Bushco Held Detainees At Gitmo Illegally
Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington has ordered the release of five Algerian men who have been held illegally at Guantanamo Bay for almost seven years.
It was the first hearing on the government’s evidence for holding detainees at Guantánamo. The judge…said the government’s secret evidence in the case had been weak: what he described as “a classified document from an unnamed source” for its central claim against the men, with little way to measure credibility.
“To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation,” Judge Leon said. He urged the government not to appeal and said the men should be released “forthwith.”
The Supreme Court ruled in June that the men had a right to seek their release in federal court. Leon is a Bush appointee who ruled in 2005 that these men had no habeas corpus rights.
As he read his decision in a quiet courtroom, he seemed to bridle at the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying its effect was “to superimpose the habeas corpus process into the world of intelligence gathering.”
Sounds like Leon didn’t like his own decision, but did the right thing by obeying the law, one with which he appears to disagree.
Lawyers for other detainees said the decision was a repudiation of the Bush administration’s effort to use the detention center at the American naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to avoid scrutiny by American judges. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to close the prison.
I’m impressed. He may have polar opposite viewpoints on what civil liberties the detainees are entitled to, but he followed the law.
Give the man a pat on the back.
Is it weird that I’m happy that a Bush appointed judge did the proper thing?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Can’t remember where I heard it, but I remember someone in the conservative media talking about how these prisoners are going to take up arms with Al Quaeda as soon as they’re sprung.
I’m thinking, if they hadn’t considered it before they were detained for 7 years without charges, enduring cruel and unusual torture, they’d be superhuman if they didn’t at least give it a thought NOW.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
So where are they going to go. Maybe Alan can adobt a few to work in the radio studio.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Off topic: http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2008/11/20/dog-identity-breed-forbeslife-cx_ds_1121dog.html?partner=yahoobuzz
What Your Dog Says About You
“Got a Beagle? You are inquisitive and willing to learn new things. The Beagle is constantly questioning. If you own one of these dogs, chances are you are a curious, willful person who is loyal to friends, tough on enemies and pretty stubborn.”
November 21st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
So where are they going to go. Maybe Alan can adobt a few to work in the radio studio.
Posted by Seperate man
………………………….
The assumption is ALWAYS that they are guilty.
Many are innocent people who were rounded up in sweeps.
If it were you, and you were held for seven years, what would you do?
Would you accept…’Oops, sorry.’?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
“Is it weird that I’m happy that a Bush appointed judge did the proper thing?”
Posted by Jim from Jersey
I think that, because Obama was elected president, many Bush appointees are suddenly becoming enlightened and “doing the right thing”.
In other words, jumping ship. You can bet if McCain was elected, everything would still be status quo.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
…Much like Lieberman. He critized Obama every chance he got during campaigning, but now that Obama became president-elect, Lieberman can’t say enough nice things about him.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“Is it weird that I’m happy that a Bush appointed judge did the proper thing?”
No, in fact we celebrate this historic occasion in which a Bush appointee actually placed the rule of law, and legal precedence, and the US constitution above his own personal partisan views and biases–just like a judge is supposed to do.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
make them all citizens so can get health care for thier insanity !
November 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I hope you’re wrong TDro.
I really want to believe in honor again.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Honor may only be restored with katanas. Obama and Lieberman must meet on Fuji mountain. It is the way.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Now I have anime style images of Obama and Lieberman squaring off in my head. The wind blows hard, snow whipping around offset barely by a gray sky, Obama in his white sweatband adorned with the ‘O’ logo, Lieberman dressed like a ninja.
We need to write this stuff down. This could be money.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Obama’s head on Uma Thurman’s body.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Japanese guy singing YOOOOHHHH while bamboo sticks are whacked together.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Again, Alan, there’s a dog owner personality story here, look now, go see. Frankly, though, I only looked at the paragraph on beagles.
Speaking of your dog, have you ever played Bonny Portmore for him?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/GameJunkieJim/UmaObama.jpg
November 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Yes! And see his white hands? It means his pigmentation is not racist.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Crap. I forgot about the hands.
Oh well, whatcha want for 20 seconds of photoshop.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Obama would not allow you to change them. He is inclusive!
November 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
make them all citizens. they can run for office then. lol.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
found what’s likely to be one of Alan’s next blog posts. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20081121/pl_ynews/ynews_pl158
November 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Seriously, what should we do with them. if we let them out they will bomb something. Wouldn’t they ????
November 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Some will, some won’t.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Well, some might. And apparently some have. So, apparently, everyone must therefor be guilty in your view, Jerry.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Probably NOW they will. Being falsely imprisoned tends to create distrust, fear and hate for one’s captor.
Should have never happened in the first place, since it’s a violation of civil rights, the Geneva Convention, and American ideology.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I say we have a contest between the libs and cons on this blog, who’s methods for government work the best.
NationStates anyone?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I like this Obama vs Lieberman on Mont Fuji with swords idea. Can we start settling all international and tax policy disputes in such a manner. Like if a candidate was going to be a ‘maverick’ and challenge their party then they would have to do honrable battle with the party chair. I could finally hear a candidate run on the ‘I’m Spiderman and Superman combinded’ ticket. Or instead of holding elections we could have big tournament of champions and crown the victor President. Think of the ratings!!
Seriously, I could scream with joy that this process has finally begun. First stage is giving these HUMAN B EINGS due consideration under the law. Second, is making some crystal clear laws that make sure this never happens again. Third, slapping the lips of anyone who supports holding people without charges or trial dates. I really wonder just how much alor of conservatives love this country. We didn’t go through all the trouble of creating the legal system just so a President could wipe it all away. We didn’t forge a more perfect union so people could twist this country into a tyranny in the name of combating terrorism.
Very valid question being asked here: where do they go?
Well the most likely situation is they will be released. This sounds like a bad thing but think about what we do with convicted criminals here in America. Do your time and welcome back to society when yor done. Well have these people done their time or do the Bush folks want them to spend a little more time in cages? Personaly I trust the military to do their job in finding the actual terrorists and letting go the innocents. Somehow I don’t see Hannity/Limbaugh/O’Reilly trusting the military in this manner. I guess the faith in our service men and women stops when you start talking about detainees.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
What we do with them is nothing, unless we have legal ground to place them somewhere else where we can prevent those among them who do want to harm us from succeeding. Respect for the rights of people means accepting the consequences of not denying them those rights. If we release the Gitmo detainees, they’ll do what they will, and we can react accordingly, but we can’t indefinitely hold them, no matter how reasonable a supposition of what they will do is. But I’m probably different from many on this issue in one regard: I am fine with releasing those detained without sufficient legal reason, but I acknowledge that that alone is not proof of innocense, and accept that, by my siding with the release of them, I take on some culpability for any terrorizism they might commit, or commit again.
An assumption of innocense isn’t a statement of objective fact, it’s a principle against the acceptance of guilt without due process. Likely, in many cases, we don’t know for certain if a person is guilty or innocent, only that the prosecution could not prove the former, which is its burden once it attempts to try a defendant.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
No luck loging into the chat stream, again.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
http://www.nationstates.net/43829/page=display_region/region=liberaland
November 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Its a credit to our country and military as well as our “American values” that the Gitmo prisoners were taken off the battlefield alive.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Send them to Texas with Bush.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 am
Gee Bernie…how many were taken off battlefields? How many were turned over by tribal leaders for dollars handed out by Americans…whether they were actually fighting for their side or not? Neither of us will ever know because government secrtecy has been used to evade exposure of the sources. No one knows their credibility. Such is the problem with this profoundly distorted system of justice. One would bet that if bernie were turned in for ransom…he’d be the first demanding a fair system. This crazy new kind of war and terrorism has strained our capacity to do what is right…but I count on our Constitution and laws to prevail rather than a Bush designed jury-rigged methodology to arrive at the truth! And it is a tribute to us and our values that they weren’t just wholesale shot. (Unlike the CIA handling of the plane inderdiction which netted a missionary and her family)
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I love the way they define “battlefields” to mean anywhere they want a battlefield to be….
Just as unconstitutional was the designation of enemy combatant……mystical warrior would be about the same.
I believe we may be seeing the prelude to several charges of warcrimes against and administration that tortured, invaded using lies to support an illegal intent, destroyed protections under our constitution, killed multitudes of civilians in Iraq, and abused our civil privacy repeatedly.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Just read an article on Huffington about Obama, perhaps, setting up a commission to investigate the torture of people, imprisoning of people, and other violations of Geneva Convention (and American law) done by the Bush administration.
Such a commission may result in the first past president, vice president, and others being rightfully tried for crimes against humanity (including the American people).
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Anyone who feels so strongly about how unfair these prisoners have been treated should stand by their convictions and petition the government to let a Gitmo detainee come live them.That would be fair wouldn’t it? But that would mean making your wives cover their face as not to offend these men—and throwing out your bible.
The candle holders at an execution should be allowed to do the same–let a convicted killer come live them and their children.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Bryan,
What if it were you or your son?
Just happened to be at home when they sweep a neighborhood and pick up every male, and hold them for 7 years?
Well have to go now….can’t respond.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I pray to God that there are no liberals in power when we have to go into another war. Really, you guys want to treat illegal war detainees like they just robbed the local conviencence store!!
These people are very dangerous terrorists who will, whenever they get the chancec, take up arms again against our troops. Or worse yet, strap a bomb to their chest and possible walk into a mall somewhere in the U.S. and murder dozens of innocent women and children. Will you libs then cry and moan and complain about holding them at Gitmo, that they should have never shut Gitmo down?
They are not your average criminal but are terrorists who want to destroy our way of life and you want to give them constitutional protections!!!!!!
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!! Are you sure your allegience is with the United States of America???!!!
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
LEFTY I can’t answer that question—there have been no sweeps in North Carolina like that.But if my children picked up arms against the U.S. and hung out with terroist,I’d send a Birthday and Christmas card to Gitmo.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Willy, is yours?
It seems to me you’re ignoring key parts of American culture, like Due Process, Liberty and Justice for ALL, how about innocent until proven guilty? Do we have the same evidence for these people being terrorists as we did for WMDs in Iraq?
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Jim,
These people were picked up on the battlefield during wartime fighting for the enemy. If we went by your standards during WWII, we probably would have had a very much harder time defeating Nazi Germany because we probably would have had to release tens of thousands of Naze prisoners back to Germany where they would no doubt have taken up arms again against the U.S and it’s allies.
How would you feel if any of the released detainees were to come back to the U.S. and blow up some member of your family, God forbid?
Thele people should not be protected by our constitution. They are fighting to destroy our constitution and our very way of life and you want to give them protections under our Constitution??!!!!!
I don’t think that is a very rational thing to do.
My allegience is and always will be with the United States of America.
Let’s not be liberal about this. It is way to important to the security of our country.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Now…where is the current “battlefield” that these people were picked up on???? You better check, since most were not in either of the two countries being occupied by Americans.
I hope a liberal is in office if we have a war….because, they will respect the Geneva Convention to ensure we keep the high moral ground rather than wallowing in the Bush made gutter….
Let’s put the detainees in all the homes of people who voted for Bush….karma.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“Thele people should not be protected by our constitution. They are fighting to destroy our constitution and our very way of life and you want to give them protections under our Constitution??!!!!!”
Not really….most are innocent until proven guilty….without torture.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Jersey–”Amreican Culture like Due Process,Liberty and Justice for All” applies to Amreicans does it not?How and where does that apply to a foreign combatant detainee?They are not part of American Culture,in fact they hate our culture.They have no rights to be treated as an American.
So answer Willy’s question–is your Allegiance to The Unites States of America or to some sort of world order who only applies our beliefs when it helps their cause? As Willy said–”UNBELIEVABLE !!”
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Bryan, your arguement was not accepted by our Supreme Court. They have rights. They are in our custody. We are to treat them with respect until they are proven guilty of crimes against humanity or the American people.
Take it up with the court run by your republican selected judge.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
If we cannot respect our Constitution for everyone, we might as well not follow it at all.
Indeed yes, everyone we deal with should be afforded Constitutional protections. It is the best way to put our money where our mouth is.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
These illegal combatants are not covered by the Geneva Convention. They are not uniformed soldiers fighting for a country. They are terrorists who are fighting anyone who does not agree to follow the muslim faith. You had better chech your facts first.
Where is the proof that we are torturing these detainees? Is your proof from the mouths of the detainees? Are you telling me you believe the comments of the enemy who want to destroy us? They are trained to say these things before they do battle with us in order to bring doubt to how they are being treated. And the media and you liberals swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Like Barnum said, “there is one born every minute.” I hope you aren’t one of them Robert.
Could you please tell me, Robert, where in the constitution it says that we must give illegal combatants constitutional rights? I’ll be waiting for your answer.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Bryan hit the nail on the head when he said that the terrorist only “apply our beliefs when it helps their cause.” Can’t you libs see what they are tring to pull here?
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Nobody in that place is convicted as being a terrorist…..but, if you believe in the Bush “Patriot Act”……anyone can be called a terrorist by any police or FBI person….and, the person deemed a “terrorist” immediately loses all rights we used to enjoy……even you.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Willy, our own government has admitted to torture techniques. Try again.
And enough with the ‘illegal’ combatants crap. They were combatants. Being able to afford uniforms doesn’t make you any more ‘legal’ of a combatant. It just makes you a well equipped one. Those were people fighting for their own way of life over there – which may not be what we agree with, but it’d be the same thing if this country were invaded, and all the NRA clubs and Montana Militias took to arms and began fighting. Does that mean if we were invaded and our government toppled, that our patriots would not be deserving of due process by our captors?
I’m not saying we’d get it, but that’s why I believe America is better than that. We DO have that precedent, we do have those laws, and we DO have the Constitution, and we need to live by it in ALL aspects of our life.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Jim,
The mojority of muslims do not agree with the terrorists. Therefore they are not fighting for a way of life but for, and you will probably think I am crazy, a way to oppress the world with their beliefs.
If they are fighting for their way of life over there, then why did they come over here and attack us?
They are not fighting for a country, therefore they are illegal combatants. They attack us, we hit back.
You seem to forget the 17 UN resolutions that Saddam thumbed his nose at. Breaking the resolution that ended the first conflict was the same as saying that the hostilities would therefore continue if we so desired. We could not let a thug like Saddam continue to thumb his nose at the world and not take action. “In order for evil to prosper if for good men to do nothing.” I don’t know if that is a correct quote but it is close. I’m sorry, but I cannot remember who said that, but I believe it was during WWII. Please correct me if I am wrong.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
So, we should attack anyone who ignores a UN resolution?
If so, Isreal is our next target? How many resolutions have included Darfor? Should we attack them?
Japan and Norway have resolutions against them about whaling that they ignore…should we attack them?
Saddam was contained. He was not the worst thug in the neighborhood….we had the Taliban to play with…and we didn’t finish the job.
We have no business trying to convert the middle east into the middle west. We are not nation builders…or, at least that is what conservatives keep proclaiming before Bush. If we remove permanent bases from the middle east, we would reduce tensions and terrorism dramatically. We could keep ample strike forces in Africa or in Europe. We don’t need to insert our armies into the Arabian penninsula or the Middle East.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
We have permanent bases in the middle east because those nations approve of them. We don’t put them there at our dictate. We are not thugs who force our will on others.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Robert–Whats all this “Your” crap?–Are you an American or not? My President is Your President—My Supreme Court is Your Supreme Court.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Hey, gotta go for now. Great debating you Robert. Have a great evening.
God bless you.
God bless America
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
As bad as I hate to do this I agree with Jersey–”Those people are fighting for their way if life” Their way says they MUST destroy all in the world does not have their relgious beliefs,not a 100,000—not 1,000,000 but ALL.As far as Gitmo goes—shave their head,spray them for lice ,feed them twice day,let them pray—or we can turn them loose and give them another chance to kill more Americans.Anybody have a better plan?
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Take care, Willy….I respect your right to disagree with my very existance!
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
“Robert–Whats all this “Your” crap?–Are you an American or not? My President is Your President—My Supreme Court is Your Supreme Court.
Posted by Bryan
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm”
I reject the concept that I must accept Bush as my president. I didn’t elect him the first time, and didn’t elect him the second. His elections were illegal in my view and therefore, not valid.
I believe that the Supreme Court is in danger of becoming an agent of a political party…the republican party. I, therefore, express my opinion that it isn’t “my” Supreme Court when it acts against the best interests of the American people.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
So Robert you reject the basis of our government,is that what you are saying.That it’s only “your” government when they do things “you’ agree with or whenever the poeple “you” voted for are in office.
If you don’t agree with Free Elections tell us what form of government you do agree with.(The 8 year old Gore gripe has run it’s coarse—he lost and has accepted it why can’t you)
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Free elections…yes. Stolen elections (Florida and Ohio)…no.
It has nothing to do with Gore..or Kerry…it has to do with curruption, lies, abuse of power, and disgracing a flag that I fought for and that many I know died for….we didn’t do that for someone …George and the boys…to disregard the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the American people.
He’s a criminal and so is his vice president. They set the tone for the disaster he called an administration.
I’m not a George hater….I just believe in justice and American values.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Robert–Admit Bush is your President—it’s simple.If you believe in America and the Freedom we have here(thank you for your service to insure that)like you say—then Bush is your President.This is a stupid arguement with only one answer.If you are an American–Bush is your President.
Your brothers in Arms where and always will be your brothers.True? Did you have a choice on who those men where?No. Where they not your brothers under the American flag? Use that mentality and apply it all the way up the Commander in Cheif.Whatever President you served under was your Commander in Cheif.
So how can you claim that Bush is NOT your President?
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Good Lord. Back to “stolen elections.” If you want to see election corruption, take a stroll on YouTube and see the video of the Black Panthers standing outside a polling center with billy clubs in PA, or a young man denied entrance into a polling place in PA, even though he had a voter registration card. Both of these incidents happened THIS election at polling places where there was a heavy democrat presence.
George Bush won both times, legally. You can claim hanging chads, etc. etc. etc. The fact remains that he has been our commander in chief for the past 8 years. I didn’t vote for Obama, but I do respect the office of President.
Why can’t you show the same respect? The only thing I can think of is you are so partisan you refuse to put your country ahead of your own stubborness and scorn.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I think the criminals there should be released and allowed to stay in your home Alan! For someone that is portrayed as intelligent, you wear a giant pair of blinders in every opinion you share. I would hate to be a brain cell in your head, because i would have already popped from being aneurysmal. I have noticed too, that the color of your nose is getting a little browner everyday, plus, your voice is similar to Obama’s in that , when i hear it, i have to decrease the volume from the annoying shallow emptiness it possesses! Give it up, you are only what you appear because hannity already owns the corner on the correct side of all opinions expressed there.
I’m looking forward to your makeover, maybe you can get Oprah to pay for it like she did Obamas campaign.
Sammy Wight
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
LEFTY I can’t answer that question—there have been no sweeps in North Carolina like that.But if my children picked up arms against the U.S. and hung out with terroist,I’d send a Birthday and Christmas card to Gitmo.
Posted by Bryan
………………………
The assumption that they are ALL terrorists is the problem here.
My point is that some are as innocent as you and your son.
Perhaps they should stay with the right wingers since they are the ones in favor of detaining people even with no evidence against them.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
[...] isn’t it, how we can have an administration that destroys our economic infrastructure and violates the Constitution and escapes punishment and accountability; yet, a woman who had oral sex with her boyfriend stand [...]
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Now they will be living amongst us. Great!
November 24th, 2008 at 3:11 am
[...] isn’t it, how we can have an administration that destroys our economic infrastructure and violates the Constitution and escapes punishment and accountability; yet, a woman who had oral sex with her boyfriend [...]
November 24th, 2008 at 5:09 am