Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
"Terrorists" Among Us?
October 08, 2008 9:57 AM
Expect a flurry of legal moves today over a federal judge’s unprecedented decision yesterday to order 17 former “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay released unsupervised into the Washington, D.C. area by Friday.
Late last night, the Bush Administration asked the federal appeals court to block the order, which it said “threatens serious harms” to the country. The judge's ruling, the government said, opens the nation's borders to a group of would-be terrorists--"aliens trained for armed insurrection" against their home country.
If the appeals court refuses to intervene, the Justice Department will take the case to the Supreme Court. Because of the crucial legal issues at stake, coupled with the judge’s novel ruling, the government could well prevail at this point. That would keep the detainees, who are Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs, in Guantanamo while appellate courts review Judge Ricardo Urbina’s ruling.
And that, of course, would set the stage for a momentous legal battle with far-ranging consequences. Beyond the immediate fate of the 17 Uighurs, the case has major implications for the fate of other Guantanamo detainees, for the future of Guantanamo itself, and for the very way the United States conducts military operations in future wars.
This crucial case comes against this backdrop: Seven years after the terror attacks that killed 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, federal judges have started viewing the war on terror with an eye toward history. In case after case, you now see judges looking skeptically at the Bush Administration’s claims and trying to position themselves on the right side of history—or what they assume the right side will be.
Even though there’s scant precedent (or, in fact, none at all) for many of these rulings--including Urbina’s yesterday and the landmark Boumediene v. Bush decision from the Supreme Court in June--these judges are gong to be among the brave few who stood up for civil liberties at a time of irrational paranoia.
They don’t want to be the ones who interred the Japanese, which the Supreme Court condoned in the infamous Korematsu case in 1944. That helps explain why the Supreme Court can rule in Boumediene that enemy combatants captured on the battlefield have a right to challenge their detention in federal courts in the Untied States—something never before even considered.
But that, of course, assumes we are living in a time of irrational paranoia. That assumes they will be on the right side of history. And that assumes there will not be a catastrophic terrorist attack that would otherwise have been prevented by all of these sweeping and novel policies now under attack, from detentions to interrogations.
The government’s motion last night requesting an emergency stay captures much of that urgency, saying Urbina’s decision “raises legal questions of the highest magnitude” and, if allowed to stand, would cause serious damage to the interests of the United States.
The Uighurs (which is pronounced “WEE-gers”) are a group of Chinese Muslim separatists who had weapons training in Afghanistan under the Taliban, as part of their effort to fight for independence from China. They were picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan after September 11th and taken to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they have been imprisoned nearly seven years.
The government no longer considers them “enemy combatants” and would like to release them. But it can’t send them to China, where they would be tortured, and no other country will take them. So what is there to do with the Uighurs—and, by extension, about 60 other detainees at Guantanamo in a similar position?
The government has argued that even though they’re no longer considered enemy combatants, they are considered potentially dangerous. It strongly opposes releasing them into the United States. Urbina disagreed, ordering them freed no later than Friday. They would live, unsupervised, with a Uighur community in the Washington D.C. area.
In their motion last night, the Justice Department argued that federal judges have no authority to order aliens—especially those who “have sought to wage terror on a sovereign government”—into the United States.
Government lawyers contend that Urbina’s order trumps the powers of the Executive Branch to decide whether to admit aliens into the country. They also contend that it is directly at odds with Congress’ view that aliens who seek to wage terror on a sovereign government—even one other than the United States--are ineligible for admission into the United States.
“The district court’s order threatens serious harm to the interests of the United States and its citizens, by mandating that the government release in the nation’s capital 17 individuals who engaged in weapons training at a military training camp,” the government argues.
If the appeals court disagrees, the Justice Department will file an emergency request with the Supreme Court. If the justices take a pass, the Uighurs will be on a plane to Andrews Air Force Base and in Urbina’s courtroom on Friday, when they will be freed into D.C. region.
History will be the judge.
October 8, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (18)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
If these people are going to be released why aren't they taken back to where they picked them up from? Why would they be released in our nations capital?
Posted by: Michele | Oct 8, 2008 10:12:28 AM
Would this be part of the same Chinese muslims that threatened the Olympics? Just out of curiousity, what do we care if the are sent back to China tortured or not, better than having them in the back yard.
Posted by: samhiguchi | Oct 8, 2008 10:14:56 AM
The government no longer considers them “enemy combatants” and would like to release them. But it can’t send them to China, where they would be tortured, and no other country will take them.
****************************************
Well if they were not a threat to our National Security, why did the Government pick them up, and why did they place them in such a high profile prison?
The stupidity of the Bush Administration. This is a mess of their own making.
Posted by: Thinking | Oct 8, 2008 10:32:40 AM
Bush Admin. said they will go after
any one who harbors terrorists.
To my surprise Palin claims Ayer
is a terrorist. Is this nation harboring terrorists?
They also included the most
respected person (Nelson Mandela)
in the terrorist list.
With all this, I do not buy what
Palin is preaching around.
Posted by: FM | Oct 8, 2008 10:35:11 AM
Send them to China as a goodwill gesture!! They are fighting terrorism also!! Who gives a darn whether they get what they deserve? These are turds with terrorist training. Flushing a turd is acceptable in ALL civilized countries. Stop thinking like a pathetic liberal and do what is RIGHT for a change!!!!!
Sanyaman
Posted by: Sanyaman | Oct 8, 2008 10:42:17 AM
Yes it is like the Air India bombers allowed to stay in Canada and the Afghan
hijackers allowed to live in Britain..If we really believe in democracy and the rule of law why do we break our own rules and deny the victims their human rights for a proper trial in the terrorists` own countries ?? Really ridiculous double standards !! These Uighurs should be sent home to their families...If they settle in the States then before long you`ll get
500 dependents looking for asylum as well !! More trouble & expense for the
Taxpayers.
Posted by: g.loups | Oct 8, 2008 10:58:05 AM
Assuming what I have read is true, these people were picked up on the accusations of the Chinese government. The Chinese government was the primary source of any incriminating evidence. Right now there is NO evidence that they are a threat to us personally or as a nation -- if there was this whole issue would be moot. Only the Bush administration and the Chinese government are making claims about their being dangerous; only someone that believes the earth is 6000 years old could believe what either government says.
Posted by: LennyP | Oct 8, 2008 11:04:46 AM
"But that, of course, assumes we are living in a time of irrational paranoia. That assumes they will be on the right side of history. And that assumes there will not be a catastrophic terrorist attack that would otherwise have been prevented by all of these sweeping and novel policies now under attack, from detentions to interrogations."
Pure fear-mongering. Cheney himself couldn't have said it better.
By "novel policies" you must mean such neocon (now American) favorites as torture and "extraordinary rendition". Doesn't really jibe with the administration's alleged humanitarian concerns about China possibly torturing these men, does it?
While you're on the subject (setting aside for the moment any pesky "legal", Constitutional or moral arguments) which of the following results is torture more likely to produce? a) accurate, actionable intelligence; or b) desperate fabrication and false confession?
Given the convenient and fully exploited "opportunity" provided by 9/11, if there is another "catastrophic terrorist attack", rather than demanding the annihilation of the Bill of Rights, millions will be asking "Cui Bono?"
Posted by: sivan | Oct 8, 2008 11:05:50 AM
I thought Bush crawled back into his hole after his bailout bill got passed. It is funny how you never see the person we call our commander in chief, ever, when disaster is happening. Empty suite like his friend McCain.
Posted by: becky | Oct 8, 2008 11:10:24 AM
I heard a specialist say the other day that if Obama wins this election that Bush and his Administration needs to let Obama and his team into the Whitehouse to start getting Obama's economy plan up and going because the US will not survive if we wait.
It gave me some relief to hear this person say this.
I think he should also. I feel that we the American People should demand that this is done.
Posted by: becky | Oct 8, 2008 11:30:20 AM
Maybe Barry can seek them out for guidance and move them into them into his neighborhood.
Posted by: Mack | Oct 8, 2008 11:52:37 AM
Why doesn't the US send these dudes to Canada, Alaska's good neighbor. We are a tolerant, pacifist, pro-drugs, free spirit country, whose citizens and leaders are proud liberals and free thinkers. We show compassion for all natives and foreigners, and unlike the US, we are privileged to have access to free health care and social programs for everyone. Eh?
Posted by: Sunshine | Oct 8, 2008 12:08:05 PM
g.loups "Assuming what I have read is true, these people were picked up on the accusations of the Chinese government. The Chinese government was the primary source of any incriminating evidence. Right now there is NO evidence that they are a threat to us personally or as a nation."
Umm...the article states they "are a group of Chinese Muslim separatists who had weapons training in Afghanistan under the Taliban, as part of their effort to fight for independence from China. They were picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan after September 11th."
Are you suggesting that we flew into Afghanistan and Pakistan to pick up these guys after they were accused by the Chinese? Do you really think it's that simple? You need a break from your video games and Hollywood action films.
Posted by: buddy | Oct 8, 2008 4:15:38 PM
Are we this soft in this country???
Released here, send them to China. They are chinnese, let Chineese law take care of them. Should we harbor Chineese criminals who hate us as well.
NOOOOOO
Posted by: RTG | Oct 8, 2008 5:06:42 PM
Doesn't it seem the least bit odd that we are rounding up people who have NOTHING to do with Bin Laden and his ilk? The Uighers are from the Steppes of Mongolia, very *very* culturally distinct from China. On the border of China, yes, but no more Chinese than Polish are Russian.
Why are we policing China's dissident populations? Weird, I tell you...
Posted by: Anamortia | Oct 9, 2008 12:51:13 AM
Have to point this out - if these guys are considered dangerous because they've had military training... what does that say about the thousands of other guys and gals who have? Especially Special Forces types who have had extensive training in what amounts to "insurrection"?
Posted by: Just Me | Oct 9, 2008 7:17:04 AM
Mack: Maybe they can rent a room in Bill Ayers house? I know that they would be welcomed and made comfortable. Then Barrak could come over to visit and extend them hope and change.
Posted by: bombem | Oct 10, 2008 9:34:46 AM
Wow how very scarey that Americans are feeling this way. I wonder under the new administration what will happen when they test us again. Like Bush or not since his actions this is the longest period the United States has gone without being attacked my Islamic Extremists in 30 some years. But I suppose when it happens after Obama takes over we cab blame Bush and ignore the facts these people hate our very existence! If they had their way there would be things alot worse than Gitmo and you definitely would not be allowed to freely surf the internet, especially the female posters on here.
I really wonder where this country is going to end up.
Posted by: eyesropentohistory | Dec 18, 2008 2:07:36 AM
Post a comment
