DC court: Let’s release terrorists into the US
posted at 6:20 pm on October 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
A federal judge has ordered the release of 17 Chinese Uighers detained at Guantanamo Bay, and specifically into the US. Judge Ricardo Urbina demanded that the federal government produce them in his courtroom by Friday, and refused to stay his order for an appeal. He also warned immigration officials not to do their jobs by detaining these suspected terrorists:
A federal judge today ordered that 17 Chinese Muslims held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison be released into the United States by Friday, agreeing with the detainees’ attorneys that the Constitution bars holding the men indefinitely without cause. …
Justice Department lawyer John O’Quinn asked Urbina to stay the order for a week, giving the government time to evaluate its options and file an appeal. Urbina rejected that request and ordered the Uighurs to appear in his courtroom for a hearing on Friday. He said he would then release them into the custody of 17 Uighur families living in the Washington area.
O’Quinn said the legal ramifications from the order are complex and that he wants time to consult with officials from the Department of Homeland Security. Under existing U.S. law, immigration authorities may be forced to take the Uighurs into custody shortly after they arrive in the United States, O’Quinn said. The Justice Department alleges they have ties to a group that has been designated a terrorist organization by the government.
Urbina chastised O’Quinn for suggesting that the government might take the Uighurs into custody for a second time.
The seventeen men were captured in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan during the 2001-2 campaign to topple the Taliban and fight al-Qaeda. The judge said that the government had unreliable evidence to show them as a threat to the United States. If living in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn’t provide prima facie evidence of just that kind of threat, it’s difficult to know what Urbina needs.
Now, unless the 4th District overrules Urbina in the next 72 hours, we will knowingly transport 17 Uighers who lived in terrorist training camps to our nation’s capital, and release them on their own recognizance. Why? Because we can’t send them to China, who might mistreat them. Every other country in the world has more sense than to agree to take these Uigher separatists, who like many of their compatriots, have allied themselves with al-Qaeda. Every other country, that is, except the US, or at least one of its judges.
This is what we can expect when the judiciary decides to usurp the role of the executive branch in waging war. Urbina ruled that the detention of the Uighers violates the Constitution with their indefinite detention, but that doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants of any war, and never has. We would be within our rights to hold prisoners of war until an end to hostilities, and Urbina has now given these terrorists a better deal than POWs get.
To paraphrase a great line from the late Paul Newman in The Verdict: I wouldn’t mind Urbina waging the war if he wasn’t so determined to lose it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Sounds like a job for McCain.
csdeven on October 7, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Ricardo Urbina is insane.
ctmom on October 7, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Or better yet, an ad idea for McCain.
csdeven on October 7, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Wouldn’t it be great to have Odummy choosing two or three SCOTUS judges and have them approved by a solid DFL majority?
But you know, Mac isn’t Reagan so we need to throw him under the bus and stay home, right?
Bishop on October 7, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I say release them into his chambers with him inside as well, station a few Marines outside the door, lock it and let “justice” take its course.
Rogue on October 7, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Judge Ricardo Urbina needs to be taken off the bench!
He is a threat to the American Society.
upinak on October 7, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Who appointed this moron?
john1schn on October 7, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Perhaps Bill Ayers would be willing to extend a warm welcome to these fellow terrorists into his neighborhood.
Just think, they could have backyard bbq’s and share their hatred for America with each other.
timinnc on October 7, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Read Andy MCarthy over at the Corner. He has the run down.
This guy may be a clown, but he can only act like such a clown because of the SC jerks who think terrorists should have more rights than citizens in good standing.
VolMagic on October 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM
That’s right. It’s far better to just hand this one to BO and plan for our resurgence in 2012, 2016, 2020 or some other future time when we will get the perfect conservative the we can run. To do anything else would sully the conservative ideal.
jmarcure on October 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM
In other news, the local ACORN office has already registered them to vote….
rw on October 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Put them up in the judge’s house.
hburns on October 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Bush is gonna have to ignore the ruling, ala President Jackson in 1832 in the Worcester case.
He’s almost outta there anyhow, and he’s irredeemable to the left.
gmoonster on October 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Someone please answer this question: what if Bush were to say “Ricardo Urbina made his decision…let him enforce it.”
Honestly…what would happen if Bush flipped him the bird?
ManlyRash on October 7, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Absolutely amazing. John McCain must bring this up in tonight’s debate. This would be a win for sure in Virginia.
Democrats WANT to place terrorists in the United States. They are more allied with terrorists than our military or commander in chief.
I live in Northern Virginia and can’t believe that these Dems want to place 17 Muslim terrorists right here. What would a President Obama do? Make sure to appoint more judges like these.
Gabe on October 7, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Let’s put the Democrats responsible for the Freddie and Fannie Mess in Gitmo in their place.
Elizabetty on October 7, 2008 at 6:32 PM
So, is ignoring the prima facie evidence, AND then stating athe intent to release them into the custody of 17 Uighur families living in the Washington area, sufficent to charge US. Judge Ricardo Urbina with incompetence and/or (as an accessory after the fact to waging war on the US) treason?
Arbalest on October 7, 2008 at 6:32 PM
I think these poor, unfortunates should be provided all the things they need: diesel fuel in case they have an old VW Rabbit, ammonium nitrate in case they want to do some farming, some large barrels in case they want to lug some stuff around DC, and maybe a large U-Haul truck to carry the barrels of their stuff around. And, of course, stickers they can put on the U-Haul windshield allowing them judicial immunity from parking or inspection laws, poor chaps.
No harm could possibly come from their release, now could it?
stonemeister on October 7, 2008 at 6:32 PM
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/urbina-bio.html
Clinton appointee. Who is surprised?
Abby Adams on October 7, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I fully expect these Uighars to be feted and celebrated by Dems all over the place. They’ll be heros.
Let’s face it–a smart strategy for terrorists right now would be to promise to target only Republicans. They’d get overwhelming amounts of cooperation from Dems and their allies in the government, who probably wouldn’t shed one tear if a whole bunch of baptists or Mormons or rural farmers died via car bomb.
Vanceone on October 7, 2008 at 6:33 PM
George Bush, Commander in Chief, should tell the judge; “Okay, you made YOUR decision. Now try to enforce it”.
GarandFan on October 7, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Another scary thought:
Why are there so many Muslims WILLING to house these terrorists? Ah, the barbaric religion of peace taking over the Washington area.
Gabe on October 7, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Naaa, nothing to worry about. I’m sure plenty of Congressmen opposed to Gitmo will be running over each other for the opportunity to host one of these fine men. It would be kind of like a foreign-exchange student program. Right?
batter on October 7, 2008 at 6:34 PM
What would happen if they just said no or come and get them if you can?
jmarcure on October 7, 2008 at 6:35 PM
According to the article, the government no longer considers these men enemy combatants. I assume that had something to do with the judge’s decision.
By the way, Urbina is a judge of the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia. His decisions are subject to review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and not some “4th District” that Ed referred to.
paul006 on October 7, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Just another example of a judicially independent crazed judge, crossing over the line. How much longer is this one man rule tyranny going to go on. WHERE’S congress, and WHY is this idiot being allowed to remain on the bench???
byteshredder on October 7, 2008 at 6:37 PM
I think we should meet the DC Court half way. Drop the Chinese off, half way between Gitmo and Miami.
Star20 on October 7, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Why not make a motion requiring the judge to guarentee that the Uighars won’t do something? Put his personal money and judicial office on the line–if they are caught doing something, the judge gets the ax.
Let’s see if the order stands then.
Vanceone on October 7, 2008 at 6:38 PM
If they’re Chinese nationals, isn’t China entitled to get them back unless we grant asylum?
gmoonster on October 7, 2008 at 6:39 PM
This is the kind of judge that Obama would appoint. Take note.
thirteen28 on October 7, 2008 at 6:39 PM
And is not just the two or three SCOTUS we have to worry about, but a whole bunch of federal judges that will be appointed by the next president. They will have more impact in our daily lives than two old liberal judges being replaced by two young liberal judges in the SCOTUS.
neuquenguy on October 7, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Completely agree.
Connie on October 7, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Hey, can I volunteer to transport them to the court house? ;)
neuquenguy on October 7, 2008 at 6:40 PM
The Lackawanna 6 are in jail for exactly this. The charge is “providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization”. Released on their own recognizance? Clearly the judge is off his meds and should be institutionalized immediately as he clearly represents a threat to himself and the community.
trubble on October 7, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Frankly, I support peaceful Uygher separatism.
Dr. Manhattan on October 7, 2008 at 6:42 PM
If I lived in Virginia I would raise holy hell! grr..I think I’ll raise hell anyway!
becki51758 on October 7, 2008 at 6:42 PM
This is the trade-off. If we detain terrorists for interrogation, the liberal judges will eventually free them. However, if we turn them over to other countries, like the Iraqi and Afghan governments, we lose control of them. Hopefully, we have gained valuable intel from these terrorists, because we aren’t seeing them again.
m064404 on October 7, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I am the Grue and I approve of this message.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 7, 2008 at 6:45 PM
The Democrat Congress would threaten to impeach him, and the public would think: Democrats want to impeach a President for not importing and releasing terrorists? I guess I’m voting Republican this year.
Socratease on October 7, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Scalia said this would happen, that America was less safe and that people would die as a result of the Beaumodine (sp?) decision. once again, he was right.
JustTruth101 on October 7, 2008 at 6:46 PM
And then let them be Professors at a
respectable Liberal brainwashing
University,to undo all your hard
work of raising your children who
had morals and ethics!!(Sarc.!)
canopfor on October 7, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Judge Ricardo Urbina = Ultimate Epic Fail.
Anna on October 7, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Oh if only.
More likely, the media will spin it against him somehow.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 7, 2008 at 6:47 PM
1994 Appointed to the United States District Court by President Bill Clinton
Doesn’t that say it all? This would be a good point for McCain to make this evening, stating, “If you want more of these morons on the bench, vote for the guy opposite me.”
Tokyo Times on October 7, 2008 at 6:49 PM
First, an economic bust.
Second, a boom (perhaps 17 of them)
ThePrez on October 7, 2008 at 6:49 PM
At least Urbina could have had the common sense to release these folks in the south side of a Chicago nighborhood where Mr. Ayers could make them feel at home.
Rovin on October 7, 2008 at 6:49 PM
A Clinton appointee, naturally.
JammieWearingFool on October 7, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Folks, I think that it is about time to march on Washington and take back our nation!
ConservativePartyNow on October 7, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Maybe ICE can pick them up and drop them off in Chicago. I’m sure Bill Ayers would be happy to take them in and keep an eye on them.
rockmom on October 7, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I think all raise hell anyway!
becki51758 on Oct 7,2008 at 6:42PM.
becki51758: You go girl,ha ha:)
Becki,save all that hell for tonight,when the
MSM tell the viewers what they had just seen!
And tell the voters,who watched it,exactly
what they should be thinking,and voteing for!:)
canopfor on October 7, 2008 at 6:53 PM
The judge’s order granting the detainees’ petition for habeas is here; the government’s notice of appeal is here.
paul006 on October 7, 2008 at 6:54 PM
The Judge is advocating a violation of the Geneva Convention. The Convention says that combatants detained on the field of battle MUST be released to their country of origin (or to a neutral third country if the original country of the combatant remains at war with us). In addition, the use of civilian courts to try combatants is prohibited by the Convention if the detaining power’s own soldiers would not be processed by those courts; courts martial must be used if the detaining power’s own soldiers are subject to them.
See Article 12, Article 84, Article 87, Article 109, Article 118 here.
unclesmrgol on October 7, 2008 at 6:56 PM
At least Urbina could have had the common sense to release these folks in the south side of a Chicago nighborhood where Mr. Ayers could make them feel at home.
Rovin on October 7, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Maybe ICE can pick them up and drop them off in Chicago. I’m sure Bill Ayers would be happy to take them in and keep an eye on them.
rockmom on October 7, 2008 at 6:53 PM
What an intellectual lift….I can think like rockmom.. :)
Rovin on October 7, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Does anyone know his phone number? I want to call him and ask how I should protect my family.
On the other hand, they should be released into his backyard.
dentalque on October 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Give the great judge a call and tell him whats on your mind. Chambers: (202) 354-3390
Mercy4Me on October 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM
This is idiotic. We need to do away with the law or regulation or whatever it is that prohibits the US from returning suspected criminal aliens to their home countries if they might be “mistreated” there. These wannabe terrorists, or whatever they are, do not belong in the US. Better for China to be “mistreating” these criminals than for them to be living in the US “mistreating” law-abiding American citizens.
AZCoyote on October 7, 2008 at 7:04 PM
It pains me greatly to say this, as a former 20-year resident of Alexandria, but if those morons keep voting for the likes of Jim Moran and Mark Warner, I will have no sympathy for them when this band of terrorists lands in their neighborhood. Why should John McCain stick his neck out for a bunch of rich latte liberals who will not vote for him? Maybe this is what is needed to finally get those idiots to wake up and see where their philosophy leads.
rockmom on October 7, 2008 at 7:05 PM
O/T
Chucky Todd (two minutes ago): “Because the economy has tanked again today, I can guarantee you that McCain will stay on topic tonight”
Rovin on October 7, 2008 at 7:05 PM
I just called and if you push 5 you get a live person to leave a message with.
Mercy4Me on October 7, 2008 at 7:06 PM
You folks are overreacting. I say let them go. Right here at Ft. Bragg. Out on Sicily Drop Zone. In fact, bring them all here…
Yeah…
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 7:07 PM
But you know, Mac isn’t Reagan so we need to throw him under the bus and stay home, right?
PM
Dear JMarcure: You are the most pretentious and dangerous commenter I have read in a long time. You are pretentious because YOU want to be the one to decide what or who the perfect conservative is. I can tell you right now that I and most of the other conservatives will never agree with your judgement because your comment shows your judgement is wanting. You want to have it your way or you are going to hold your breath until you turn blue.
You are dangerous because the effect of your logic is to just give up. Never give up! Sometimes in this life the good is as good as you get. If you hold out for excellent (your vision of), you will never accomplish anything. Meanwile a marxist/socialist/liberal democrat will have enough power to set this nation back 40 years. It is an exercise in futility for me to lecture you on the pursuit of excellence. The pursuit is the thing – just don’t cause the last election. Socialist/Liberal/marxists are ratchet types; once they get power, they will do anything to keep it, including controlling elections. Look at Obama eliminating competition in Illinois. Look at the unions trying to do away with the secret ballot. Look at the democratic thug acorn. With this election, there may not be a 2012, 2016, or 2020 election as we know it.
Old Country Boy on October 7, 2008 at 7:07 PM
It might be helpful to consider this from the angle that at these rate, these people will be stuck indefinitely at Gitmo. It’s all fun to say stuff like the judge should be taken off the bench or is insane but the reality is way more complex that you portray it.
If we believe it’s illegal or immoral to keep non convicted people in jail indefinitely, what do you all suggest we do?
mycowardice on October 7, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Count me and my husband in.
Mercy4Me on October 7, 2008 at 7:08 PM
I thought the constitution only applied to american citizens? I think we should build prisons in judges neighborhoods. We would get different decisions handed down from the benches.
Tommy_G on October 7, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Old Country Boy on October 7, 2008 at 7:07 PM
+10
Rovin on October 7, 2008 at 7:11 PM
It might be helpful to consider this from the angle that at these rate, these people will be stuck indefinitely at Gitmo. It’s all fun to say stuff like the judge should be taken off the bench or is insane but the reality is way more complex that you portray it.
If we believe it’s illegal or immoral to keep non convicted people in jail indefinitely, what do you all suggest we do?
mycowardice on October 7, 2008 at 7:08 PM
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 7:13 PM
WTF?
ronsfi on October 7, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Ahem sorry, but you pissed me off so much I hit the wrong button. If they were captured on the field of battle against your own soldiers, they can stay their happy asses in prison until the war is over like any POW. “you” people pushed the definitions that causes us to deal with them on an equal footing as any US citizen.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Fair enough. But the government itself doesn’t agree. The government says these men are no longer enemy combatants. These men “were cleared of suspicion in 2004,” and have remained at Gitmo only “because of controversy over where they could go:”
Come on now. It sounds like even our government doesn’t think these men are guilty of anything. If so, why would we hold innocent men? The U.S. Constitution may apply only to American citizens, but the ideals of human liberty do not.
paul006 on October 7, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Do you really have to ask?
Richard Romano on October 7, 2008 at 7:28 PM
What kind of drugs are you on? Can’t you at least share?
The ‘government’ isn’t who doesn’t think these men are guilty. They are neither guilty nor not-guilty. They are ENEMY EFFING COMBATANTS! We’re not talking local criminal statutes here.
Only the anti-Americans think they’ve been ‘cleared’ of anything, you moron!
stonemeister on October 7, 2008 at 7:29 PM
It’s neither illegal nor immoral and it’s done all the time for public safety – ours and yours. Ever hear of indeterminate civil commitments for sexually violent predators? Don’t like it? Then maybe they can all go stay with you.
Blake on October 7, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I, too, am outraged. If these guys are terrorists, then why haven’t they been tried and convicted? It’s not that hard. Congress has created a special set of lite rules to make it easier to convict Guantanamo detainees. And even under the regular rules, the government has won every single terrorism case it brought in the courts.
factoid on October 7, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Paul, probably two unclear posting in a row on my part. Mycowardise was alluding that “non convicted” indefinately. Based on his site, I’m sure he meant all of them at Gitmo, not just the Chinese. And if we can’t keep these guys, so be it, send them back to China or a third-neutral country. But they were caught in a terrorist training camp after tehy were known to have been in Afghanistan for teh major offensives that kisked the Taliban out. My bet after they’re let go? Like so many of the others we’ve let go, you’ll find their toothless, blown-up asses outside of one of the FOBs near Asadabad or Jalalsbad.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Geez, I’m typing even worse tonight than I usually do. Excuse the keystrokes.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Perhaps WaPo and the NYT have the story wrong. It wouldn’t be the first, and if you can point us to links that prove them wrong, please do. But both papers report that our own government no longer considers these men enemy combatants, and has held them at Gitmo only for want of a place to send them. If that’s correct, doesn’t it seem to you, as it does to me, that these men are entitled to their freedom?
paul006 on October 7, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Hey, Pouloo6:
I think I understand what you are saying about the American (or your self developed – see above post) ideals of liberty. Let’s see if I get your arguement right – We have a bunch of young men that were caught on the battlefield, but maybe not directly shooting at our troops. (I assume they were just sitting behind a rock kissing their asses goodbye). The U.S. Government (or some individuals therein who go by that name) have decided that although these are bad guys, the situation is such that they do not presently exhibit a threat to the good ol’ USA (or Washington DC or the democratic party). Now what to do with them.
Let’s see over 147 nations disagree with us and say these are truly bad dudes and they don’t want them on their turf. The country from whence they came (China) agrees to the extent that these dudes will recieve grave bodily harm if they go there. So what’s to do? Why give them a paid free admittance to the goog ol’ U.S of A. They won’t even have to get wet corssing the Rio Bravo and acorn will have 17 new voters. Do I have this right?
So in the future, to all you folks from other lands, kill a few Americans; be so bad nobody wants you, and viola! You get a free pass into the U.S.
Old Country Boy on October 7, 2008 at 7:42 PM
I guess the concept of habeus corpus and due process is lost upon the clown league here. Remind me never to hire you as my lawyers, as you all should be confined to the comments section here, where you belong. We do not live under Napoleonic code, so dismissing the premise of innocence just makes you look like a bunch of jack booted thugs.
petit bourgeois on October 7, 2008 at 7:43 PM
So it was okay for Janet Reno to order an innocent little boy to be removed at gun point from his relatives’ home in the middle of the night and sent back to Cuba.
But we can’t send terrorists back to China?
Disturb the Universe on October 7, 2008 at 7:46 PM
I don’t give a flip what they do with them as long as they don’t release them back in the US.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Didn’t Barry make a big deal about the Boumedine decision when it came out? Has Barry been asked what he thinks about this yet? It’s fair to ask him what should be done with these guys. I’d love to hear his response.
hump1201 on October 7, 2008 at 7:47 PM
In the old days, when Royal Navy captured a pirate ship, the pirates were summarily hanged.
More is the pity we choose not do the same. Were it up to me, I’d personally shoot every goddamned one of them.
ManlyRash on October 7, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Gitmo has been a public relations disaster from the get-go. These folks [as well as all the others] should simply have been summarily executed or tossed off a C-130 over the ocean. Planned Parenthood says there are too many people, right? Let’s help them out.
Henry Bowman on October 7, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Our greatest President considered HC during the Civil War and then decided the circumstances were unique enough to suspend it. But that’s not even what’s happening here. Let they go to China. In fact, put them back in Pakistan in the same camps and give them guns. I guarentee we’ll be able to solve the problem a lot quicker than the judicial system can.
And you petit, watch who you call what.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 7:51 PM
WHY can’t these potentially dangerous terrorists be SENT BACK TO CHINA?
gmoonster on October 7, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Yeah no prob Judge, release them in the US. My only request is that you release them in a safe place like Pasadena, Texas, hmmm let’s say in front of Joe Horn’s house.
whiskeytango on October 7, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Amen brother. We can’t win. If we spray them with 30mm the libs get mad, if we capture them the libs get made. The only fusking thing that doesn’t seem to make the libs mad is them killing us.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 7:53 PM
I think I would cheer.
Loudly.
Until I was hoarse.
oldleprechaun on October 7, 2008 at 7:53 PM
I guess the concept of habeus corpus and due process is
And remind me to remove my cross-hairs from the the thug just before he drops a daggar into your back pb. What is this? Kiss a terrorist night? Oh, that’s right tonights another night to see the socialist-kissing Messiah put all you liberals into another kool-aid dream-world-kum-bah-ya moment.
Rovin on October 7, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Dear Abby;
Here in my neighborhood we have these 17 rabid dogs. They can’t understand hand signals or standard commands. They won’t fetch, and when you throw a ball or a frisbee, instead of wanting to play with it they tear it to shreds. They haven’t harmed anyone yet, but they do like to watch the children get off the school bus in the afternoon.
I’m thinking of donating some money if someone will take them to be groomed. I’ll also pay for charm school. My wife says she thinks this could be dangerous, but I say she’s too “right wing”.
I need your advice.
Signed
Confused in Virginia
oldleprechaun on October 7, 2008 at 8:03 PM
It’s too bad you don’t give a flip, but the US was founded on concept like Habeas Corpus. Maybe it would be a good time to give a flip about it.
mycowardice on October 7, 2008 at 8:06 PM
petit bourgeois on October 7, 2008 at 7:43 PM
The concept of Habeus Corpus doesn’t really apply to non-US citizens as far as the US Consititution is concerned. That has to do with arresting or incarcerting US citizens. I’m not sure whether Pakistan or Afganistan has habeus corpus as we recognize it. I’m pretty sure the Chinese do not think in those terms. Aren’t you making a gigantic leap to mix up American rights with those of other countries based on what you would like the other countries to believe? By the way, I DO know what habeus corpus is. I got a trooper off in the Army because his battery commander confined him to quarters for over 30 days awaiting court martial, without written charges. That’s habeus corpus, not an excuse by a bunch of Trial Lawyers swilling at the public trough to get charged enemy combatents freed when no country wants them.
Also, I object to your inplication that people who disagree with you on this are bad and somehow unAmerican.
Old Country Boy on October 7, 2008 at 8:08 PM
I’ve been to both theaters and seen first hand what these people do. I don’t give a flip about where they take them as long as it’s not in the US.
Do “you” want them in the US? Is that what I’m missing here?
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:08 PM
A spade is a spade. If you think the Constitution is something to be ignored and disregarded, then maybe you should be working for Prof. Woo at my esteemd alma mater, where all of the other nutcases reside. Reference to Lincoln is not going to save your deliberate trashing of the document here. It was wrong then just as it is now.
You are the one who should be careful, comrade, lest you wind up detained indefinitely at some camp in Fidel’s backyard for no apparent reason other than being in some camp and having a label assigned to you out of thin air. You would be changing your tune after years of detention, I guarantee. And here I thought only the “left” was imbibed with gulag mentality…boy am I mistaken.
petit bourgeois on October 7, 2008 at 8:10 PM
If they do come to The States, maybe your boy Edwards can get with them for a class action lawsuit. I understand he could use the money now that he’s supporting two families.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »