You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Appeals Court Halts Release of 17 Guantanamo Detainees
2008-10-22
A federal appeals court Monday blocked the release of 17 Chinese Muslims into the United States from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until it can hear further legal arguments in the case.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed a federal judge's order releasing the men, and it ordered oral arguments in the government's appeal, to be heard Nov. 24.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ordered the government Oct. 7 to release the men, all Uighurs, who have been held at Guantanamo Bay for nearly seven years. The same panel temporarily stayed Urbina's order a day later.

The government has been trying to find new homes for the Uighurs for years. It no longer considers them enemy combatants and provided no evidence in court that they posed a security risk. The men cannot be returned to their homeland because they face the prospect of being tortured and killed. China considers the men terrorists.

Judges A. Raymond Randolph and Karen L. Henderson sided with the government and issued the order without comment; Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented, writing that the Bush administration's legal theories were flawed. The government has argued it can detain the Uighurs without cause until it locates a new home for them.

Justice Department lawyers have argued that only the president or Congress has the legal authority to order the Uighurs' release into the United States. They have also said that immigration laws would preclude them from entering the country because they received weapons training at a camp operated by a designated terror organization.

Rogers rejected those arguments, writing that courts have the power to order the release under habeas corpus, a centuries-old legal doctrine that allows prisoners or detainees to challenge their confinement in federal court. The judge also rejected the argument that immigration laws would bar the Uighurs' entry, writing that such an interpretation would "rob" the men's rights of meaning.

Even if the men had received weapons training, she wrote, that "cannot alone show they are dangerous, unless millions of United States resident citizens who have received fire arms training are deemed to be dangerous as well."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, "We're pleased the court has granted our motion for a stay pending the appeal, and we look forward to presenting our arguments before the Court of Appeals."

P. Sabin Willett, who represents the Uighurs, said he was disappointed by the order, and he accused the government of running out the clock until Bush leaves office in January.

Urbina ordered the men released to live with Uighur families in the Washington area. "Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause, the government's continued detention of the [detainees] is unlawful," Urbina said from the bench.
Posted by:Fred

#10  The Uighurs need to work for reform within their own framework.

Some are. For instance Rebiya Kadeer. Others seem to prefer the standard Muslim approach of blowing up busses an such.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-10-22 19:52  

#9  LOL steve
Posted by: chris   2008-10-22 15:03  

#8   You can't just walk up to a Frenchman and slap him, for example, no matter how much you want to.

Oh, dear! I wish someone would have mentioned this sooner.
Posted by: SteveS   2008-10-22 13:30  

#7  Chuck I understand what you are saying but where they captured on US soil? Also it's not like they are of the same sort of criminal element that would be going up too someone and slapping them. Would you have given Muhammad Atta constitutional rights if he was caught before 9/11? That is if was captured before entering the US . Anyway I don't know too much about the Chinese ppl at Guantanomo but the besides basic human rights I don't think anyone there deserves too be treated under the Constitution.
Posted by: chris   2008-10-22 12:36  

#6  Chris - Everyone has some rights in the United States. You can't just walk up to a Frenchman and slap him, for example, no matter how much you want to. It's up to the courts or Congress to determine which rights do not apply to non-citizens.

Borgia - the Chinese government is a dictatorship, enslaving millions of its own people. Basic human rights are routinely denied. It only has veto power because the UN caved to them and ejected the freely elected Chinese government on Taiwan.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2008-10-22 11:22  

#5  Just another example to add to the pile proving that the "law enforcement" approach to terrorism won't/can't work. Those that think it can have been buried in evidence to the contrary, but still fight against the idea that military tribunals are NECESSARY when dealing with non-uniformed, not-nationalist combattants.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-10-22 11:06  

#4  Who determined they can't be returned to China? The Chinese government should have jurisdiction over its own citizens, rather than protected by the US Constitution or some vague concept of universal "human rights". The Uighurs need to work for reform within their own framework. What if the liberals and the UN deem the US a "terrorist sponsoring state" for fighting an "illegal war", trying to nullify our laws? Respecting the Chinese national identity would seem to do more to boost our esteem in their eyes, making diplomatic pressure on rogue states at the Security Council easier if relations aren't strained with a nation with veto power.
Posted by: Thealing Borgia 122   2008-10-22 10:54  

#3  I don't see why the Constitution covers anyone that isn't a US citizen.
Posted by: chris   2008-10-22 10:49  

#2  Albania had agreed to take them but pressure was applied from Euros and China. If they go back to China, they get a bullet in the head and a bill for the bullet sent to their families.

This is why I cringed when Bush announced his terrorism agenda after 9/11. Any government with a problem can declare protesters as terrs. These guys threaten China, not us.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2008-10-22 10:26  

#1  Constitution does not cover THAT.
Posted by: newc   2008-10-22 01:26  

00:00