Yeah. June 21, 2009 would be the perfect day for them.
Posted on 05/30/2009 5:43:48 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
Of course, it's one thing to say that they are not enemy combatants and should therefore be released. It is quite another thing, though, to say that they should be released into the United States (which, because of their terrorist affiliations, would violate federal immigration law). But as Cliff noted earlier today, alluding to the stellar work of Tom Joscelyn at the Standard, federal judge Richard Urbina did try to order their release into the U.S. (Here at NRO, the editors weighed in on Judge Urbina's absurd decision, here.) Fortunately, in a well reasoned decision authored by Judge Raymond Randolph (which I discussed here), the DC Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Judge Urbina, holding that just because courts have the power to review whether a prisoner is properly designated an enemy combatant does not mean they have the power to order the release into the United States of those found not to be enemy combatants.
The Uighurs appealed, and today the Justice Department filed its responsive brief. Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued — consistent with the Bush administration position — that the Uighurs have no right to be released into the U.S. As Lyle Denniston recaps at SCOTUSblog:
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
Recognizing a constitutional right to enter the United States also could have the undesirable consequence of blurring the previously clear distinction between aliens outside the United States and aliens inside this country or at its borders. This basic distinction serves as the framework on which our immigration laws are structured, and repeatedly has been recognized as significant not just under the Constitution, but also as a matter of statutory and treaty law. (holding that treaty limitations on “return” of alien to country where he faces mistreatment do not apply to aliens outside the United States at Guantanamo Bay); Brownell v. Tom We Shung (holding that aliens physically present in the United States can challenge exclusion orders under the Administrative Procedure Act but explicitly not including aliens outside the United States in its holding). As the court of appeals recognized, the federal immigration laws are comprehensive and reticulated, providing clear guidelines for aliens who apply for one of the various forms of admission to the United States. There is no warrant for affording aliens outside the United States a right of entry into this country outside of that statutory scheme.
In other words, if detainees such as the Uighurs are brought here either solely for the purpose of adjudicating their immigration, the law prohibiting their admissibility (Real ID Act) might be overcome by their presence inside the U.S. Bringing any of the detainees into the U.S. unnecessarily places Americans at risk. Think of those we would prosecute by Military Commission or in an Article III court that might receive sentences less than life and also detained for a prolonged period of time because they are as Obama and Holder have both said, "Too dangerous to release." Pressure will build to release them. Someday federal judges will weigh the evidence against them and see the clear danger yet not enough "beyond a reasonable doubt," order them released, the Supreme Court will uphold the order, and dozens of those committed to killing us will be released free onto our streets.
Keep Gitmo open and the detainees already there right there.
I can support putting bows on them and delivering ... err, “repatriating” .... them to China as a goodwill gesture. Problem solved.
i guess the main problem is even if they had been innocent when they have been caputured i guess after years of imprisioning in Gitmo they will not have very positive feelings about the US in generall.
Perhaps air dropped from a C130 minus functioning parachute...
"[I]f we start bringing people here because there is no other place to put them, we are going to continue litigation. Federal judges, all are very consciensious, take their oath seriously in the question of the habeas cases. The the statistic is daunting; 25 out of 30 the government failed to carry the day, but not because they're innocent, because there is no evidence sufficient to satisfy the exacting standards of the habeas process. "The thing that sticks in my craw is the critics who for years argued that habeas "is no big deal," that is was somehow silly foolishness or stubbornness on the part of the Bush administration that caused them not to do it are now suddenly flipping saying, "Well, but that means they're innocent." No. When you capture people overseas, and forgot the canard about interrogations, the vast majority of people cannot be successfully handled [by] the habeas process, not because there is tainted evidence, because there is no evidence. ... When you capture someone on the battlefield even [the] worst defense lawyer can get this person off because you don't have baggies with forensic evidence, you don't have chain-of-custody, you don't have someone scribbling down this is the AK-47 [they] got captured with. We cannot hold these people even under the current rules. "Once the bad guys understand that you can come to this country and stay here, we'd have people surrendering to the United States. That's how war works; you try to have off-setting strategies, you have strategies that use the vulnerability of the other side, which is our legal architecture. You'd have people surrendering to American patrols, being put in detention for a few months ... who would be brought here because we cannot hold them overseas, who'd be let go, and because they come from bad countries like Syria and Yemen, we cannot send them back because some of my good lawyers friends would be arguing that it would violate obligations we have against torture. So, we would be aggregating dozens and hundreds of people in this country whose job it is to kill us. That is nuts. That is absolutely nuts."
Innocent people would not have been captured training in an al Qaeda camp on techniques to kill civilians and blow up civilizations.
You know they practice slitting the throats of live animals to perfect their technique in case they capture you and your family someday
They did not get to Pakistan by taking the wrong flight
I agree with you 100%, Sarg - the MSM glosses over the fact these people were picked up after surrendering during a battle; they were not a group of innocent villagers picked up in a sweep.
well i didn´t say that they are innocent ;-) i said even if this would still be a problem.
Arn´t this those guys Obama wanted to release in Europe?
Obama is shopping 9 to Germany and 6 to Australia. But, where is their humanity, their cries for justice for the poor innocent detainees? Both countries are saying if the U.S. will not take them, why should they. Smart buggers they are.
yeah i´m aware that Europe allready said no thanks to obama because of that. but sounds very logical for me. too dangerous for the US but perfekt harmless for living in Europe? no wonder Obama will have a hard time to find a country stupid enought to take them.
How about turn them loose on the coast of Somalia? they don´t have a government and this region is considered as total lawless part of the world. legal Problem solved.
Antarctica has expressed no objections to taking them. I say we ship them all to be let off ashore on June 21, 2009.
Now, the ACLU people who originally proceeded against the Bush Administration, and [old Stalinist front] National Lawyers' Guild/Kunstler Foundation lawyers who have litigated against the Government, had to know this was true, and that closing Guantanamo would result in the captives being brought perforce to the States.
They had to know this would be the result.
That's why they did it.
So what is their vulnerability to charges and lawsuits, for trying to do harm to the People of the United States by bringing a series of harmful legal actions? People get labeled vexatious litigators all the time, and they are penalized and thrown out of court, even fined and jailed. Where are these leftist lawyers' manacles? They deserve them.
Elephant Island.
Constant gales and frequent storms driving monstrous seas. Climate like the Norwegian Sea. Wave-cut cliffs 800' high on all sides, sheer drops to the freezing ocean. Acres and acres of bare rock, covered with patches of lichen and moss besmeared with bird-lime and guano.
Send them there.
Yeah. June 21, 2009 would be the perfect day for them.
I believe this would violate the 8th Amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment of the crew of the LC that drops them off there.
Let’s just rename the place Guantanamera and leave them there. If anyone in the rest of the world complains, we just play the song.
I am an honest man
From where the palm tree grows
And before dying I want
To share the verses of my soul.
With the poor people of the earth
I want to share my fate
The brook of the mountains
Gives me more pleasure than the sea
Well, if they had our Constitutional rights, I’d agree with you but they don’t so I don’t.
Cruel? No. Appropriate.
Unusual? Not if it is the standard destination for all future terrorists we are unlucky enough to catch instead of kill in place.
And yes, I got who it would be cruel and usually towards yet my money says you’d get plenty of volunteers for that detail.
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.