Bush: Ruling May Free Terrorists In U.S.

White House Lashes Out Again At Supreme Court Decision On Gitmo Detainees

(AP)  The White House said Thursday that dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay could end up walking on U.S. streets 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 Qaeda'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 Mr. 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.

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 Qaeda 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.

[colonieny]

From various references: The two were so badly tortured, on the recorded orders of Arafat personally, that we could not tell which body was which. And, one man was White, and the other was BLACK.

Why do we think that Arafat was not evil. He was. There was a reason that Condi Rice bypassed his grave site, and refused to pay respect to this most evil of men.

It is wishful thinking to think we are not at war with evil men and ideas.
Thank God for President Bush, who will be listed as one of the greatest American Presidents.

[colonieny]

IN MEMORY OF CLEO NOEL AND CURTIS MOORE, Americans.
And to educate MORAL IDIOTS VACANT BRAiNS

After Sirhan Sirhan ( still a hero to ARABs for murdering ROBERT KENNEDY), ARAFAT ordered the kidnapping of STATE DEPT DIPLOMATS CLEO NOEL AND CURTIS MOORE, who were on assignment as officials from Washington.
ARAFAT wanted to exchange them for SIRHAN ! ( was he nuts or what !)
Nixon of course said, no.
ARAFAT then ordered the torture by skinning alive, burning their eyes out, roasting over a fire pit, crushing and cutting off their pppenises, and stuffing them down their throats until they suffocated, and more.. our two men (one was Black the other White Americans). (we could not tell who was who after ARAFAT was done with them) We have this on recorded telephone conversation.
Arafat was big on torture. He also like to direct the torture of young girls, when in Lebanon, cutting off breasts of daughters of Christians who opposed him, and of course raping , and sometimes his signature torture cutting off arms and legs, and dumping the body on the doorstep. ARAFAT gets a peace prize ? Shame.
This is what ARAB terrorism is about. And continues.
And Carter supports these scum ?
Why do you think Bethlehem is now less than 20 % Christian, but had been 60 % before Arafat''s Islamic occupation ?

[colonieny]

the dead daughters without arms or legs were left at the doorsteps of their Christian''s mother and father. A gift from ARAFAT.
Can you imagine the torture these poor teenage girls went through ?

[colonieny]

WAR DOGS:
Not your fault that you are a moral idiot.

No : A terrorist is not just anyone who disagrees with you and opposes you. That is not just stupid, but ingenuous and shows an attempt at mis direction.
e.g. The Palest. under Hamas and prior Arafat used to "Terrorize'' others, such as the Christians in LEb. by cutting off the arms or hands, or a leg, of the daughters of who ever spoke up against them. They were good at Terrorizing their "enemies" that is - anyone who disagreed, or were Christian. Even today, Gaaaays are terrorized in GAZA. Christian women are forced to wear Islamic GARB. and worse- are forced into marriages and forced conversions with Muslim men that they do not know. Some of these women have been Doctors, or teachers who are now doing drudgery house cleaning at the bidding of their new ''families" - Islamic Terrorism.
Two of the problems with AMerican left is : 1. you equate everything as equal. 2. You have no concept of EVIL. That is not your fault.
But colleges who would have failed you, mush brains, were better off getting an F.

[wardoglrs]

''Terrorism'' is a political term applied to anyone who has a different point of view. Anyone who opposes the criminal interventions of the US is --by Bush''s decree --a ''terrorist''! If you merely dissent, you may be defined as a terrorist. The Bush regime is now claiming that he has the authority under the pretext of a phony war to define citizens of other nations as terrorists. He demands of other nations, for example, that they provide his administration with the records of their citizens whenever Bush may ''deem'' them guilty of terrorism.

Be warned! If you are but ''deemed'' a terrorist, you are deprived of the right to be represented by a lawyer, you don''t get to make a phone call, you may not demand a hearing, you are robbed of habeas corpus --a right England demanded of King John and got!

[colonieny]

Also this is not a war on TERROR, no more than WWII was a war on tanks. This is a war on RADICAL ISLAMICS and the coutries that support them. Simple as that.

[libsluv2spit]

Posted by Nancy_Naive at 07:53 AM : Jul 06, 2008
+ report abuse

***

and you fu cking liberals are always so generous with other people''s money..and so who would pay to ''lock up'' these terrorists for 20 years?? you??

screw you..

[colonieny]

Scorp79: Prior to WWII, the US FBI had over 6000 pro NAZIs monitored, opening mail, phone taps etc, and on day one of war, ALL of them were put into jail. Just like that, no questions and no balling ACLU. And... there was not one act of sabotage on American soil during WWII. That is what gov''t do WHEN SERIOUS during a SERIOUS WAR.
I fault Bush, Congress, and the Press for not making the case just how serious this all is. One nuclear bomb floated into a harbor...? Not good. I fault them for not from day one, having a huge effort to get us off ARAB OIL, drill in ALASKA, HYBRID CARS and NUCLEAR ENERGY. But no.. people like you identify with the bad guys ( and not that you are stupid) but you have been taught that all cultures are the same, none worse than American, so it is no wonder that you share their "feelings". Sad.

[zerato-2009]

After all them terroist are freed they can come stay at your house. I''''m sure you would greet them with open arms.
Posted by whiskyrocker

If they are freed they would not be terrorists, no evidence of terrorist activity. Or they would not be released. Some how you do not understand what habeas corpus is. Perhaps you are stupid and don''t understand or ignorant and don''t want to know. Either way you missed the bus both times.

[whiskyrocker]

Zerato

After all them terroist are freed they can come stay at your house. I''m sure you would greet them with open arms.

[9SLING]

Yeah, really! I sypathize with those poor suicidal prisoners myself.

[colonieny]

The problem with the American BRAIN is that the AMERICAN PRESS has been telling us that there is no threat, even when major plots have been broken up. See the really, really eXCELLENt BOOK from *** MORRIS- FLEECED ( not a good title ) detailing the standards the media has set for itself to downplay the terrorist threat and THE MiS REPORTING of PLOTS meant to kill and disrupt AMERICA.
THis IS A MusT READ !!!!

[colonieny]

The courts have no business in telling the military and the executive HOW to run a war.
The problem stems from that very beginning. We did not have a formal declaration of war. And, we treated the bad guys not under the Geneva Conventions, since they did not wear uniforms or have a "country.'' So enter the pin heads from the Left Wing Court System and a gaggle of University and ACLU types.
DID you know that 1/2 of Gitmo prisoners have been sent back to native countries. Most are just released . Surprise ?? No. And so far 50 have been recaptured or killed doing bad stuff, like killing innocent women and children. ''
I can not imagine WWII being faught like this. Did Roosevelt let go prisoners, and fly them back to Germany or Japan ? Are you kidding me ?

[tryhonesty]

All those that defend King Bush are just plain blind to reality...Bush is dangerous and mentally unstable..he has created so many treacherous problems for this nation and its people...it will take years to correct the damage caused by this RepubliCON moron.

[zerato-2009]

do not have fear , just stating a fact.
Posted by whiskyrocker

Why is it so hard for you right wing nuts have a hard time in telling the differnce between fact and opinion?

[zerato-2009]

Please share with us what galaxy you were living in when 9-11-01 happened.
Posted by globalcool08

Fear monger.

If a detainee has done something bad the gov should have some evidence to show a judge to keep them detained.

If the government have nothing to keep them, then why are they detained?

Obviously you fear mongers have no idea how habeas corpus works. Ignorance is bliss, they don''t have to think.

So fear monger how did you get to a habeas corpus hearing to a the 911 attack. I suppose you still think iraq was responsible for 911

[swwils]

If they are deemed a threat by the Security Council that is handling this war,then I don''t believe a Judge ,unless on the council has any merit.All these cry baby Judges need a new job classification like Polar Bear re-location,so we can drill for necessary oil!

[whiskyrocker]

Burn em'' all alive. End of story.

[hamiltongrad]

According to that wonderful summer read *** Morris new Book FLEEcDED. Of the "freed" men from GITMO, 50 have already been killed on the battle field, or captured planned evil attacks. Thank you ACLU. Thank you pusssfied mEDIA. Thank you to all those who support stupid wishful thinking.

[meganthatch]

Bush has done 10 times more harm to this country than all the terrorist''s put together. Lets jail him for crimes against America and the world. www.theseriouspolice.com