You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Court blocks judge's order to free Chinese Muslims
2008-10-09
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday temporarily blocked a judge's decision to immediately free 17 Chinese Muslims at Guantanamo Bay into the U.S. In a one-page order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued the emergency stay at the request of the Bush administration. The three-judge panel said it would postpone release of the detainees for at least another week to give the government more time to make arguments in the case.

It comes after U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on Tuesday made a dramatic decision ordering the government to free the detainees by Friday. Urbina said it would be wrong for the Bush administration to continue holding the detainees, known as Uighurs (pronounced WEE'gurz), since they are no longer considered enemy combatants.

"We are pleased that the Court of Appeals granted our request for a temporary stay, and we look forward to presenting our case," Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in response to the appeals court decision.

The Bush administration had asked the appeals court to block Urbina's order no later than Wednesday. The detainees were scheduled to arrive in Washington early Friday and appear in Urbina's courtroom for release to local Uighur families who have agreed to help them settle into the United States.

The government says the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba had admitted receiving weapons training in Afghanistan and were a national security risk.
Earlier Wednesday, lawyers for 17 Chinese Muslim detainees urged the appeals court in filings not to interfere with Urbina's decision, which is the first court-ordered release of Guantanamo detainees. The detainees said they have been cleared of wrongdoing and have waited long enough for their freedom after being held at Guantanamo for nearly seven years. "The government would prolong by months, and perhaps years, an imprisonment whose legal justification it has conceded away," the detainees' lawyers wrote in filings.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration said it was continuing "heightened" efforts to find another country to accept the Uighurs, since the detainees might be tortured if they are turned over to China. "There are extensive efforts. We oppose the idea of their release here," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Albania accepted five Uighur detainees in 2006 but has since balked on taking others, partly for fear of diplomatic repercussions from China.

The Justice Department criticized Urbina's decision as undercutting immigration laws that dictate how foreigners should be brought into the country. It also cited security concerns over weapons training the Uighurs received at camps in Afghanistan. Such a potential security risk outweighs the inconvenience the detainees might suffer in waiting a while longer at Guantanamo, government lawyers contended.

Uighurs are from Xinjiang — an isolated region that borders Afghanistan, Pakistan and six Central Asian nations — and say they have been repressed by the Chinese government. The Uighur detainees were captured in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001.
Posted by:Steve White

#11  Send 'em to Taiwan, it's not as if the Taiwanese and Chinese don't like each other already.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-10-09 14:07  

#10  Good move. Now how do we get this ass Urbina removed? He is as incompetent as Gonzalez. Gone is the only cure for him.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700   2008-10-09 11:04  

#9  Agreed.

They wrote a document not set upon establishing a utopia or perfect/perfected society, but one what acknowledged the imperfections of man. They accepted certain imperfections and ineffectiveness as protection against tyranny. That's why American Democracy and European Socialism are fundamentally incompatible.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-10-09 10:02  

#8  P2K:

"However, the nature of human behavior and self interests override those advantages. "

And that's the way the founders wanted it. They were very smart and well understood the nature of the beast.
Posted by: AlanC   2008-10-09 09:57  

#7  Clinton appointee. Nuff said?
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-10-09 09:33  

#6  ..preferably by the legal mechanism for doing so.

Constitutionally, Congress can impeach them for 'bad behavior'. Now the judiciary will claim authority define what is 'bad behavior'. However, it's within Congress' venue to do that. If Congress acts upon the definition with the same restraint, i.e. living Constitution, it can interpret whatever it feels it takes to get enough votes. The only question is 'will'. Congress is basically a coward preferring to play at power but never really wanting what it is granted in the Constitution. It's safer for congresscritters to point the finger at the judiciary and say 'they made me do it' than it is to hold the judiciary accountable for stupid judge tricks and the ever increasing assumption of unaccountable power.

Congress is weak by nature, not by law. If anyone really reads the Constitution, the legislative branch with the power of the purse and impeachment can make itself the single most powerful branch of government. However, the nature of human behavior and self interests override those advantages.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-10-09 08:32  

#5  We need to start removing these judges from the bench, preferably by the legal mechanism for doing so.

However, it seems as if we are on a course for some type of civil turmoil possibly involving violence, in that case, all bets are off.
Posted by: Glatch Bluetooth1822   2008-10-09 06:29  

#4  Seems to me the legal precedent here is closing time at the local bar: We don't care where you go, but you can't stay here
Posted by: SteveS   2008-10-09 03:44  

#3  To quote the injunction:
"What're you, fuckin' nuts?"
Posted by: mojo   2008-10-09 02:06  

#2  Thank god someone in the judiciary still has a brain!
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2008-10-09 02:01  

#1  We got them in Afghanistan, therefore we should send them back to Afghanistan, in the little finger of land that connects it to China. If they want to walk back to China, fine. Otherwise, they stay in the little finger of land.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-10-09 00:26  

00:00