Bush: Dangerous Gitmo Detainees Could Walk US Streets After Supreme Ruling

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Bush: Dangerous Gitmo Detainees Could Walk US Streets After Supreme Ruling stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DEB RIECHMANN | July 3, 2008 11:39 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
President Bush returns to the White House following an afternoon bike ride, Thursday, July 3, 2008, in Washington. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

WASHINGTON — 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.

The high court ruling, which gave all detainees the right to petition federal judges for immediate release, has intensified discussions within the Bush administration about what to do with the roughly 270 detainees held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"I'm sure that none of us want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around our neighborhoods," White House press secretary Dana Perino said about al-Qaida's former third in command.

President Bush strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court decision that the foreigners held under indefinite detention at Guantanamo have the right to seek release in civilian courts. The 5-4 ruling was the third time the justices had repudiated Bush on his approach to holding the suspects outside the protections of U.S. law.

The legal ramifications of the Supreme Court decision remain fuzzy, but it's unlikely that a federal appeals court would order a detainee released into the United States even if a judge finds that the government was holding the detainee improperly. A court might tell the Bush administration to let a prisoner go, but it presumably would be up to the executive branch to figure out where.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey had predicted that the Supreme Court's decision would unleash a torrent of court filings from detainees seeking their freedom. Judges, however, have been particularly wary of telling the executive branch what to do with the detainees.

Late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the military had improperly labeled Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim, as an enemy combatant. The court said Parhat deserved a new hearing or should be released. But the court deftly avoided saying where he should be released _ an indication that the courts expect the executive branch to wrestle with that decision.

Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard University, said if the matter remains in the hands of civilian courts, there is an element of truth to the White House warning that detainees could be released in the United States. But he said that while it's possible, it's not probable.

Story continues below
advertisement

He said the legislative and executive branches should find a third legal way _ not through military commissions or the civilian courts _ to deal with the detainees, perhaps a national security or other type of special court. "What is needed is a hybrid court," he said.

The administration opened the detention facility shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

"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.

"But there is considered judgment, from many federal government lawyers _ all the way up to the attorney general of the United States_ that it is a very real possibility that a dangerous detainee could be released into the United States as a result of this Supreme Court decision."

Judges at Washington's federal courthouse are moving quickly to process about 200 cases involving Guantanamo Bay detainees. Those cases would force the Justice Department to say why the detainees are being held and defend the decision to label them enemy combatants. Defense attorneys are convinced that, in many cases, the evidence will not hold up.

"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."

Judge Thomas F. Hogan set a hearing for Tuesday to decide how the cases will proceed. Under the schedule expected to be adopted, judges could start reviewing evidence in a matter of weeks and some cases could be decided by September.

___

Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — 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' le...
WASHINGTON — 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' le...
Filed by Nick Graham
 
Comments
116
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)

Speaking of Nazi appeasers...How about the equivalent personification?

http://www.light-to-dark.com/t_equals.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:52 PM on 07/10/2008

We've got real terrorists occupying the White House.

No Justice = No Peace.

Indict in '09 or revolt.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:48 PM on 07/10/2008

Oh, whatever, Georgie.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:22 PM on 07/05/2008


IF these people are dangerous now, it's only because Junior gave them cause to be angry.

GW is CREATING terrorists, at home and abroad...

And if having them walk free puts GW in terror, I'm all for it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 07/05/2008
photo

What country did these imbeciles grow up in?
They act like habeas corpus and the 4th, 5th & 6th amendments were written yesterday by terrorists that hate America.
What principles did they think this country was founded on?
They act like the decimation the Native Americans was the best part.

It boggles the mind.

fiat justitia ruat caelum

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 AM on 07/05/2008

And exactly why do they think the Constitution and Bill of Rights were constructed they way they are?

To protect the United States of America from fools who want to be despots like George W. Bush!!!!

They saw him coming over 200 years ago. And they knew exactly the tactic he would use.

So they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect us.

Seperation of Powers alone should have done the job.

It is incredible the number of people who don't understand the meaning of Freedom. Or do know and are willing to give it up.

To a little little man like Bush.

Unbelievable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 AM on 07/05/2008
photo

Not only that but dangerous exiting Republican administration officials could be walking our streets in 2009!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 07/04/2008
photo

Maybe if someone gave him the Supreme Court ruling in picture book format he would understand? Just an idea........

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 07/04/2008

"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.

Speak for youself Ms Perino, I'm thinking Jose Padilla might not be of the same opinion regarding his constitutional rights...you know, the rights "like all of us have". Jose Padilla is a US citizen, and he was afforded no rights when he was arrested and then tortured into insanity.

And MY GOD, if they can challenge their detention, MY GOD...who knows what might happen!? Monkey's flying out of Republican butts worldwide! If they can challenge their detention, what WON'T THEY BE ABLE TO DO???? MY GOD it's the end of civilization as we've known it...everyone pray, real hard, please...pray for our deliverance (can you squeal?).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 07/04/2008
photo

They say this to blame the court for their own malfeasance. They never had any intention of defending their absolutist actions so they never bothered much regarding actual evidence. Who's fault is that? It's not the court's and it's not the Constitution's. If they jailed ppl indiscriminately and without solid evidence, they're at fault. Case closed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 07/04/2008
photo

If the government has something on these people, put them on trial and stop f**king around. Otherwise, shut up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 07/04/2008
photo

bingo

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 07/04/2008

"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? .

I don't suppose that Ms. Perino has considered the meaning of this statement -- what if we're imprisoning someone without any good reason to do so?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 PM on 07/04/2008
photo

Nope. The WH is infallible in her view, so it's never occurred to her.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 07/04/2008

In Reply to PHIL123 downstream:

PART TWO

The habeas hearing requires the government to show legal justification for the prisoner's confinement (not his guilt or innocence) until his trial is reached on the charges against him (which probably were nonexistent until the petition for the writ was filed). If the government cannot meet its burden, then the prisoner can no longer be confined.

There have been some 250 Gitmo prisoners freed without explanation and returned to their own country according to professional journals and seminars. Those same sources report that many prisoners were swept up off the streets, having been " fingered" by their fellow citizens who were paid $5,000 as a reward. It is this type prisoner that petitions for the writ of habeas corpus. The prisoners who were captured in the course of hostilities on the battlefield on in the neighborhoods and are in confinement at Gitmo or elsewhere are there for the duration of the war (in whatever way it can be determined when the war and the hostilities have ended.

As to the freed prisoners possibly walking the streets of the U.S. or of Cuba instead of being returned to their native land as the others were, is in my opinion pure rightwinger bilge.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 07/04/2008
photo

More fear mongering from the frighthouse.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 07/04/2008


In Reply to PHIL123 downstream:

"

PART ONE


"...and NOT up to President Bush."

He's already decided hasn't he? This is why the habeas question arose.

"Suppose Bush said that any detainees that are released could only be released within the confines of Gitmo? That wouldn't wash because it would render the ruling moot."

In spite of Bush's past hare-brained contentions about inherent presidential military power trumping the other branches of government, I doubt he'd go THAT far. Assuming arguendo that he did, it would not render the Court's decision moot.
"...and NOT up to President Bush."

He's already decided hasn't he? This is why the habeas question arose.

"Suppose Bush said that any detainees that are released could only be released within the confines of Gitmo? That wouldn't wash because it would render the ruling moot."

In spite of Bush's past hare-brained contentions about inherent presidential military power trumping the other branches of government, I doubt he'd go THAT far. Assuming arguendo that he did, it would not render the Court's decision moot.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 07/04/2008

One of the worst criminals walks among us now...
and his name is GEORGE W. BUSH.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 07/04/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect

 
Right Now on HuffPost
ALASKA GOP SENATOR RIPS PALIN: YOU ABANDONED US

Alaska's Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski issued a...

Sarah Palin Turns Pro

I wish Hunter S. Thompson had lived to see this. As...