Posted on 01/08/2010 12:39:05 PM PST by nhwingut
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has tossed out most of the government’s evidence against a terrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Here it comes. Suicide by stupid judges and politicians.
This case is the result of a habeas petition (i.e. challenging his detention in court) filed by Al Madhwani.
He's been in Gitmo since 2002 & filed his habeas petition in 2004. Both Bush & Obama argued he can be kept there because of the AUMF.
The judge, a Reagan appointee, said some of the evidence against him must be tossed BUT THAT he was a member of Al Qaida (at least a very low-level member). And, while the judge doesn't think he's much of a danger, the Govt still has enough on him to continue to hold him. As a result, the judge DENIED his habeas petition.
However, to hear others here, this was a criminal case, initiated by Obama, and Al Madhwani will soon be set free by a liberal judge. Or the Obama administration - who's been arguing all along they have the power to keep him detained.
Which is all par for the course for those who continually jump to conclusions without knowing what they're talking about.
You’re missing the point —
They shouldn’t be in an American Courtroom - they should be in GITMO for life.
By putting them in an American Courtroom they are treated like an American citizen and the Judge has to follow laws, rules and procedures.
They belong in front of a war tribunal.
Precisely the outcome Holder anticipated!
That ship sailed several years ago when the Supreme Court said Gitmo detainees can file habeas petitions in federal court.
You might not like it, but that battle's over.
This is a HABEAS CASE filed when Bush was President, after the U.S. Supreme Court said it was OK for Gitmo detainees to do so. Please get your facts straight.
Exactly. The judge was doing his job. His decision was driven by American criminal law. Confessions which have been improperly gained -- by American criminal law standards -- should be thrown out.
By the same token, an international terrorist captured on the field of combat overseas has no business being tried in an American criminal court.
Eventually, in the NY "show trials", a Federal judge is going to be confronted with a fundamental conflict between applying the law (and dismissing charges) or prostituting the law and supporting the political regime (by allowing a conviction).
I’m suprised some federal judge somewhere has not issued a US surrender decree.
Exactly! How can we turn this against the Democrats. They are responsible for the terrorist being released from Gito.
They are TERRORIST not US Citizens. They will go back, rearm and try to kill us.
I don’t think the battle is over.
It’s only beginning.
Wait till the Gitmo detainees are relocated to your town. Think everyone is going to jump or joy ?
Also the case law severely restricts what any president can do.
The German saboteurs who were executed during WWII were found to have been lawful detained under UCMJ, executive order, and Articles of War in ex parte Quirin(1942). Since then the US has ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions which was held to apply to WOT detainees under Hamdan v. Runsfeld.
“I really cannot fault the judge for this. It is illegal to coerce a confession from a criminal suspect in the US criminal justice system. If a cop had done the same thing to any criminal suspect this too would have been rejected by the courts.”
True.
Append this to the LOOOOONG list of reasons why it’s a Very Bad Idea to treat war as crime.
Uh oh, here we go....
I don't understand how the SCOTUS ruling to allow habeas corpus automatically allows the federal courts to throw out evidence or gives detainees a right to have actual trials in non-military US courts.
Anthony Kennedy (not only for the Gitmo ruling, but also for the vote that transformed CO2 into a pollutant) is bad enough, but if he retires when a Dem is POTUS, that could mean the end of real justice.
At this rate, they don’t need to!
Why? Unless something is being seriously misrepresented here, the judge is obviously correct. Coerced testimony has to be thrown out in any civilian criminal court. The judge is just following the law. What would you have him do?
Why not reserve your contempt for the persons actually responsible: Eric Holder and Obama? They are the ones who removed these perps from a perfectly legal wartime detainment regime, and military tribunals to determine and mete out punishment for their war crimes, and put them instead into a civilian criminal court where the judges have to do as this judge has done.
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.