Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

White House says ruling could free detainees in US »

Posted by: STONERS 2 months ago

6.4

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 92

Propped: 48

Comments: 12

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

The White House said Thursday that dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay could end up walking Main Street U.S.A. as a result of last month's Supreme Court ruling about detainees' legal rights. Federal appeals courts, however, have indicated they have no intention of letting that happen.

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 12

0%
STONERS2 months ago

"The judge might say to the United States, 'You don't have enough evidence to hold this person,'" Perino said. "And then what do we do? ... Is he allowed to leave? And if so, is he picked up by immigration? Even if that's the case, they're only allowed to be held for six months."

Reply
4 Replies
- 0%
  STONERS2 months ago
  
  "I'm sure that none of us want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around our neighborhoods."
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 0%
    miklkit2 months ago
    
    It is up to the unitary executive to decide where to release them. If they end up walking our streets take it up with the resident of the White House.
    Reply
  - 0%
    Candida2 months ago
    
    This is pure B.S. and fear-mongering. Why would Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or any of them, be released within the US? He is in Gitmo now, right? Is he a US citizen so he would have to be admitted into the US? Is the US open to everyone?
    '"We are in uncharted territory, and we have never had enemy combatants afforded constitutional rights like all of us have, so anybody who thinks that they know exactly what's going to happen if a detainee challenges his detention - his or her detention - in court, they're not being honest because we don't know what's going to happen," Perino said.'
    Of course this is uncharted territory. Perhaps this should have been considered when the "enemy combatant" category was created. You don't want to be on uncharted territory? Then don't make up new rules as you go along.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Candida2 months ago
      
      And another thing: if, after years of captivity, investigations, and torture, they don't have enough evidence on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to keep him locked up, then they are so incompetent that it's a wonder they can even breathe.
      Reply
0%
disraeli2 months ago

If they are that dangerous why can't the government prove it. You would think that would be a simple exercise, given the vast resources at their disposal, the length of time they have had to prepare cases against these guys and the horrendous things all of these guys are alleged to have done. You would think there might be a witness or two, some evidence maybe.
So what's Bush's plan. Hold them forever because I think they are evil doers. Lock 'em up? Throw away the key? Where does that type of thinking stop.

Reply
0%
bubba22 months ago

Well, Perino is really doing a heck of a job promoting the fear-mongering.
That is the Bush administration trademark - dramatize how horrible and harmful it would be if any of those detainees were set free. It doesn't matter to them that the ones set free are released because there was NO EVIDENCE that they have ever done anything wrong.
Be afraid ... be very afraid ... its the 1950s all over again ...
Reply
0%
bubba22 months ago

But I am curious - admittedly I am not a legal expert. But how could a federal appeals court overrule the Supreme Court? Doesn't the Supreme Court have the "last word" regarding judicial rulings?
Reply
3 Replies
- 0%
  raza92 months ago
  
  The Constitution doesn't contain any footnotes that say, "Note to our descendants: This Constitution is intended for easy times only. At the first sign of trouble, feed this document to your dog. We won't mind. We only fought a war for it."
  This Fourth of July, celebrate by rereading the Declaration of Independence, created by more or less the same crowd who brought us the Constitution, 11 years and one war later. Remember it? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
  Wild stuff! To the founders, "all men" have "unalienable rights"; not just U.S. citizens in the continental United States.
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    raza92 months ago
    
    It was treasonous stuff too. When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, there were no U.S. citizens: Instead, there were about 2.5 million scrappy Colonists who legally owed allegiance to the king of England, George III. But they went to war; over the little matter of freedom, law and unalienable, God-given rights.
    Among their grievances against King George, the rebellious Colonists complained that he ignored the will of their representative bodies, refused "his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers" and "affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power." The Colonists also objected to the denial of "the benefit of trial by jury" and the king's practice of avoiding the inconveniences of due process by transporting prisoners "beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses." (George III would have loved Guantanamo.)
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      raza92 months ago
      
      The founders had a word for governments that respected rights only arbitrarily and selectively: tyranny. The signers of the declaration took rights seriously. They wrote, "For the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." That wasn't mere rhetoric. Technically, the signers were all traitors, liable to be executed for treason. And they accepted that standing up for rights means taking some real risks.
      Bubba - Article Three of the United States Constitution; Original and Appellate Jurisdiction should answer your question.
      Reply
0%
CHAM2 months ago

Good Post Stoners. What is bothering the White House is that they know that 93% of the detainees who ever went through Gitmo were sold for bounty by the Northern Alliance and Pakistani people to the United States Armed Forces. There were something like 24 maybe who could be proved to have been on a battlefield at any time. And they know that if brought to light they are going to look like criminals for imprisoning and torturing these people for up to six years while all along knowing they would never be able to prove that they were enemy combatants. In fact the reason only 270 are left is because the rest have either been let go or have died in custody.
The hardest problem will be explaining the children prisoners.
The Chinese guy was one of several hundred rounded up and sold to the U S Army for the $25,000 bounty. They were all living in an area together in Pakistan. They were dissidents of the China Government.

Reply