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: « Previous 1 2
Do you only read your own posts? I said let them go to a different country.
You have no beef with me. I’m military and respect the constitution and have sworn an oath to defend it. I’m as conservative as they come and probably the last person in the world you’d call “comrade”.
But maybe we’ve gotten off on the wrong foot here. Let me repeat, let…them…go…
to china
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Furthermore, these people are being detained on US soil. Let me ask you this: would you want to be detained indefinitely on U.S. soil for no apparent reason? I didn’t think so.
Sounds like you guys love people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the like, since you approve of these tactics. No amount of barratry and sophistry about where the Constitution applies is going to retract the commentary here. Y’all believe people should be incarcerated indefinitely without any justification. That is not American by any stretch of the imagination–not an implication, but an indictment.
petit bourgeois on October 7, 2008 at 8:19 PM
That’s all we need in D.C. ….
DCJeff on October 7, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Insane
deedtrader on October 7, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Wow, you changed my mind when you put it that way, you’re right.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Fine, let them go to China, a place where they were not picked up 7 years ago. That’s fair.
It’s like me picking you up in NY, incercerating you for 7 years and dropping you off in LA. Sounds fair to me.
petit bourgeois on October 7, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Hmm, so the States are the only answer, huh!
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Or Pakistan where they came from?
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Hey, hawkdriver, are we dealing with an imported troll here? Why “premise” instead of “presumption”? Quebecer perhaps?
Y-not on October 7, 2008 at 8:25 PM
I say release them back to china. If china kills them so be it.
unseen on October 7, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Y-not I am surprised. You all welcomed me here with open arms amid all my typos and wacky ideas. You’re now going to call a citizen of this great nation who merely wants the puristic adhereance to our constitution reguardless of the consequences a Troll?
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:28 PM
petit bourgeois on October 7, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I’ll try to make this as simple as I can for you. The Constitution is a contract between the government and it’s citizens, and does not extend to people who have pledged their lives to it’s destruction. They are not citizens and are not subject to habeas corpus or any other constitutional protections. And don’t tell me there is not any justification for this, they were taken prisoner, not arrested. If you don’t understand the difference, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself.
celtnik on October 7, 2008 at 8:31 PM
I’m still waiting to see if petit boudoir, (which I don’t get because as far as I can tell it means little bathroom, like “little pisser” maybe) says that Pakistan is okay.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:32 PM
+10…Thank you for saying what I wanted to: put ‘em back where we found them, problem solved.
Ciannaky on October 7, 2008 at 8:33 PM
While I’m waiting I have a debate drinking game. Everytime Obama says “uh”, you have to drink. Everytime he says “greatest country in the world”, you have to drink.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I’m way ahead of you and well on my way to an exceptional buzz, but if I accepted your challenge I would be blind drunk within the first fifteen minutes.
Ciannaky on October 7, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Thanks!
Well, petit four is either lost interest or he’s typing up a storm to totally p’wn my jack-booted ass. I conceded to him, what else do I need to do to be cool like with him?
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM
You are the one who should be careful, comrade, lest you
I don’t seem to understand; I know I’m just an old fuddyduddy. However, how do you compare taking an American civilian citizen off the street in the U.S.A. and sending that person to a military detention center in GITMO with a non-American citizen terrorist captured on the battlefield?
I do agree that what to do with detainees (prisoners) that no other country wants (or the country that does want them will kill them) is a problem. However, your intermingling the situation of what to do with them with the concept of habeus corpus is a quibble. Maybe you can address that problem as stated. I really do not fear detention centers unless Obama is elected, and I think your arguement that if you are so bad no other country wants you, habeus corpus gets you out of jail free.
Now lets name drop professors from our alma maters: Dr. Beverly vonHaller Gilmer (Industrial Psychology) (paraphrased) “The world is full of bastards and the sooner you recognize and live with that fact, the better off you’ll be”.
Old Country Boy on October 7, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Okay then only if he says, “greatest country in the world”!
And he has to be referring to the US.
France doesn’t count.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Well, those like PF refuse to understand that the rule of law should be granted to those who recognize them; those who don’t should be granted no such civility and should be met on their own terms.
Ciannaky on October 7, 2008 at 8:44 PM
He’s off Trolling somewhere else and I can’t wait. I’ve going to settle in with SWMBO in the living room for teh debate. Petit, if you come back, I’ve left my favorite Obama public appearance as a special message to everyone who puts all else above their coutry and their ideals. Even if it the very ideals themselves.
“They killed us with our kindness!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHcxzBwjYHg
Language Caution Flag! Clear out the kids before you click the button.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Legislating from the bench.
Bush had better warm up his Executive Order pen and pad set to fix what’s obviously broken before splitting town.
maverick muse on October 7, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Does he have to mean it or just pandering?
Ciannaky on October 7, 2008 at 8:46 PM
I’d be able to tell, but I guess it would be nice just to hear him say it once or twice.
hawkdriver on October 7, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Umm, wouldn’t the proper response to this crap be, “Screw you”?
Physics Geek on October 7, 2008 at 8:53 PM
So you are what? Stupid? Uninformed? Maybe a little unaware?
If you are a troll please try harder because we like smart trolls not stupid ones.
jmarcure on October 7, 2008 at 8:55 PM
If he says VICTORY, I’ll drink the whole bottle.
Rovin on October 7, 2008 at 8:56 PM
These men were cleared four years ago by the military. They are not terrorists, they are victims of an asinine policy that rewarded Pakistanis for turning in people they didn’t like as alleged Taliban.
They can’t be sent back to China because, as the military states, they’ll be persecuted by the Chinese if they are. They’re no danger to anyone. We need to let ‘em go, and then compensate them (generously) for having kept them locked up for all these years.
corbettw on October 7, 2008 at 9:31 PM
ALL Terrorists in Guantanamo should be released – into the custody of this judge who should be FORCED to allow them to sleep at his home, or the homes of any of his children.
grtflmark on October 7, 2008 at 9:46 PM
It’s a wonder there’s any confidence left in our government, at all. This is just batsh*t insane.
progressoverpeace on October 7, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I agree that they should place these terrorists in the Court building where this insane judge is located. Or house them in a house on his block.
eaglewingz08 on October 7, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Its time for Homeland Security and the Justice Department and the President to step up and say “Enough is enough,” and tell the DC Court to go pound sand.
seanrobins on October 7, 2008 at 10:36 PM
They are from China. Send them back to China.
Sapwolf on October 7, 2008 at 10:47 PM
I’ll tell the judge to piss off. My army is bigger than yours.
Sapwolf on October 7, 2008 at 10:47 PM
I didn’t even need to check to know this demented judge was a Clinton appointee. That said, this is the time for some out-of-the-box thinking. Why don’t we explore the possibility of sending them to the “other” China, i.e., Taiwan? The Republic of China is a democracy and presumably the “torture” issue is off the table. We can give our friends in Taipei a sweetener on their latest arms deal to help persuade them, and, by accepting Uighurs, it bolsters Taiwan’s legal fiction that the ROC is in fact the legal government of China. Once they’re on Formosa, the ROC government can detain them or better yet, deport them back to Red China. Everybody wins, except Islamic terrorists and a nasty liberal Federal judge.
Travis Bickle on October 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I think that this should be the future standard of releasing these GITMO prisoners
bastards. Release them in Millville NJ, Centerville OH, Scranton PA, Fresno CA, etc. Use the Matt Damon line, “how do you like them apples, you libs”.Sergei on October 7, 2008 at 11:12 PM
What does it matter? After I heard McCain talk about buying up everybody’s mortgages cuz, you know, it’s tough to have a house with its value going down, I just gave up.
Let the enviro wackos and the ACLU wackos and the leftist wackos work their magic. It’s over.
PattyJ on October 7, 2008 at 11:18 PM
The left has cried and stomped their feet about the poor wittle terrorist that have to be kept up past their bedtime and sometimes have water poured over their face so we can get them to tell us who they want to blow up next.
All this concern and worry about how to be sensitive to the terrorist needs when it comes to torture and the after effects of it seem to disappear when they are making fun of McCain’s broken out teeth,the fact that he can’t raise his arms,the fact that it is painful to work a keyboard.
Liberals have made campaign ads making fun of McCain’s wounds due to torture.Rolling Stone printed a cartoon making fun of him in a cage with his captors surrounding him laughing.Daily Kos did a whole post making fun of the teeth
he had knocked out during his captivity.I don’t remember any of these super intelligent liberals who care so much for the human condition complaining about McCain not being treated by the standards of the Geneva Convention.
No McCain did not get three meals a day,a prayer rug,playing soccer or gaining on average about 18 pounds during his captivity like the poor wittle terrorist in Gitmo.
Daily Kos Mocks McCain’s Teeth
Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:47:58 pm PDT
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30202_Daily_Kos_Mocks_McCains_Teeth
Double Standard: What About the Rolling Stone Caricature Of John McCain?
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/07/14/double-standard-what-about-the-rolling-stone-caricature-of-john-mccain/
Liberals want to use this as a political sword to swing at this administration,give terrorist caught on the battle field the same rights as American citizens.Bring them into the same courtrooms that let the OJ’s,Brando’s,Robert Blake’s go,then let them.
Release these oppressed victims of the Bush Administration
in the streets of hollywood,Berkeley,Santa Cruz,New York City.
Let the girls from the view take them in,the Rosie O’donells,Sean Penn’s,Micheal Moore’s,Harry Reid’s,Nancy Pelosi’s.Let all the whinny,self righteous,leftist idiots back up all their rants and drivel by letting these “innocent” jihadist into their little bubbles.
Come on liberals,put your money where your mouth is.
Al Gore has plenty of room for these 17 oppressed victims of the Bush regime in one of his mansion’s.He could save the
tax payers tens of thousands of dollars by flying them in on
one of his private chartered jets or float them in on his
giant boat.
Al-qaeda would be so happy for his help that they would probably blow up their next school or restaurant in his honor.
Baxter Greene on October 7, 2008 at 11:43 PM
When Muslim Mujaheddin are whitewashed with a new title like “Uighur separatists” it becomes easier to smudge what is going on in the War on WTF and make foolish decisions. Return these creatures to the streets of Islamisbad where they can continue their international protest marches on behalf of Uighur separatism if that is what they were doing when they were “arrested”.
BL@KBIRD on October 7, 2008 at 11:43 PM
I heard it too patty. I think it’s Macs answer a portion of Obama’s socialist agenda, but if this is where conservatives have to go to make a deal with the devil, can it be worse than Obama appointing a few judges and making this nation a liberal homecomming for the minions that plan to add education and health care to a government sponsered dole at a taxpayers expense?
Gamble? You bet.
Rovin on October 7, 2008 at 11:56 PM
No. I think the Quebecois are akin to the mexican nationalists in my neighborhood. Let them go back to France if they want to speak their stupid language.
Then why are we invading countries and exposing our citizens to liability? Under the law this is considered malpractice at least, malfeasance at a mediocre range, and treason at worst. Do not get me started on the Geneva Conventions (ratified, but I do not agree with them).
Either way, you are not getting out of jail. Since you seem to think it is okay, I am going to incarcerate you personally for no reason at all.
I am still waiting for you to read V.I. Lenin’s pamphlet entitled “Imperialism.” There you will find the enemy of the communist: the little capitalist, or petty bourgeois, you little man. Your cheap bathroom humor exposes you as an intellectual fraud. Now go wallow in self pity at how you lost the election because of your child-like thoughts.
You are the “little pisser” in this exchange, but perhaps someone with balls will show up here eventually.
petit bourgeois on October 8, 2008 at 12:59 AM
I say we release them WKRP style.
As God is my witness, I thought terrorists could fly.
BDavis on October 8, 2008 at 1:08 AM
President Bush has a Constitutional duty to protect the people of this country. He would violate that duty by allowing dangerous foreign nationals to be released into the US without being in custody. A federal judge can hardly overrule the President on his Constitutional duty.
So it seems fairly obvious that Bush cannot accommodate the judge’s wish. They are currently in custody in Gitmo, and the only way they can be released is in a way that does not put at risk innocent Americans.
The problem here is one we’ve seen before. If the judge stuck to a ruling that these had to be released in some way, he might be on fairly solid ground. But he has no authority to dictate to the executive branch where exactly they are to be released. The Constitution does not give that authority to judges. So the diktat that they must be released to the custody of these 17 families is, in military parlance, an unlawful order. And everyone who’s been in the military knows you can never obey an unlawful order.
theregoestheneighborhood on October 8, 2008 at 1:45 AM
The above is nonsensical. It appears you’re trying to take legal terms and apply them to a war situation. Perhaps a lawyer-in-training, who is so wrapped up in learning the profession as to not yet realize that it has no real application to the battlefield?
No matter. There is no habeas corpus right attached to being a POW. The recent Supreme Court decision amounted to 5 justices who thought there should be such a right, which in itself demonstrates the very definition of judicial activism.
And by the way, whether or not you agree with the Geneva Conventions is irrelevant as long as we are abiding by them. I’m not sure of their exact status, but if they’re treated as a treaty, then according to the Constitution we are bound by them just as much as by the Constitution.
theregoestheneighborhood on October 8, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Hmm, lost the election because of my child-like thoughts.
What are you talking about you mental-midget? Stringing a couple sentences and loose legal ideas doesn’t make you Clarence Darrow. And BTW, your screen handle there required no explanation. It’s actually what gave you away as a Troll and kept anyone from taking you serious. Claiming a moniker that you’d want to make sound like you were the scourge of communism while you spouted off in your best Marxist rant and tactic of using a democracies own laws against them was just rich.
Go away little man. No..sorry..
Go away little boy.
And BTW, if anything loses this election, it’ll be the almost Stalin like hold the liberal-elites have hold of the media and the way they control what you hear.
hawkdriver on October 8, 2008 at 7:10 AM
And to think, some people here don’t mind giving Obama the chance to appoint more judges like this to a life time seat.
MarkTheGreat on October 8, 2008 at 7:10 AM
Roger that, probably the most important election in out time.
hawkdriver on October 8, 2008 at 7:16 AM
“our”
hawkdriver on October 8, 2008 at 7:17 AM
Great! I need some target practice
Viper1 on October 8, 2008 at 7:21 AM
God help us all from our own useful idiots.
Target practice sounds like good preparation for what seems the beginning of the end….
stu.b.con on October 8, 2008 at 7:44 AM
Would the judge be held accountable if these terrorists killed someone or escaped while loose in DC?
No, of course not. Libs never take the heat for anything they do, hence we get comments like, ‘It depends on what your definition of “is” is.’
I agree with hawkdriver, release them into another country, like San Francisco.
Geministorm on October 8, 2008 at 8:14 AM
–Ricardo Urbina
Well, I don’t know about that, but I would say that the unilateral, carte blanche authority the judicial branch purportedly wields over our foreign relations and national security is not in keeping with our system, nor even with sanity.
morganfrost on October 8, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Whomever says no one will take them is wrong. So, I say we compromise. We release them into the tribal areas of Pakistan as their fellow terrorist-trained Uighurs are currently welcome by the Taliban from 20,000 without a parachute. Fair is fair.
Sergeant Tim on October 8, 2008 at 8:44 AM
So any nation that decided to wage war against us, would be advised to do it with a terrorist military. You have all the advantages that way (no uniforms needed, get to hide around civilians and to target them, no messy chain of command accountability), rather than as a professional military force.
Because our idiot courts have decided that terrorists have defacto more rights than legitimate militarys and actually, terrorists trying to kill American civilians have more rights than US MILITARY PERSONNEL.
You can get away with more as a terrorist, than you can under the UCMJ. Unbelievable.
And these are the kinds of judges an Obama Administration and Democrat states will appoint in droves. Just another reason (among the millions) to vote against Democrats.
NoDonkey on October 8, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Put them in the employ of Barney Frank and let ‘em find the love.
Fuquay Steve on October 8, 2008 at 9:35 AM
I don’t think it’s unbelievable in the least because they really are criminals and not military so why should the UCMJ apply to them. Also why should they be kept in GITMO? My own opinion is that they are in fact combatants, saboteurs and spies and should be shot as such. I do believe the Geneva Convention allows for shooting such people.
More then anything they are not citizens of this country and should not be afforded rights and constitutional protection reserved for citizens. If we extend those rights and privileges to everyone in the world we cease to be a country.
jmarcure on October 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Heh, one can dream.
Geronimo on October 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM
This issue here is that our government says they might be killed if sent back to China. Duh…can you believe that? The US government feeling sorry for some terrorists, Geez..is Obama already President?
My view is to send them home to China. It is not our issue what China does with their own citizens.
kanda on October 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Go ahead dumb ass, turn them lose. Then put on your flak jacket, get under your desk and we’ll see what the do.
rplat on October 8, 2008 at 11:12 AM
One major terror strike in the financial condition we are in and it’s game over.
Don’t be surprised if a President Obama suddenly turns in to GWB II.
mylegsareswollen on October 8, 2008 at 12:42 PM
The USA and PRC have common interests when it comes to protecting our respective nations against Islamic terrorists.
If they are terrorists it’s highly likely that their target was China, not the US. We should acknowledge common interests, show good faith and let the Chinese deal with these.
DarkCurrent on October 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM
What constitutional rights? They’re POW’s, not US Citizens nor US resident aliens. They were captured during a war on foreign soil and have been incarcerated outside the United States. The only ‘rights’ they have and are even entitled to, in the least, are the basic human rights of palatable food, adequate shelter, and clothing. Period.
I dearly hope they find their way to the neighborhood where Urbina lives and set up shop right next door to him and his family.
FlatFoot on October 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
This judge’s decision plus the possibility that a true Communist sympathizer, militant socialist, and serial liar will get elected President means that we screwed, glued, and tatooed.
Pelayo on October 8, 2008 at 4:45 PM
since they like dynamite so much, I say strap them up with it and air drop them with fuses lit into a battle zone.
johnnyU on October 8, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Make this an issue in the next debate:
“Do you favor releasing into US society, terrorists who were captured on the battlefield. If so, how would you ensure they didn’t wage war against the US from US soil?”
If we can’t keep them in detention until the secession of hostilities, then send them back to their home countries. Let Amnesty International worry about their treatment then.
rbj on October 8, 2008 at 7:41 PM
When these characters captured in Asia are released in D.C., be sure to pitch tents for them on Anthony Kennedy’s lawn. Habeas Corpus? Why yes Mr. Associate Justice, you literally have the bodies, live and potentially violent offspring of your disastrous judgment.
Mark30339 on October 8, 2008 at 9:14 PM
My utterly inappropriate first hope is that these Uighers kill enough Democrats in the DC suburbs of Virginia that McCain takes the state as in the new Onion video. Honestly, I would just like them to try to kill Judge Urbina and I don’t think that is an inappropriate wish. If a judge rules by a bad gamble, he should have to accept the risks.
thuja on October 8, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2