Posted on 06/23/2008 8:40:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A U.S. federal appeals court has struck down the U.S. military's classification of a Guantanamo Bay detainee as an enemy combatant.
This is the first time the U.S. court system has overruled the Bush administration's designation of a detainee since the Guantanamo facility began operations in early 2002.
The court ruled in favor of a Chinese Muslim, Huzaifa Parhat, who has spent the last six years in detention and is one of more than 100 detainees to challenge their enemy combatant status in the U.S. judicial system. The court directed the U.S. military to release Parhat, transfer him out of Guantanamo, or hold a new proceeding to once again determine his status.
The court announced its decision without providing any details, saying the ruling contains classified information. The Department of Defense did not immediately comment on the matter.
Human rights groups say the appeals court ruling is a landmark decision for Guantanamo detainees, yet one with little practical benefit for Parhat.
Stacy Sullivan is a counter-terrorism advisor for New York-based Human Rights Watch.
"He [Parhat] will probably not be released," she said. "He is a Chinese Uighur, and there are a number of Chinese Uighurs being held at Guantanamo who are already declared no longer enemy combatants. But they cannot leave Guantanamo because they have nowhere to go. They cannot be sent back to China because they have a well-founded fear of torture [in China], and the United States to its credit will not send them back there. So the Uighurs are pretty much stuck in Guantanamo."
In 2006, the United States released five Uighurs from Guantanamo and resettled them in Albania. China, which regards the Uighurs as terrorists and separatists, demanded Albania to return them to China. Albania did not comply.
U.S. authorities believe some Uighurs have links to al-Qaeda. But they admit the Uighurs held at Guantanamo never fought against the United States, nor did they take part in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Human Rights Watch's Stacy Sullivan says the plight of the Guantanamo Uighurs points to a real dilemma facing the United States if at some point it decides to close Guantanamo, an action favored by both presumptive Republican and Democratic presidential nominees.
"There are about 50 detainees there who have said they do not want to go home because they fear being tortured: Uzbeks, Libyans, Uighurs, a few other nationalities," she said. "What is to be done with them? It is simple enough to transfer those for whom we have evidence of terrorism and try them in our federal court system. But the 50 detainees who cannot go home, it is unclear what is going to happen to them, and that is going to make closing Guantanamo really difficult."
The federal appeals court ruling follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this month affirming the right of Guantanamo suspects to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
agree.
the pubies just seem to like public whippings.
what you said
Somebody sworn to kill Americans and non believers isn’t an enemy combatant?
As far as this court saying that guy is not an enemy combatant, we’re on the slippery slope.
The Supreme Court ruling was that these people at Gitmo have the rights of habeas corpus as any U.S. citizen would. The next step was this lower court saying that this one guy is not an enemy combatant. I fear that the slippery slope is that we won’t legally be able to classify anyone as an enemy combatant or POW, because it won’t be allowed by courts.
Follow the logic ( or illogic ) :
1. Courts say that these combatants, not US citizens, have the same habeas corpus rights as US citizens.
2. Courts say that various individuals are not properly classified as enemy combatants.
3. Yet to come, courts may simply throw out the enemy combatant designation, because these people are getting the same rights as American citizens anyway, so, according to that logic, there is no reason to classify them differently.
This is crazy...how in the world can a federal court rule on this?
This proves what I’ve been saying all along. “Judges” are nothing more than a bunch of braindead, pompous morons who wouldn’t know an enemy combatant if they were actually kissing one’s @$$.
you’re right.
this country seems to have lost the will to defend itself.
i’m not a lawyer but my expectations are that the bush administration
should have thought this out better.
my opinion is that gitmo should have never been located outside of iraq or afghanistan.
gitmo may be a decoy.
What if someone has been mistakenly classified as an enemy combatant. Shouldn’t they be released?
Released to where?
“What if someone has been mistakenly classified as an enemy combatant. Shouldn’t they be released?”
No, after 6 years in detention, even if he wasn’t a terrorist to begin with, he has been turned into one by constant contact with the other prisoners. Shoot them all and get it over with before the courts release them.
I don’t know...to where they came from?
But they admit the Uighurs held at Guantanamo never fought against the United States, nor did they take part in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
If they have never fought against us, and didn't have a part in terror attacks against us, how can we classify them as "enemy combatants"? What did they do to be our enemy, if they did not take any action against us?
What rules are there to keep us from capturing any individual in the world and calling them an "enemy combatant"?
“No, after 6 years in detention, even if he wasn’t a terrorist to begin with, he has been turned into one by constant contact with the other prisoners. Shoot them all and get it over with before the courts release them.”
Ha, ha, ha!!!! That’s good.
Congress passed the Military Commissions Act which is its proper constitutional role and a necessary check in our system of government. The problem is the courts intervening where they have no constitutional role or statutory authority. Past Presidential actions during war need to be judged on their own merit or lack thereof.
President Bush's initial actions in placing illegal enemy combatants at GITMO was appropriate, but this war is now being called the long war with good reason, and as such the President needs to consult with and get approval from Congress to hold people indefinitely. Holding enemy combatants until the end of hostilities has been the norm, but determining what will constitute the end of hostilities this time makes our current war unique.
“What rules are there to keep us from capturing any individual in the world and calling them an “enemy combatant”?”
Until the Courts intervened, even a US citizen could be classified an “enemy combatant” by the executive branch and locked away indefinitely with no rights to be told the charges against him, no rights to a lawyer, no rights to a hearing to present evidence of his innocence, no habeas corpus... Imagine what the Clintons would have done if they had this authority.
That’s the sentence that jumped out at me. How much of that sentence is the reporter’s interpretation and how much is the the administration’s admission?
Unbelievable.
The worst battlefields we’re on are in the US court system.
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners."
That's why we have or had the military tribunals. They released lots of supposed "non enemy combatents", some of whom actually were and were captured again, after killing Americans and/or our allies. Imagine how much higher the rate of such "mistakes" will be when it's politically appointed Judges making the decisions.
Perhaps they were just associated with those who did fight against us. They may have been in training to fight against us. Lots of terrorist wannabes were training in Afghanistan.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to amend the law and the constitution so that all those accused of being a danger could be locked away without all these difficulties imposed on us by the courts.
The solution to the problem is simple... The NY & LA Times, we well as hundreds of dem congresscritters have repeatedly stated that the people held at Club Gitmo are harmless victims of US oppression and torture, and have repeatedly demanded that they be released. I say to do exectly what these people say: That the residents of Club Gitmo should be released into the custody of these people, and they should have to take them home to care for and support them. Simple! Problem solved.
Mark
Somebody maybe gave him a parking ticket and he accidentally got incarcerated for six years?
It's a good thing the court is getting this all straightened out. We certainly can't leave all these innocent men in jail. /s/
Back to either Iraq or Affanistan. Bag ‘em and put them on a C-130. BUH-BY! I am sure Iraq can deal with them
Where in the world would they capture Chinese Uighurs? Afghanistan is the most likely place.
What would they be doing there to be captured unless they were consortigng with the Taliban?
“No, after 6 years in detention, even if he wasn’t a terrorist to begin with, he has been turned into one by constant contact with the other prisoners. Shoot them all and get it over with before the courts release them”
Disgusting sentiments. Who cares if he’s innocent. Kill him anyway? U sure you’re on the right website?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.