Activist Judges Support Terrorists!

At least, that headline is the meme I expect most conservative blogs and their Leaders (Rush the Persecuted, O’Reilly the Terrible, and St. Glenn of the Weeping Beck) to employ when they spin this story about the US Supreme Court finally granting the Uighurs (an ethnic group of Muslims in China) a review of their case seeking to challenge their detention by the US Military despite being determined to be no threat to the United States.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will hear a new case about the rights of Guantanamo detainees, this time involving prisoners who remain in custody even after the Pentagon determines they’re not a threat to the United States.

The high court said it will take a challenge from Chinese Muslims at the U.S. naval base in Cuba who are asking the court to put some teeth into a June 2008 ruling that said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, depending on security concerns and other circumstances.

The 13 Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs, who remain at Guantanamo have been cleared by the Pentagon for release since 2004, yet have been held roughly eight years.

A federal appeals court overturned a judge’s order to give the Uighurs their freedom, saying judges lacked authority to order detainees released into the United States.

The Obama administration oddly enough is fighting any review by the Supreme Court, apparently on the grounds that it will mess up their strategy to negotiate a possible destination to send the Uighurs. But I say, bully for the Court. Some fundamental principles are more important than inconveniencing any administration. One of those is the right of people being held unlawfully by the government to challenge that detention. We are big about our “freedoms” here in America. It’s what every right winger I know claims we are doing by sending soldiers to kill and be killed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Defending our freedoms.

Well, this is about as fundamental a right, as great a “freedom” as there could possibly be: the right to be free, period. Free from imprisonment. Free to challenge that imprisonment when the governmental authorities holding you in a concentration camp refuse to allow you to petition a court for your release, even though they have determined you committed no crime for which imprisonment is justified, and represent no threat to the society that has held you in cruel bondage. Detention that involved torture and abuse on a regular basis. If we, as a country refuse the Uighurs their day in Court, we have lost that freedom guaranteed under our Constitution. It’s just a worthless promise on a piece of paper to paraphrase former President Bush.

I thank the Justices of the Supreme Court for taking the case, and I hope and pray they do the right thing and rule for the immediate release of the remaining Uighur detainees so that what so many innocent people like them endured at Guantanamo Bay over the last eight years can never happen again in this country.

5 Comments

ask on October 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Imagine that – the Rule of Law may still apply….

It was only last week that another embarrassment to the powers that be was emphasized by a court (though, in the UK):

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, acted in a way that was harmful to the rule of law by suppressing evidence about what the government knew of the illegal treatment of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who was held in a secret prison in Pakistan, the high court has ruled.

In a devastating judgment, two senior judges roundly dismissed the foreign secretary’s claims that disclosing the evidence would harm national security and threaten the UK’s vital intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US.

In what they described as an “unprecedented” and “exceptional” case, to which the Guardian is a party, they ordered the release of a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA told British officials – and maybe ministers – about Ethiopian-born Mohamed before he was secretly interrogated by an MI5 officer in 2002.

ask on October 20, 2009 at 4:10 pm

More on Mohamed’s case (all links from the Guardian):

Liberty in the decade of extraordinary rendition

With spectacular irony, fundamental rights and freedoms around the world were violated over the decade almost as rapidly as new mechanisms to protect them were being assembled. In the UK, less than a year after New Labour’s Human Rights Act promised to protect civil liberties in 2000, new counterterrorism laws began eroding them. Indefinite detention without trial, control orders, asset-freezing and secret court hearings became part of a new legal order – a 2004 House of Lords judgment declared, “The real threat to the life of the nation… comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”

Q&A: Clive Stafford Smith

‘The big danger we face is secrecy – the conflation of national security with national embarrassment, allowing the government to hide from the public’

Clive Stafford Smith is director of the charity Reprieve, which he founded in 1999 and which uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners. Since 2004, Stafford Smith has focused on those being held by the US in Guantánamo Bay, including Binyam Mohamed, who was released in February 2009

Profile: Binyam Mohamed

Last Guantánamo Bay detainee with automatic right to return to UK faced death penalty until charges were dropped

RandyH on October 20, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Steven-

At least there’s a little justice in the world. Bernie Kerik got his bail revoked and is going to jail.

Before revoking the bail of Mr. Kerik, Judge Robinson described him as a “toxic combination of self-minded focus and arrogance, and I fear that combination leads him to believe his ends justify his means.”

“He sees the court’s rulings as an inconvenience,” Judge Robinson said, “something to be ignored, and an obstacle to be circumvented.”

I think he was about to leak confidential material about his case in order to poison the jury pool.

cat on October 20, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Ordinarily I would agree, but you do realize that Congress has barred any Guantanamo prisoners into the US, right?? Even for trial.
The last time I heard Obama he negotiating with the damn Congress to “just let them come for a trial”
Obama has shipped quite a few prisoners to different countries for release because of this.
They won’t be free in the US right now and they can’t go back to China because of possible retribution. Obama wants to send them to Palau which appears to be a nice place to be free. He needs quite a bit of money authorized for this. Just guess who has to do that? He has worked off and on for weeks on this so I think that may be why the object. At least he got the first few Uighers that Bermuda took relocated before the Dems in Congress freaked on him. Just once could they try earning their pay?? Just stand up to the other party that has a 20% approval for once.

Oui on October 21, 2009 at 7:55 am
.
Congress agrees on moving Guantanamo detainees

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Congress took a step toward President Barack Obama’s goal of closing Guantanamo Bay prison on Tuesday when it cleared a measure allowing foreign terrorism suspects held there to face prosecution in the United States.

The Senate’s 79 to 19 vote removed one of the many roadblocks the government faces as it tries to empty the internationally condemned prison by January.

The measure, included in a $42.8 billion bill to fund the Homeland Security Department, passed the House of Representatives last week and now heads to the White House for Obama to sign into law.

The compromise passed by both chambers of Congress would allow the government to bring Guantanamo inmates to U.S. soil only if they are going to face trial in American courts. The administration would have to present a risk assessment and give 45 days’ notice.

H.R. 2892 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

Sec. 552 (d) The President shall submit to Congress, in classified form, a plan regarding the proposed disposition of any individual covered by subsection (c) who is detained as of June 24, 2009. Such plan shall include, at a minimum, each of the following for each such individual:

(1) A determination of the risk that the individual might instigate an act of terrorism within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States territories if the individual were so transferred.
(2) A determination of the risk that the individual might advocate, coerce, or incite violent extremism, ideologically motivated criminal activity, or acts of terrorism, among inmate populations at incarceration facilities within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States territories if the individual were transferred to such a facility.
(3) The costs associated with transferring the individual in question.
(4) The legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer.
(5) A plan for mitigation of any risks described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (7).
(6) A copy of a notification to the Governor of the State to which the individual will be transferred, to the Mayor of the District of Columbia if the individual will be transferred to the District of Columbia, or to any United States territories with a certification by the Attorney General of the United States in classified form at least 14 days prior to such transfer (together with supporting documentation and justification) that the individual poses little or no security risk to the United States.
(7) An assessment of any risk to the national security of the United States or its citizens, including members of the Armed Services of the United States, that is posed by such transfer and the actions taken to mitigate such risk.

[Release of detainee abuse photo’s also blocked in this legislation – Oui]
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

ask on October 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Imagine that – the Rule of Law may still apply….

It was only last week that another embarrassment to the powers that be was emphasized by a court (though, in the UK):

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, acted in a way that was harmful to the rule of law by suppressing evidence about what the government knew of the illegal treatment of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who was held in a secret prison in Pakistan, the high court has ruled.

In a devastating judgment, two senior judges roundly dismissed the foreign secretary’s claims that disclosing the evidence would harm national security and threaten the UK’s vital intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US.

In what they described as an “unprecedented” and “exceptional” case, to which the Guardian is a party, they ordered the release of a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA told British officials – and maybe ministers – about Ethiopian-born Mohamed before he was secretly interrogated by an MI5 officer in 2002.
- ask on October 20, 2009 at 4:10 pm
  
  More on Mohamed’s case (all links from the Guardian):
  
  Liberty in the decade of extraordinary rendition
  
  With spectacular irony, fundamental rights and freedoms around the world were violated over the decade almost as rapidly as new mechanisms to protect them were being assembled. In the UK, less than a year after New Labour’s Human Rights Act promised to protect civil liberties in 2000, new counterterrorism laws began eroding them. Indefinite detention without trial, control orders, asset-freezing and secret court hearings became part of a new legal order – a 2004 House of Lords judgment declared, “The real threat to the life of the nation… comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”
  
  Q&A: Clive Stafford Smith
  
  ‘The big danger we face is secrecy – the conflation of national security with national embarrassment, allowing the government to hide from the public’
  
  Clive Stafford Smith is director of the charity Reprieve, which he founded in 1999 and which uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners. Since 2004, Stafford Smith has focused on those being held by the US in Guantánamo Bay, including Binyam Mohamed, who was released in February 2009
  
  Profile: Binyam Mohamed
  
  Last Guantánamo Bay detainee with automatic right to return to UK faced death penalty until charges were dropped
RandyH on October 20, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Steven-

At least there’s a little justice in the world. Bernie Kerik got his bail revoked and is going to jail.

Before revoking the bail of Mr. Kerik, Judge Robinson described him as a “toxic combination of self-minded focus and arrogance, and I fear that combination leads him to believe his ends justify his means.”

“He sees the court’s rulings as an inconvenience,” Judge Robinson said, “something to be ignored, and an obstacle to be circumvented.”

I think he was about to leak confidential material about his case in order to poison the jury pool.
cat on October 20, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Ordinarily I would agree, but you do realize that Congress has barred any Guantanamo prisoners into the US, right?? Even for trial.
The last time I heard Obama he negotiating with the damn Congress to “just let them come for a trial”
Obama has shipped quite a few prisoners to different countries for release because of this.
They won’t be free in the US right now and they can’t go back to China because of possible retribution. Obama wants to send them to Palau which appears to be a nice place to be free. He needs quite a bit of money authorized for this. Just guess who has to do that? He has worked off and on for weeks on this so I think that may be why the object. At least he got the first few Uighers that Bermuda took relocated before the Dems in Congress freaked on him. Just once could they try earning their pay?? Just stand up to the other party that has a 20% approval for once.
- Oui on October 21, 2009 at 7:55 am
  .
  
  Congress agrees on moving Guantanamo detainees
  
  WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Congress took a step toward President Barack Obama’s goal of closing Guantanamo Bay prison on Tuesday when it cleared a measure allowing foreign terrorism suspects held there to face prosecution in the United States.
  
  The Senate’s 79 to 19 vote removed one of the many roadblocks the government faces as it tries to empty the internationally condemned prison by January.
  
  The measure, included in a $42.8 billion bill to fund the Homeland Security Department, passed the House of Representatives last week and now heads to the White House for Obama to sign into law.
  
  The compromise passed by both chambers of Congress would allow the government to bring Guantanamo inmates to U.S. soil only if they are going to face trial in American courts. The administration would have to present a risk assessment and give 45 days’ notice.
  
  H.R. 2892 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010
  
  Sec. 552 (d) The President shall submit to Congress, in classified form, a plan regarding the proposed disposition of any individual covered by subsection (c) who is detained as of June 24, 2009. Such plan shall include, at a minimum, each of the following for each such individual:
  
  (1) A determination of the risk that the individual might instigate an act of terrorism within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States territories if the individual were so transferred.
  (2) A determination of the risk that the individual might advocate, coerce, or incite violent extremism, ideologically motivated criminal activity, or acts of terrorism, among inmate populations at incarceration facilities within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States territories if the individual were transferred to such a facility.
  (3) The costs associated with transferring the individual in question.
  (4) The legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer.
  (5) A plan for mitigation of any risks described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (7).
  (6) A copy of a notification to the Governor of the State to which the individual will be transferred, to the Mayor of the District of Columbia if the individual will be transferred to the District of Columbia, or to any United States territories with a certification by the Attorney General of the United States in classified form at least 14 days prior to such transfer (together with supporting documentation and justification) that the individual poses little or no security risk to the United States.
  (7) An assessment of any risk to the national security of the United States or its citizens, including members of the Armed Services of the United States, that is posed by such transfer and the actions taken to mitigate such risk.
  
  [Release of detainee abuse photo’s also blocked in this legislation – Oui]
  
  "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Activist Judges Support Terrorists!

About The Author

Steven D

5 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments