-
Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
LINK
Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Published: October 7, 2008
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Bush administration to release 17 detainees at Guantánamo Bay by the end of the week, the first such ruling in nearly seven years of legal disputes over the administration’s detention policies.
The judge, Ricardo M. Urbina of Federal District Court, ordered that the 17 men be brought to his courtroom on Friday from the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where they have been held since 2002. He indicated that he would release the men, members of the restive Uighur Muslim minority in western China, into the care of supporters in the United States, initially in the Washington area.
“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Urbina said.
Saying the men had never fought the United States and were not a security threat, he tersely rejected Bush administration claims that he lacked the power to order the men set free in the United States and government requests that he stay his order to permit an immediate appeal.
The ruling was a sharp setback for the administration, which has waged a long legal battle to defend its policies of detention at the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, arguing a broad executive power in waging war. Federal courts up to the Supreme Court have waded through detention questions and in several major cases the courts have rejected administration contentions.
The government recently conceded that it would no longer try to prove that the Uighurs were enemy combatants, the classification it uses to detain people at Guantánamo, where 255 men are now held. But it has fought efforts by lawyers for the men to have them released into the United States, saying the Uighurs admitted to receiving weapons training in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said the administration was “deeply concerned by, and strongly disagrees with” the decision. She added that the ruling, “if allowed to stand, could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country.”
Justice Department lawyers said they were filing an emergency application on Tuesday night for a stay from the federal appeals court in Washington.
Judge Urbina’s decision came in a habeas corpus lawsuit authorized by a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that gave detainees the right to have federal judges review the reason for their detention. Speaking from the bench in a courtroom crowded with Uighur supporters of the detainees, Judge Urbina suggested that the government was seeking a stay as a tactic to keep the men imprisoned.
“All of this means more delay,” he said with evident impatience, “and delay is the name of the game up until this point.” The centuries-old doctrine of habeas corpus permits a judge to demand production of a prisoner, a power Judge Urbina sought to exercise with his order that the men be brought to him.
“I want to see the individuals,” he said.
The Uighurs have long been at the center of contentious legal cases because they said they were swept into detention in Afghanistan in 2001 by mistake. They said they were in Afghanistan to seek refuge from China, where the Uighurs, Turkic Muslims, often bridle at Han Chinese rule.
The Bush administration has fought the Uighurs in court for years, contending that their encampment in Afghanistan had ties to a Uighur terror group. Last summer, a federal appeals court ridiculed as inadequate the government’s secret evidence for holding one of the men. In the months since, the government has said that it would “serve no useful purpose” to continue to try to prove that any of these 17 men were enemy combatants.
Lawyers for the Uighurs said the men would be persecuted or killed if they were returned to China. The administration said that since transferring five Uighur detainees to Albania in 2006, it had been unable to persuade governments to accept the other 17. Diplomats say many governments fear reprisal by China, which considers Uighur separatist groups terrorists.
The administration insisted during arguments on Tuesday that the courts did not have the power to release the men into the United States.
Judge Urbina, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, underscored the significance of his ruling with repeated references to the constitutional separation of powers and the judiciary’s role.
He rejected Justice Department arguments as assertions of executive power to detain people indefinitely without court review. He said that “is not in keeping with our system of government.”
More than 40 Uighurs, a few in native dress that included sequined velvet caps, watched in anxious silence. Only when the judge rose to leave the bench did they break into applause.
“Truth will win at the end,” said Elfidar Iltebir, one of the Uighurs, who is a computer systems manager in Virginia. Some of the men and women had come to court to describe the rooms, in the Washington suburbs, that they would offer the 17 men.
The ruling set the stage for a confrontation between the courts and the administration. John C. O’Quinn, a deputy assistant attorney general, suggested that immigration or Department of Homeland Security officials might detain the men when they were taken to the Washington area. Mr. O’Quinn argued that only the executive branch of the government, not the courts, could decide about immigration.
Mr. O’Quinn said such detainees would have no legal status in the United States. “Normally,” he added, “the law would potentially require them to be taken into some sort of protective custody.”
Judge Urbina said such arrests would not be appropriate. But he did not specify what he might do if the men were seized after being released by the Pentagon.
“I do not expect these Uighurs will be molested by any member of the United States government,” Judge Urbina said sharply. “I’m a federal judge, and I’ve issued an order.”
The Uighurs’ lawyers, Americans who have worked on the cases for years, had come to court prepared to outline a complex plan for support from community and church groups in the Washington area and in Tallahassee, Fla., where some of the men might eventually be resettled.
But Judge Urbina did not call for the testimony, saying he would hold a hearing on that matter on Oct. 16, after the men would already be free. He said he would impose conditions on their release, including appearances before him every six months. Lawyers for the Uighurs were pleased with the ruling.
P. Sabin Willett argued the case on Tuesday. In a crowd in the well of the courtroom after the judge had left the bench, Mr. Willett said there had been so many defeats over the years that he was not sure what to say at the prospect of the first federal case that might bring freedom to men in Guantánamo.
“We’ve had so many hearings where we didn’t even get half a loaf, we got a little crumb,” he said. “I’m emotionally unprepared for this.”
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
I don't really understand that. If he releases them in the US, they would officially be illegal immigrants which procedure demands they be arrested and deported. It makes no sense.
They should be released where they were captured.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fyatuk
I don't really understand that. If he releases them in the US, they would officially be illegal immigrants which procedure demands they be arrested and deported. It makes no sense.
They should be released where they were captured.
Technically speaking, they are not immigrants. They were abducted and brought to the US by the US government against their will.
I agree that they should be released where they were captured, but I doubt the US will release them in Afghanistan, considering the current state of affairs there.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fyatuk
I don't really understand that. If he releases them in the US, they would officially be illegal immigrants which procedure demands they be arrested and deported. It makes no sense.
They should be released where they were captured.
No, they would be political asylum seekers, and they would get it too.
If there were no economic meltdown, this would be the lead story, IMO.
It spells a nasty defeat for the unethical detention at Gitmo.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RandomGuy
No, they would be political asylum seekers, and they would get it too.
If there were no economic meltdown, this would be the lead story, IMO.
It spells a nasty defeat for the unethical detention at Gitmo.
It seems odd to get political asylum within a country that was persecuting you. Have they even requested it besides their request for release.
It just doesn't make any logical sense to me. The detention camp does need to be emptied, but that's just a really weird setup.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fyatuk
It seems odd to get political asylum within a country that was persecuting you. Have they even requested it besides their request for release.
Isn't this a great country!
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
If they were persecuted here, the would be totally fucked back in China. It's difficult to say anything definitive about these guys because we don't know the terms of their capture or the reason they have been held for this long.
And if we are actually holding "sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11" besides KSM, let's hear about them.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
These is the shit I'm not going to miss one bit once this administration goes away:
He rejected Justice Department arguments as assertions of executive power to detain people indefinitely without court review. He said that “is not in keeping with our system of government.”
The ruling set the stage for a confrontation between the courts and the administration. John C. O’Quinn, a deputy assistant attorney general, suggested that immigration or Department of Homeland Security officials might detain the men when they were taken to the Washington area. Mr. O’Quinn argued that only the executive branch of the government, not the courts, could decide about immigration.
This Cheney-built executive power mongering cannot come to an end soon enough.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
OK, I have a question.
When they do an act of terrorism inside our borderers, will it be president Bush's fault because:
a) He illegally held them, causing anomosity?
b) Because he didn't protect us from them?
c) some other reason.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
OK, I have a question.
When they do an act of terrorism inside our borderers, will it be president Bush's fault because:
a) He illegally held them, causing anomosity?
b) Because he didn't protect us from them?
c) some other reason.
You should fire an email with the questions to the Judge that found no evidence to keep these guys locked, or the government attorneys that decided to give up trying to declare these guys enemy combatants after their evidence was laughed out of the appellate court.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
OK, I have a question.
When they do an act of terrorism inside our borderers, will it be president Bush's fault because:
a) He illegally held them, causing anomosity?
b) Because he didn't protect us from them?
c) some other reason.
:lmao
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
You should fire an email with the questions to the Judge that found no evidence to keep these guys locked, or the government attorneys that decided to give up trying to declare these guys enemy combatants after their evidence was laughed out of the appellate court.
My question was more meant as satire. I see a high possibility that we will see a terrorist act from many of them, especially if they are allowed to stay here. I hope I'm wrong.
Am I wrong that president Bush will get the blame for such an event?
I understand the witholding of secret information. To make such information public, even if it is no longer relavant, still leads to the enemy better understanding our intelligence gathering assets. There are times when one must trust the Commander in Chief. This is one of them, like him or not.
But then, I know most here disagree with that opinion. If another attack happens by them, I will blame those of you who disagree with him. The blood will now be on your hands. Not the man who tried to stop it.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
My question was more meant as satire. I see a high possibility that we will see a terrorist act from many of them, especially if they are allowed to stay here. I hope I'm wrong.
Am I wrong that president Bush will get the blame for such an event?
I understand the witholding of secret information. To make such information public, even if it is no longer relavant, still leads to the enemy better understanding our intelligence gathering assets. There are times when one must trust the Commander in Chief. This is one of them, like him or not.
But then, I know most here disagree with that opinion. If another attack happens by them, I will blame those of you who disagree with him. The blood will now be on your hands. Not the man who tried to stop it.
:lmao
They're not terrorists dumbass. Why don't you research something for once before blessing us all with your retarded opinion.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
My question was more meant as satire. I see a high possibility that we will see a terrorist act from many of them, especially if they are allowed to stay here. I hope I'm wrong.
I know it was. My response was more aimed towards the fact that the justice system does work in the country, even if sometimes it takes a long, long time for it to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Am I wrong that president Bush will get the blame for such an event?
I personally don't think he will. He's actually the one that's going to come out and say 'I told you so', and be a great talking point in the next campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
I understand the witholding of secret information. To make such information public, even if it is no longer relavant, still leads to the enemy better understanding our intelligence gathering assets. There are times when one must trust the Commander in Chief. This is one of them, like him or not.
What do you mean? The secret information was reviewed by a federal appellate court. Here's the part about that in the article:
Last summer, a federal appeals court ridiculed as inadequate the government’s secret evidence for holding one of the men. In the months since, the government has said that it would “serve no useful purpose” to continue to try to prove that any of these 17 men were enemy combatants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
But then, I know most here disagree with that opinion. If another attack happens by them, I will blame those of you who disagree with him. The blood will now be on your hands. Not the man who tried to stop it.
Not really. I mean, *I* personally didn't free anybody. I advocated for them to receive a fair review of their case, and they did. As I said earlier, I would prefer them to be released where they were found. That would be Afghanistan, but I think if there's anybody that has an issue with releasing them there is the government.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
What do you mean? The secret information was reviewed by a federal appellate court. Here's the part about that in the article:
Last summer, a federal appeals court ridiculed as inadequate the government’s secret evidence for holding one of the men. In the months since, the government has said that it would “serve no useful purpose” to continue to try to prove that any of these 17 men were enemy combatants.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was more classified information that was not given, because of it's sensitivity. I may be confusing it with another case, I don't keep up with this stuff. If all the classified information was reviewed, and the courts dismissed it, then maybe the president is wrong on this one. I doubt that to be the case. As much as I disagree with president Bush on many issues, I do trust the man's integrity. I think they chose the lesser of two evils, keeping some of the classified information just that. Too many leaks have surrounded classified information in recent years. They may have kept this strictly as need to know, prefering the release of a terrorist over a leak that may cause even more damage.
Ever deal with classified information, need to know, etc? I did for over ten years. It's not something to play with lightly.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was more classified information that was not given, because of it's sensitivity. I may be confusing it with another case, I don't keep up with this stuff. If all the classified information was reviewed, and the courts dismissed it, then maybe the president is wrong on this one. I doubt that to be the case. As much as I disagree with president Bush on many issues, I do trust the man's integrity. I think they chose the lesser of two evils, keeping some of the classified information just that. Too many leaks have surrounded classified information in recent years. They may have kept this strictly as need to know, prefering the release of a terrorist over a leak that may cause even more damage.
Ever deal with classified information, need to know, etc? I did for over ten years. It's not something to play with lightly.
I think in this particular case they got it wrong. It happens. That's exactly why there should be a fair review system in place, so stuff like this doesn't happen. That's the only beef I had with this whole thing. I'm sure they got real assholes in Guantanamo, and those can die rotting there.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
My question was more meant as satire. I see a high possibility that we will see a terrorist act from many of them, especially if they are allowed to stay here. I hope I'm wrong.
Am I wrong that president Bush will get the blame for such an event?
I understand the witholding of secret information. To make such information public, even if it is no longer relavant, still leads to the enemy better understanding our intelligence gathering assets. There are times when one must trust the Commander in Chief. This is one of them, like him or not.
But then, I know most here disagree with that opinion. If another attack happens by them, I will blame those of you who disagree with him. The blood will now be on your hands. Not the man who tried to stop it.
(shakes head)
Seriously. You really should read up a bit before shooting your mouth off. I know intellectual rigor and critical thinking is alien to you, so this doesn't surprise me.
The administration itself has ruled that they are pro-western, and had absolutely no evidence, not even credible hearsay, to indicate that they were terrorists of any sort.
Let me know what the view from inside your colon looks like.
Quote:
The detainees are all members of the Uighur (pronounced WEE-gur) minority in western China and were arrested after the US invasion of Afghanistan. They were cleared by the US military for release in 2004, but weren't sent back to China due to fears of persecution, and no other country has agreed to accept them--(christian science monitor)
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
These guys aren't anywhere near "terrorists" and show the dangers of pretending combat infantry are police.
This case wasn't about whether they were terrorists, it was about the constitutionality and executive power that kept them there. Clearly, having been deemed by the military itself to be no threat, there is no case for that.
Gitmo is, every day it remains a detention center, a PR disaster of the highest magnitude.
That some ethically challenged can pretend it isn't, and hide their heads in the sand about where this fits into the larger picture simply says to me that many conservatives are really really really ignorant about the rest of the world.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Damned activist judges, spouting off radical notions like demanding evidence to keep people imprisoned!!
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FromWayDowntown
Damned activist judges, spouting off radical notions like demanding evidence to keep people imprisoned!!
It's the king-- er, president's perogative to detain without trial those deemed a threat to the nation.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Elnono, is the jerk Random Propaganda Man saying anything relavant, or just using this opportunity to Bash me with no just cause again. The A-Hole sometimes has good stuff to say, but has a vile hatred towards me. Think I should take the jerk of IGNORE?
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../ignored-1.jpg
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Think I should take the jerk of IGNORE?
Not if you want to see yourself getting owned by him.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpDumper
Not if you want to see yourself getting owned by him.
:lol I'm not sure what's funnier. This post or the OWNING it refers to.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Elnono, is the jerk Random Propaganda Man saying anything relavant, or just using this opportunity to Bash me with no just cause again. The A-Hole sometimes has good stuff to say, but has a vile hatred towards me. Think I should take the jerk of IGNORE?
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../ignored-1.jpg
He's ranting about what everyone else is. Bush and his executive powers.
If you want to take him off ignore or not is your call, not mine. I personally don't put anybody on ignore. I can have a very long, heated argument with whoever, but it doesn't really gets me worked up. That said, I also don't think you're missing much more than what was pointed out in my replies (except that he pointed out to an article that clearly states that these pseudo-terrorist dudes were cleared for release by the Military in 2004. Interesting point indeed).
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElNono
He's ranting about what everyone else is. Bush and his executive powers.
If you want to take him off ignore or not is your call, not mine. I personally don't put anybody on ignore. I can have a very long, heated argument with whoever, but it doesn't really gets me worked up. That said, I also don't think you're missing much more than what was pointed out in my replies (except that he pointed out to an article that clearly states that these pseudo-terrorist dudes were cleared for release by the Military in 2004. Interesting point indeed).
He's right. I really don't like him at all.
I don't blame him for putting me on ignore, because I did haunt him for a while. To be honest, I feel a bit bad about hounding him, and have tried to back off.
This bit when I am, once again, 100% sure he has his facts wrong, was too good to pass up though.
-
Re: Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
He's ranting about what everyone else is. Bush and his executive powers.
If you want to take him off ignore or not is your call, not mine. I personally don't put anybody on ignore.
Bush Bashing. Nothing new. I place people on Ignore when I find myself wanting to knock them silly. I get tired of explaining something, then they act as if I never explained it. He really pisses me off because it's like beating me head on a wall. No matter what I say, he just fails to understand my points, or purposely wants to enrage me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I can have a very long, heated argument with whoever, but it doesn't really gets me worked up. That said, I also don't think you're missing much more than what was pointed out in my replies (except that he pointed out to an article that clearly states that these pseudo-terrorist dudes were cleared for release by the Military in 2004. Interesting point indeed).
Yes, if that is true. He does make allot of good points. I'm just tired of dealing with jerks like him, Chump, Clam, etc. Most boards would ban such asses that I have visited. I get rather snarky at times myself, I find myself 'going with the flow.' I prefer not to.
Right now, I want to try to remain civil. I will keep him and a few other asses on IGNORE for now.
I do hope the realease is not a bad decision.
