time. Under Algerian law, suspects in terror-related probes can be held for up to 12 days, the report said.

The statement made no mention of Saeed bin Mohammed.

President Barack Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo. The Defense department has said more than 600 detainees have been allowed to leave Guantanamo, with 178 remaining in the naval prison there.

Title: Ex-Guantanamo detainee handed charges after his repatriation to native Algeria


News: In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.

Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.

We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY's founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike.

Under the guise of implementing the law, the Internal Revenue Service has announced it will impose a tax of up to $3,000 per worker on employers whom Congress has not authorized a tax. To make things more interesting: If the IRS doesn't impose that unauthorized tax, the whole law could collapse.

The Act's "employer mandate" taxes employers up to $3,000 per employee if they fail to offer required health benefits. But that tax kicks in only if their employees receive tax credits or subsidies to purchase a health plan through a state-run insurance "exchange."

This 2,000-page law is complex. But in one respect the statute is clear: Credits are available only in states that create an exchange themselves. The federal government might create exchanges in states that decline, but it cannot offer credits through its own exchanges. And where there can be no credits, there is nothing to trigger that $3,000 tax.

States are so reluctant to create exchanges that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius estimates she might have to operate them for 15 to 30 states. Even if she manages that feat, the law will still collapse without the employer mandate and tax credits.

To prevent that from happening, on May 18 the IRS finalized a rule making credits available through federal exchanges, contrary to the express language of the statute.

Because those credits trigger penalties against employers, the IRS is literally taxing employers and spending billions without congressional authorization. Estimates by the Urban Institute indicate that had this rule been in effect in 2011, it would have cost at least $14.3 billion for HHS to run exchanges for 30 states. About 75% of that is new federal spending; the remainder is forgone tax revenue.

The IRS doesn't have a leg to stand on here. It has not cited any express statutory authority for its decision, because there is none. The language limiting tax credits to state-established exchanges is clear and consistent with the rest of the statute. The law's chief sponsor, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), is on record explaining creation of an exchange is among the conditions states must satisfy before credits become available. Indeed, all previous drafts of the law also withheld credits from states to push them to cooperate.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has 60 days from the date of issue to block the rule. Reps. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., and Phil Roe, R-Tenn., have introduced a resolution. It may receive a cold reception from President Obama, but "taxation without representation" is a difficult position to defend. If that approach fails, states that have refused to establish a health insurance exchange, and large employers the IRS will hit with this unauthorized tax, could challenge the rule in court.

The authors of the Affordable Care Act wrongly assumed states would be eager to implement it. If saving the law from that miscalculation requires letting the IRS tax Americans without authorization, then it is not worth saving.

Jonathan Adler is a law professor and director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University. Michael Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Title:

assistant: If ObamaCare survives the Supreme Court, legal battle has just begun