But consider the national security implications if China gets annoyed. China just might stop funding America's deficits. China might export certain milk products to America. China might export children's toys with lead paint to America. China might burn even more dirty coal to export even more greenhouse gases throughout the world. China might give its rising middle class the means to buy more autos and thus compete with the US's overuse of oil, thus pushing up ever higher energy costs. Compare these costs to the small number of Uighurs who are being inconvenienced. National security, that's the ticket.
 

There is a difference between the relationship of "training sponsored by" and the type of association that produces alliance. Since we are dealing with definitions and law, let me stray from the specific facts in this case.

In Patriot Games, a group of Irish terrorists are trained in a camp sponsored by Islamic terrorists. However, the Irish still only want to kill the British and clearly are not part of an Islamic movement. So the principle that a "revolutionary state" would sponsor training for generic revolutionaries from around the world regardless of ideology is hardly new.

Had China decided that after 9/11 it would offer a token force of soldiers to help out in Afghanistan, then the Uighurs would be "enemy combatants". However, since they only want to fight against China, and since China is not part of the coalition, they cannot legally be classified by us as enemy combatants in this war.

So we have terrorists against a third party friendly nation whose internal policies we disapprove of (they torture) and so we cannot deport or extradite them to their homeland. They were sponsored but not allied with the Taliban, and they are not hostile to any coalition member, so they are not enemy combatants. They are still terrorists who went to Afghanistan for military training to use against a friendly country. The question is what to do with them now that we are stuck with them.

The suggestion that just because the law does not have a mechanism for dealing with foreign terrorists of the ETA, IRA, or Tamil Tiger type should they happen to fall into military hands in a combat zone does not inherently mean that the original goal of detaining dangerous (to others) terrorists was unfair.

Having said that, this particular bunch of guys do not appear to be hardened terrorists. They got some pistol training. They may not pose a serious threat to anyone. That, however, deals with the facts in this particular group and not the definitions and legal principles that I think the posting misrepresented. If around the corner some other group of Uighurs were getting training in bomb making and we captured them instead of this group, the law would still be the same, but they would be far more dangerous.
 

As to the facts...

Parhat and others admitted to making their way from China to Afghanistan and undergoing weapons training by and living with a terrorist group. Thus the claim that they were not members of that group, with the alternative being that they were simple tourists, is ridiculous on its face.

Furthermore, unless one believes that the Taliban routinely allowed foreign terrorist groups to set up bases in their country without permission, it is pretty safe to assume that the Taliban sanctioned this Chinese Islamic terrorist group as they did al Qaeda.

The court's conclusion that no evidence existed of Taliban sanction is simply wrong. One can simply look at the fact that the terrorists operated freely in Taliban territory as circumstantial evidence of this sanction. If your neighbor's son ran a meth lab out of the back bedroom of the house in which you lived, that is sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to find that you sanctioned this lab.

Finally, if this arrogant Court believes that it is a simple matter for the military to determine when a trained terrorist no longer poses a threat after about 5 percent of the previously released prisoners returned to the battlefield, then Judge Urbina is free to offer the military the benefit of his extensive military expertise to set out a rule to make this determination.

These erroneous findings of fact by this court provide yet further examples of why civilian courts are not at all equipped to make POW determinations.

As to the law...

Is there any precedent under the entire Anglo American history of habeas corpus review for a court to order that former foreign POWs be immigrated and released into the United States in violation of immigration law?

It was bad enough that the Boumediene Five rewrote the Constitution to invent a right of habeas corpus and arrogated Congress' power to set rules for captures in order to review military POW designations. Now, Judge Urbina has decided he has the power to rewrite immigration law.

This begs the question as to ow long the elected branches are going to sit appositely by while the "weakest branch" arrogates their powers and makes a complete hash out of what has always been a military decision?
 

I am sure there is nothing at all dangerous about a group of folks who received military training from the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. Just to be on the safe side, though, I vote that they live at Marty's house.
 

Typical, Bart, typical.

Our government does unprecedented things, and then its defenders ask what's the precedent for opposing those unprecedented acts?

As litigators know, some of the most frustrating arguments to oppose are the really stupid ones ... because there's no precedent to cite against them, no one having been so stupid before.
 

Bart, you are LYING, again.

What Judge Urbina said was:

"D.C. Circuit said that the information the Government was relying on was unreliable and that it could not constitute a basis for concluding that he was an enemy combatant even though the CSRT said he was."
Kiyemba transcript at 14.

And:

"The Government has not charged these petitioners with a crime and has presented no reliable evidence that they would pose a threat to U.S. interests. Moreover, the Government has stymied its own efforts to resettle the Petitioners by insisting, until recently, that they were enemy combatants, the same designation given to terrorists willing to detonate themselves amongst crowds of civilians."
Kiyemba transcript at 38.

Those are nothing more or less than plain statements of fact.

And you're lying about something else too --

These detainees are NOT POWs, the government has never claimed that they were POWs, and the government was unable to persuade the DC Circuit that there was any credible basis for treating them as "enemy combants" (assuming arrguendo that the term has some valid meaning in law) pursuant to the DTA. In reality, they are victims of WAR CRIMES committed against them by the Bush administration under a false color of law, and that's ALL that they are for the purposes of the law in this case.

Judge Urbina got it exactly right:

"Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause, the Government's continued detention of Petitioners is unlawful. Furthermore, because separation-of-powers concerns do not trump the very principle upon which this nation was founded, the unalienable right to liberty, the Court orders the Government to release the Petitioners into the United States."
Kiyemba transcript at 29.
 

I've got some pistol training. And heaven help me, I might say something that might hurt China's feelings. You should definitely lock me up.

It was fun watching Elizabeth: The Golden Age the other night. In addition to great performances and cinematography, there was also this delightfully refreshing idea that the Monarch can simply lock up anyone indefinitely for any reason or no reason at all, without trial or accusation or judicial review or interference from any quarter. Put 'em in the Tower. The Queen is above any law that says otherwise, the same way the Queen is above any law. Apparently our monarch George was in a golden age for the past seven years. So sad to see that age may be ending. Apparently we live in a post-1787 world.
 

Heh.

Let me add that we also live in a post-1649 world: Charles I got his head chopped off for committing many of the same crimes that Mr. Bush and his gang of terrorist war criminals have committed over the last seven years.
 

Boy, this is going to be one heck of a hearing on Friday, I wish I could be there or that it's broadcast. The Uighurs will be brought in (perhaps in shackles and jumpsuits). Urbina will explain to them what's happening, address the host families about their responsibilities, remind the government about his order preventing it from re-seizing them until after the hearing the following Thursday. Then they will each be paired up with their hosts and WALK OUT THE DOOR. How cool is that!! At last, a moment we can be proud of!!
 

Remember, in the previous case of 5 Uighurs who were accepted by Albania, Judge James Robertson ruled that he did not have the power to order them brought into the US. Judge Urbina now makes the opposite ruling. With a split in the District Court, it seems likely that the Circuit Court will decide to hear the appeal.
 

Readers may feel that Mr Gilbert's points in his post above are well taken.

Many states have a proud tradition of receiving refugees from oppressive states and granting them asylum. My country did so for both Jewish and Muslim refugees from Andalusia during the shameful Spanish "Reconquista", and likewise received Huguenot refugees from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, as well as French aristocrats during the worst of the terror of the French Revolution and in the 1900's many Jews who took refuge from pogroms in Russia and other disapora communities in Europe.

Voltaire was wont to live in a village now called Fernet-Voltaire so he could pop over the border into Geneva whenever the French king was particularly upset with him (today the Geneva tram (streetcar) system has a line which terminates at Fernet-Voltaire - one of the few places I know where one can make an international journey by tram for the price of a municipal transit ticket).

But all these refugees were aliens, admitted as an act of sovereign discretion - and a sovereign state displeased with the conduct of such a refugee - either before or after admission could prohibit entry or expel as a sovereign act unreviewable by any court.

It was quite common to make it a condition of asylum that the applicant should undertake not to engage in any political or other activity directed against the state from which he sought refuge (so as to avoid diplomatic embarrassment for the receiving state). Failure to abide by that undertaking could and often did result in expulsion.

Developing concepts of human rights and international treaties have changed all that for the general good and there is now usually judicial oversight of the refugee and asylum process - with however a considerable (often excessive) degree of deference to the executive.

Unfortunately, in their eagerness to fight terrorism, the distinction made by many states between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" has become blurred. I can think of many states where a thinking person would conceive that the inhabitants had a perfect right to resist the régime in power and even a duty to seek to overthrow it.

I would argue that the citizens of the 13 colonies of British North America had a perfect right to consider their bonds of allegiance to the British Crown dissolved by reason of what were then conceived of as breaches of the social contract between monarch and subjects (even though, with hindsight, evolution might have been preferable to revolution as shown by the experience of Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

I believe rebellions in former Belgian, British, Dutch and French colonies were either excusable or wholly justified and, of course, as decolonisation played out it was amusing to see how many heads of state and of government received by HM the Queen, had formerly been guests of Her Majesty as prisoners in colonial jails - often after conviction of acts of "terrorism".

But the power of modern repressive régimes is such that often they can only be overthrown by making the territory ungovernable - by acts of terrorism. Algeria could not have won its independence by any other means. It is doubtful that the apartheid regime in South Africa could have been overthrown without similar acts.

The idiocy of some of the present anti-terrorism legislation is exemplified by the fact that the USA designated the African National Congress as a "terrorist organisation" and in order for Nelson Mandela to be able visit the USA, President Bush had to sign special legislation CNN Report. It is ironic that a man morally unfitted to tie Nelson Mandela's shoe laces, a man by whose orders some quite unspeakable atrocities have been perpetrated during the last 8 years, should have signed legislation to permit such a great world statesman (which the Toxic Texan most assuredly is not) to enter the USA.

Legislative idiocy is not, however, the exclusive preserve of the USA. Had the UK Terrorism Act 2000 been in force at the time of the Boston Tea Party, the patriots who threw the the consignments of tea into the harbour would all have been liable for conviction as "terrorists", so widely is the legislation drawn. And, of course, the application of the legislation is often very selective: how else is "Hamas" a "terrorist" organsation and many Israeli "settler" groups not?

The short answer may be that we should be wary of legislation designating whole organisations as "terrorist" tarring all adherents with the same brush, but that the state should have discretion to refuse to admit a particular alien whose personal conduct makes him ineligble for admission - on grounds which a court can examine if challenged by way of judicial review.

Turning now to the issue of the Uighurs. The first point is that for most rational people, Uighurs would be considered "freedom fighters" as opposed to terrorists. They are a people of different ethnicity (Turkic) to the Chinese. They are a majority in their province. They do not want to live in an atheistic state which prevents them practising their religion and adhering to their own social customs. What on earth is wrong with that? Contrast the situation of the East Timorese and Indonesia.

Suppose Mr X, a Uighur, had presented himself and sought asylum in the USA (difficult, of course, given the distance). As I understand the position, the immigration authorities would have considered his position and they might, or might not have granted him asylum. But under the Torture Convention, he could not be deported to China. Under present legislation, if the USA had a valid reason to deport him, he could be detained for up to 90 days to see if he could be lawfully deported or accepted by a suitable 3rd country, but failing that he would have had to be released. See the two Supreme Court cases cited in the Scotusblog report I referred to yesterday on a previous thread Zadvydas v. Davis and Clark v. Martinez

There is no reason why Congress should not legislate for continued supervision of potential refugees who would be deported if the torture convention did not prevent that. It would probably have to stop short of a deprivation of liberty, but, for example,the European Court of Human Rights and the UK Courts have held that requirements of residence in a specific place, or of reporting periodically to the police, or tagging and the like are not necessarily a breach of human rights if objectively justified on imperative security grounds - provided the measures are potentially applicable to nationals and non-nationals alike.

For the Congress and the Supreme Court to decide if that could be lawful and constitutional.

In the exceptional circumstances where the US Government itself took the applicants into custody, transported them across the world and has now detaining them illegally for 7 years, I would hope that the very least the Court could do would be to order their release on terms pending regularisation of their immigration position.

I sincerely hope that the US Court of Appeals for the District will see through the transparent nature of the motion to stay and summarily deny it. Unfortunately, the DC Court has been packed like no other with some pretty dubious appointments and there is reason to fear that they will not have the (no disrepect) "cojones" of Judge Urbina.

Of course the Administration is petrified by the implications as regards other detainees.

But one of the implacable laws of public administration is that of unforeseen consequences. Had the Administration accepted the UN Chapter VII resolution on offer for its intervention in Afghanistan, it would have routinely included a provision for humane internment of suspects for the duration of the emergency subject to review at 6 monthly intervals.

But the Administration wished to be free of inconvenient restraints (such as the International Red Cross) because it had felonious designs on the prisoners it acquired. And it tried to create a legal 'black hole' at Guantanamo, the better to continue its felonious purposes.

But, although scandalously slowly, the US Courts have eventually and by incremental stages come down on the side of right and the rule of law. Whether that yet includes the possibility of civil remedies, I am not competent to say - but I would hope that if none presently exists, a right thinking Congress might soon move to provide one, if for no other reason than for the honour of the United States.

As for the comments of our resident LSR, Bart, his shallow draughts from the Pierian spring have plainly intoxicated what passes for his brain.
 

What is the basis for a stay pending appeal? I think it's well-established that there has to be a release remedy. I think St. Cyr says that prison-like settings are not permissible. There's no such thing as being at liberty on a Navy base, which is where they are now. Urbina says there's no basis for finding them to be a danger (unlike the Red Scare-driven Shaughnessy). I think the circuit in Parhat indicated that it would be just as happy to put the power of the status quo beind the Uighurs, at least for one week.
 

This is a ridiculous ruling, the court is requiring the forced immigration to the US of potential terrorist. What!? say the outraged dogooders in their ivory towered tenure, or their Manhatten law offices they are only potential terrorists so we must let them free. Two or three simple questions. 1. What is their immigration status? Aren't they now illegal aliens? Can't we lock them up for not having a valid visa? 2. Couldn't we drop their butts right back where we found them? I think a good solution to this is send them back to Afghanistan and put them right where they were captured, they found their way in they can find their way out. Shouldn't be a problem. 3. Couldn't we send them to China with a guarantee they will not be tortured? Fact is, they will most likely be executed in fairly short order, but we execute people all the time and there is no law I'm aware of that prevents extradition with the death penalty.

Finally, who has the burden of proof as to their suitability to be what are now essentially resident aliens? In a sane world, shouldn't the Uighers be required to prove they are NOT a danger rather than the US having to prove they are? Again, our Ivory tower and Manhatten lawyers will scream at the injustice of it all, but that's kind of the breaks when you leave your country and take up arms in a foreign land.

This whole thing is unreal. I guess Hamdan (OBL's driver) will be released to a neighborhood near you once his sentence is up.
 

Well Howard, I'd suggest you read the hearing transcript: Judge Robertson's opinion in Qassim is discussed at some length, and the notion that there is anything in it that would represent a split with Judge Urbina's ruling is, at best, wishful thinking.

What he said was that that Qassim's detention was unlawful but he had no relief to offer under the circumstances, and he issued his opinion so that the detainee's would at least have something tangible to appeal.

And in Boumediene, the Supreme Court said relief was in fact available depending on the particular circumstances of each case. The standard of review going forward is actually pretty simple in concept: the courts must provide "meaningful opportunity" to show that a detention is unlawful, while guarding against "real danger" to public safety.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

... to invent a right of habeas corpus...

Sorry, a matter of priority here. The English invented that close to a millennium ago. You can't patent what others have already invented.

Cheers,
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Scott, that's silly: the government has already failed to show any evidence that any of these particular detainees are a "potential terrorist" any more than you are.

Your argument boils down to this at best: that ANY adult who is capable of acting rationally is potentially a terrorist, you included, just as any adult might commit any other crime.

It's just paranoid drivel, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for even saying such a thing. It's pure PREJUDICE that reflects nothing but your own unreasoning malice towards people you don't even know.

And the standards of proof for convicting someone of a crime is not exactly a novel issue.
 

Mourad:

1) Please spare us the history of EU countries accepting political and religious refugees. There is not a single EU nation including your own willing to take these terrorists - not one.

2) Judge Urbina did not order that these terrorists be allowed to apply for asylum in the United States. Rather, he simply ignored the immigration laws and ordered them immigrated.

3) Terrorism - war against civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them into submission - is terrorism no matter whether you support the cause for which the terrorism was waged. The ANC waged terrorism and was thus a terrorist group even if their goal was to lift apartheid.

4) These terrorists are not innocent immigrants who made it into the United States and were then released for lack of a country to which to deport them. Instead, we have a court unlawfully compelling the government to immigrate these terrorists.
 

Bart,

The truth is that these detainees were kidnapped on the orders of a terrorist named George Bush in violation of US law.

YOU are more of a terrorist than any of these detainees are you contemptible liar.
 

Consider the cases of Lenin and Trotsky. Both of them found asylum in other countries despite their ideology -- Trotsky even wrote a book justifying terrorism -- precisely because they were dangerous only to Russia and no one else. Thus, even if the Uighurs were dangerous to China, that wouldn't necessarily justify a refusal to release them in the US.

What is their immigration status? Aren't they now illegal aliens?

Only in the sense that they were seized illegally by the US government. I rather doubt you meant it that way. But otherwise, no, of course they can't be -- they were transported by government authority. And if released in the US by court order, that would also be legal.

Couldn't we send them to China with a guarantee they will not be tortured?

Not according to the Bush Administration.

Fact is, they will most likely be executed in fairly short order, but we execute people all the time and there is no law I'm aware of that prevents extradition with the death penalty.

I don't know if we have an extradition treaty with China (I doubt it), but even if we did, China would have to go through the treaty procedures. It hasn't done so despite ample time.
 

Scott said:-

"...but we execute people all the time..."

Indeed, the USA is right in there with all these other states noted for their unconcern for human rights:-

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, USA, Vietnam, Yemen.
 

Isn't it likely that the reason that the government doesn't want them released is that they may tell the media about the torture they underwent?
 

Bart appears to be having difficulties with his English as well as his law. He wrote:-

"Instead, we have a court unlawfully compelling the government to immigrate these terrorists."

Firstly, "to immigrate" is an intransitive verb meaning "to enter a country of which one is not a citizen usually with a view to settlement". The verb cannot be used transitively. Correct English usage would be "to admit".

Secondly, when a court orders the government to do something, that order is by definition lawful unless and until an appellate jurisdiction holds otherwise.

Our resident loathsome spotted reptile should really stop whining. This is just another case of incompetent lawyers getting too clever for their own good.

Any competent lawyer would have known that the law abhors 'legal black holes' and will strive to find a way to avoid that conclusion.

The Administration should have retained more more expert and less arrogant counsel. As a result of not so doing, the Administration has been caught with its pants down. Not for the first time.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

The ANC waged terrorism and was thus a terrorist group even if their goal was to lift apartheid.

The Contras, the Honduran dictators, the Chile regime, the U.S. anti-Castro rabble, Rios-Montt in Guatemala, and many other fine groups propped up and supported by the U.S. -- in the guise of "fighting communism" -- were terrorists too. In many cases they worked to overthrow the elected governments of these countries, most often by violent means. But "Bart" (and his RW cronies) luuuuvvvvss him these terrorists. See, e.g. Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada....

Cheers,
 

Scott:

... there is no law I'm aware of that prevents extradition with the death penalty.

Well, yes, there are such laws. A number of other countries won't extradite to the U.S. w/o a guarantee that the death penalty won't be sought, precisely for that reason. It has gotten in the way of terrorism investigations and prosecutions, and also the side-effects of U.S. policy on this and other fronts has been to reduce international co-operation with the U.S. on intelligence, etc.

Cheers,
 

Marty,


If we begin to think like the administration (heaven forbid), then we might see their next argument. Something like this:

We have held the Uighurs for six years. With no reason. We therefore cannot release them into the United States because they will likely want revenge for what we did to them. QED.
 

DC Court of Appeals orders temporary stay: Order
 

Here is the law upon which the government requested and received the stay and will most likely win the appeal.
 

Stay of course a big disappointment. Also the refusal of the motions panel to refer the case to the Parhat panel.

The government lawyer at the hearing said that the Uighurs had had training with AK-47s and Kalashnikovs, and that as a result it would be the government's duty to re-arrest them under the immigration laws. However, Judge Urbina found that they had been trained only in rifles and pistols. These are, of course, the very weapons that Heller found to be within the right of people to possess for hunting, self-defense and protection from tyrrany.
 

Remember that in 1994 around 30,000 Cuban "boat people" were collected by the Coast Guard and temporarily interned in Guantanamo Bay. So there is nothing unusual about foreign civilians held at Guantanamo because they are not authorized to enter the US and we will not send them back to their home country for fear of persecution.

The Uighurs have been released from military detention. They are free to leave Guantanamo on any ship or to any country that will take them. If they make their own arrangements, the military will not stop them. That is as much as the court can order. The US is under no obligation to give them a better deal.

If they are unable to make arrangements to leave, then the US can hold them in the same type of immigration detention that applied to the Cuban boat people. They may not be considered enemy combatants, but they still have the same status they had when they were turned over to us by Pakistan. They are people who lost the only country (Taliban Afghanistan) willing to take them.
 

Howard,

I have to disagree. You say:

"The US is under no obligation to give them a better deal."

Setting aside all of the prejudicial factual assumptions you make ahead of that conclusion, the conclusion itself begs a very basic question:

Just exactly what does obligate the United States with respect to these detainees or any other person of any nationality?

Unless you can answer that, you have no basis for any claim regarding what the US is NOT obligated to do.

And given the sweeping breadth of your assertions and the distinct inaccuracy of your factual claims, I'd actually like some definite answer to that before I even attempt to address the issues.
 

"The government lawyer at the hearing said that the Uighurs had had training with AK-47s and Kalashnikovs, and that as a result it would be the government's duty to re-arrest them under the immigration laws."

And what about the NRA training non-immigrants in the use of such weaponry? That's okay? That makes America safer?
 

DC Circuit decision in Parhat citing Parhat's own statements:
"At the camp, he received training on a Kalashnikov rifle and a pistol, which “consisted of weapon disassembly and cleaning,” Pet’r Br. 18 n.22 (quoting CSRT Exhibit R3, at 2 (App. 37))3; performed guard duty, see CSRT Exhibit R7, at 2 (App. 52); ... He sought the training, he said, only to fight the Chinese government. Id. encl. 1, at 2 (App. 12); id. encl. 3, at 3-4 (App. 21-22)."

So from his own statements, the Uighurs sought and received military training in order to fight the Chinese. If China was an ally, this would make them enemy combatants. Since China is neutral and they are not hostile to the US or any of its allies, they are not legally enemy combatants. If it could be established that they were terrorists under any generally accepted definition, then we would be obligated to detain them under Security Council Resolution 1269. However, if you just regard them as a national liberation movement, then we have no obligation to protect China from them and can release them unconditionally. At this point it becomes a matter of semantics.

These men had been living in Afghanistan, but they were captured in Pakistan and turned over to the coalition. Before releasing them, we have to be mindful of our obligations under SC 1269:

to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, protect their nationals and other persons against terrorist attacks and bring to justice the perpetrators of such acts;
- prevent and suppress in their territories through all lawful means the preparation and financing of any acts of terrorism;
- deny those who plan, finance or commit terrorist acts safe havens by ensuring their apprehension and prosecution or extradition;
- take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum-seeker has not participated in terrorist acts;

Given their admitted intention of fighting China, if we allow these people into the US then don't we have an obligation under the Security Council resolution to keep them under some form of supervision to ensure that they can never act on that intention. So the question I have is: What is the legal framework that permits an individual admitted to the US by judicial order to be legally constrained and supervised to prevent his participation in the categories of activity that we are obligated to prohibit in order to fulfil our obligations? What exactly is the status, rights, and obligations of someone who has entered the US under judicial order rather than being admitted by immigration or entered illegally? Can the courts order the executive to apply to these cases one of the normal categories of immigrant status?
 

Howard Gilbert:

If they are unable to make arrangements to leave, then the US can hold them in the same type of immigration detention that applied to the Cuban boat people.

The Cuban boat people voluntarily tried to get into the U.S. That really is one big difference.

Cheers,
 

Given that complete U.S. jurisdiction extends to Guantánamo, why aren't they "in the U.S." already?

Cheers,
 

Actually every Cuban who sets foot on American soil gets humanitarian parole. It is also very common for even failed asylum seekers and other deportable immigrants to be given deportation relief and parole into the US if they cannot be returned to their home country under the Convention Against Torture. The government only has a limited amount of time, usually six months, in order to look for an alternative country of repatriation (this is under the Zadvydas case)and if one is not found the immigrant must be released into the US, even if he or she has committed a grave crime inside the US. This just isn't that remarkable a scenario to anyone with a basic understanding of immigration law.
 

It is plain from the transcript of the hearing Urbina Transcript that the Judge was certainly alive to the immigration issues - which is why he ordered a representative from Homeland Security to be present at the hearing to set the definitive terms of - release, parole, term it how you will.

The Administration argument that the detainees present a clear and present danger to US security is somewhat hypocritical - since the Administration has already bribed Albania into taking some Uighur ex detainees and has been begging other counties to help it avoid the consequences of its felonious conduct.

It is nevertheless unsurprising that LSR Bart should post above:-

"Here is the law upon which the government requested and received the stay and will most likely win the appeal"

The link Bart gave was not to any statute, but to the Administration's Emergency Motion. It's a strange stance for anyone claiming to be a lawyer to postulate that a mere notice of motion should be "the law". Certainly in the UK, and I assume in the USA, it is not for a party to proceedings to determine what the law is. That is for the Court to determine after hearing argument.

Of course, we must accept that for LSR Bart and his fellow ideologues, what they postulate is that any determination of the Court and any provisions of the Constitution be trumped by the determination of Reichsfurher Bush that these unfortunate Uighurs are "enemy combatants".

Everyone seems to have assumed that Senator McCain's recent reference at a rally to "My Fellow Prisoners" was merely one of those temporal displacements which in the elderly are often a precursor of the onset of dementia. Perhaps not.

The claim of the extreme right is that the President can designate anyone, anywhere in the world, an "enemy combatant", cause them to be kidnapped and transported to some legal black hole and tortured and detained ad infinitum - all at the president's whim.

So perhaps you and we all are "fellow prisoners" liable to be taken into custody at any moment.

Needless to say, this fascist ideology comes wrapped in the stars and stripes -but it is no less fascist for that.
 

Howard,

Security Council Resolution 1269??

Give me a break.

What about the Constitution and laws of the United States?

Would it be OK with you for Mr. Bush to order these men boiled in oil or gang raped for sport?

Do you actually believe in anything, or is everything just a matter of inventing excuses in order to pretend that whatever you do is right just because you say so?

Would you seriously claim that the colonists who engaged the British at Concord and Lexington in 1775 were terrorists?

Indeed, that they were terrorists even before the fired a shot in anger merely because they had trained in the use of firearms?

Now if you want to talk about facts we can do that, but I will want to look at ALL of the facts, and not just a select few.