home

Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocent

Did you know about the 9 Chinese detainees at Guantanamo? They are Uighurs, Muslims from western China, who are now in their 5th year of imprisonment. The Bush Administration acknowledged in 2004 they had been imprisoned by mistake and should be released since they are not enemy combatants. But they are still there. And Bush won't let them go.

They can't go back to China because they would be persecuted there. No other country will take them. Even though other Uighurs have been granted asylum in the U.S., Bush won't allow them to stay here. And so, they must stay at Guantanamo indefinitely, perhaps for life.

....only the president has the authority to grant that and his administration has strenuously opposed the idea.....The administration has argued in court that the president can continue to detain the Uighurs under the executive's "necessary power to wind up wartime detentions in an orderly fashion."

Their lawyers will be filing suit this week in the Supreme Court demanding that the men be freed.

It is highly unusual for parties in a case to seek a hearing before the Supreme Court -- called a petition for certiorari before judgment -- at this stage. The attorneys for the detainees are asking the high court to let their clients skip the year-long process of first appealing to the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia and resolve the conundrum of a ruling without relief and what they call the "absurdity" of illegal imprisonment without end.

Lawyers working on behalf of the Uighurs argue that Robertson's decision effectively "proclaims an Executive with unchecked power . . . to seize and perpetually imprison persons from around the globe."

"The prospect of innocent men detained indefinitely, and of an Executive wielding powers beyond those granted to it by the Constitution . . . is simply intolerable," they wrote.

It's a longshot that the Supreme Court will take the case.

Those that meet the high standard typically involve a direct conflict between two branches of government and center on a matter of "imperative public importance."

....The most historic examples of cases that went directly to the Supreme Court include U.S. v. Nixon , in which the court determined that President Richard M. Nixon had to turn over tapes of Oval Office conversations during the Watergate scandal, and Youngstown v. Sawyer , in which the court ruled that President Harry S. Truman's war powers did not give him the authority to seize private steel mills.

Detaining the innocent isn't a matter of "imperative public importance?" I think the Court should take the case. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. INS :

A statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien raises a serious constitutional problem. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause forbids the government to deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. Freedom from imprisonment -- from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint -- lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects. Government detention violates that Clause unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, or, in certain special and narrow non-punitive circumstances, where a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the individual's constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.

I love the Zayadas case because it holds:

But once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies to all "persons" within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence in the United States is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.

In other words, the Due Process clause applies to citizens, aliens and undocumented residents , whether here lawfully or unlawfully- so long as they are physically present within the country.

The Chinese are at Guantanamo. They have been determined not to be enemy combatants and to be innocent of wrongdoing. They had been sold by bounty hunters to the U.S. They want to stay in the United States. No other country will take them.

The Court continues: "Once removal of a deportable alien is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized."

In other words, they should be granted asylum.

It's bad enough that we detain those suspected of terrorism for four years without charges or lawyers. But to detain the innocent? Bush has stooped to a new low with this case.

[graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.)

< Hillary Turns on Bush | Supreme Court Upholds Physician-Assisted Suicide Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#1)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:31:34 AM EST
    China may be cutting deals with Islamic countries - e.g. Iran - for oil, but I don't think it's anything but a cold necessity for them. Thus, we get at the same time Chinese participation of j.v.'s w/the West to dramatically reduce the need for oil. The reason, I believe, is that they see that the Muslims are coming after their country next.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:14:42 AM EST
    The reason, I believe, is that they see that the Muslims are coming after their country next.
    The evidence? A few stabbings. The usual fear mongering.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#3)
    by Lora on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:19:08 AM EST
    At what point are we going to refuse to allow further outrages to happen in our country's name? If we don't make a change, sooner or later someone will for us, and it won't be in a way that we want.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#4)
    by wishful on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:28:53 AM EST
    It's bad enough that we detain those suspected of terrorism for four years without charges or lawyers. But to detain the innocent? Bush has stooped to a new low with this case.
    All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.
    Do our elected opposition party representatives really represent us? Will they and we continue to do nothing? What more can we do to get them to represent us?

    soccerdad... The usual fear mongering. Just a question for you? If the Bush administration would have acted on some info prior to 9/11... and called for a national emergency.... maybe 'locking down' NY city...would you have called that "fear mongering"? Just wondering....

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:26:11 AM EST
    BB Thanks for the irrelevant question. Cant stay on point can you? The original idea was Muslims going after China next. There has been much fear mongering by some members of the right against Muslims and Islam; e.g. the concept of WWIV. Bushco are pros at fear mongering. That does not mean there are no legimate issues just that they make up additional issues and/or blow them out of proportion in order to promote their regime and keep the sheep in line. They promote fear and then turn around and say "we are the only ones that can keep you safe" or "we broke the law because we are trying to protet you"

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#7)
    by mjvpi on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    I still remeber the idealist foriegn policy of the Carter Admin. Make our county's actions reflect our professed values. Now it's " pay no attention to the man behind the green curtain" or else you're not patriotic. It's hard to be a proud American with your eyes wide open!

    Soccerdad.. BB Thanks for the irrelevant question. Cant stay on point can you? It was just a question...if you don't want to answer it...say so... but spare me the diatribe about how evil Bush is... I've heard that lib talking point at least a million times... If spying on people (or in this case detaining them) that are sympathetic to radical muslims stops more Americans from dying...I'm all for it. Don't like it... you have two choices.. don't talk to (associate with) terrorist organizations, or move to a friendlier more tolerant country that they aren't trying to destroy... very simple.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kitt on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    If the Bush administration would have acted on some info prior to 9/11... and called for a national emergency.... maybe 'locking down' NY city...would you have called that "fear mongering"? Just wondering....
    How is this question germaine? 'Calling for' a national emergency...."locking down" NY. It wouldn't have happened; it's an impossibility. Just like it's an impossibility to protect one's self or others from nameless, invisible bogeys or ideologies.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:31 AM EST
    BB well spare me the Bush apologist's crap. You create yet another artifical set of choices. How about getting the warrents and doing it legal [since the secret court hardly stops it] or is that too hard for your fascist mind to comprehend. The point has and is that it was done illegally.

    Do our elected opposition party representatives really represent us? Will they and we continue to do nothing? What more can we do to get them to represent us?
    Wishful, the answer is simple, win an election. But then again with your views, I guess winning is not that simple.
    The evidence? A few stabbings. The usual fear mongering.
    Soccerdad, what is it with you? when US soldiers take action, we are war mongering, oil sucking, imperialist pigs, but when muslims take action, they amount to just a few random stabbings, and we are still war mongering, oil sucking, imperialist pigs. I'm beginning to think you are a paid AQ mole, but it's probably only because Bushes fear mongering tactics have worked on me, huh?

    I'm beginning to think you are a paid AQ mole easy, tiger.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:54:54 PM EST
    Variable stop being a pathetic a@@, Read the link that RAS gave. In it it references only a few stabbings thats why the conclusion that Muslims are going to take over China is fear mongering. But thanks for the uninformed, reflexive , attack which you put together without reading the thread. But why should I be surprised. You've proven capable of nothing else.

    Variable-- Nice one man. If you can't string together a coherent and relevant arguement just accuse your opponent of being a commie, of an AQ Mole, or any other name to detract from the fact that our President is holding innocent people indefinitely in Gitmo. Just where did he get such authority?

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#15)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    Um, Soccerdad, there was more reported than just a few stabbings. When you followed the link, did you read or just skim? Read it again. Follow the links provided. There were hundreds dead in riots involving thousands. This was measurably worse than the Rodney King riots, the French riots, or the Intifada in Israel. And that's from just a single incident in a socialist dictatorship that regularly censors the news. Riots of that size represent pressure that has been building out of our view for some time. As for the stabbings, the pt is that they were not a one-off or the govt wouldn't have had to station professional guards in the schools, would they? You don't station guards to prevent yesterday's isolated incident; you station them because you see the incident as part of a pattern.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    That's funny...I thought ras and Variable were the operatives. They are the only ones I see badmouthing freedom around here.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    ras I read it. Your ability to extrapolate the meaning of an incident, completely without knowledge of any context, never ceases to amaze.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#18)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    SD, Can you offer perhaps some argument to support your position? A link? A bit of logic? I mean, have you got anything beyond insistence? Or is that about it?

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    You tell me, how do you get from the stabbings to the conclusion that Muslims are going to take over China?
    Read it again. Follow the links provided. There were hundreds dead in riots involving thousands. This was measurably worse than the Rodney King riots, the French riots, or the Intifada in Israel. And that's from just a single incident in a socialist dictatorship
    Still a long way from your conclusion. And by "measurably worse" you mean what? A couple of hundred versus a hundred? Guards in schools-we have guards in schools. Its hard to refute nothing and thats what you have. You imply there have been more incidents but have no proof. Six stabbing in 4 months was cited. How many are there in NYC or LA during a particuarly bad period? 150 died in the violence, not a small number but does that mean Muslims are coming after China? Then the guy googles Muslim stabbing and surprise finds some. That is pathetic. Google balck and stabbing and what do find? Doesn't mean Blacks are trying to take over America. No this is just more fear mongering muslim bashing nonsense. I dont doubt there are ethnic troubles in China but that doesn't support your conclusion. In fact China has been doing busness with Muslim countries and the US is afraid that China will veto any proposed sanctions against Iran. The Muslims as a group would be more angry at the US, UK and the rest of Europe.

    Soccerdad:
    Bushco are pros at fear mongering. That does not mean there are no legimate issues just that they make up additional issues and/or blow them out of proportion in order to promote their regime and keep the sheep in line... How about getting the warrents and doing it legal(ly) ... ?
    Variable:
    I'm beginning to think you are a paid AQ mole
    Shermbuck:
    If you can't string together a coherent and relevant arguement just accuse your opponent of being ... an AQ Mole ...
    Sherm, I think you are missing the true irony of the above exchange. Rather than dismiss Variable's comment as 'name calling', I take his reaction to be a true indication of how his mind works. He exhibits the classic "reds-under-the-bed" mindset that will inevitably suspect Soccerdad -- and anyone else here who questions Bushco's illegal actions strongly and persistently -- of being a traitor. Variable is living proof of the effectiveness of the very fear-mongering tactics he is now criticizing Soccerdad for pointing out.

    I did go through the links and it illustrates the wingers' general lack of concern for facts. First, the blogger notes a story from the bbc which has to do with a crazy person attacking some school kids. There is no mention of Muslims being involved. However, he thinks that he has read stories of Muslims being involved in stabbings before, and says there must be something to this coincidence. Of course, the only thing that is similar is that the crazy person used a knife, as opposed to crazies in the US who use automatic weapons. The Chinese crazy guy probably used a knife because , unlike the US, automatic weapons probably aren't available. The next link is to ethic rioting in a province far from where the crazy person stabbed the kids. The rioting started when a little girl was run over. The article notes that the muslims have lived in the area since the 7th century and that there is a lot of unrest because of economic reform. The article also notes that htese Muslims are different from the Muslims being held in Guantamo. So, the original blogger takes 2 completely unrelated incidents to make a point that Muslims are responsible for all stabbings in the world, and then 2 jokers rely upon the blogger's idiocy to make a conclusion that Muslims are not only trying to take over the US, but also China. Wingnuttery, where facts only exist to weave crazy assed theories!

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    Just checking, but has a single post on this topic been on topic!? We are holding people that EVEN bushco admits are innocent in perpetuity. Does anyone see a problem with that? BB, you were off-topic and rightly called for it. Please save those remarks for an open thread. And your comment about Don't like it... you have two choices.. don't talk to (associate with) terrorist organizations 1) has nothing to do with the post. 2) 6 degrees of separation, EVERYONE on the planet has talked to a terrorist, or talked to someone who has talked to a terrorist. Freedom of association is one of the reasons we started the American revolution. Just because you are so anxious to give up your rights gives you no right to give up mine. As far as the gov't is concerned, I should be able to f#$! who I want, talk to who I want, die when I want ... oh, and the right to pursue happiness and be secure in my person and papers.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#23)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    Sailor, But that's the pt. China fears the Muslims or they wouldn't be in danger if repatriated. The various incidents indicate there is some measure of a prob there, but the usual media control of the socialist state makes it hard to get more info than that. All we know is that the Chinese Muslims daren't go home for fear of their own govt. Then again, that says quite a bit. As do the riots.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    ras, that's exactly the point, china is a repressive regime, we aren't. Shouldn't we apologise and invite them to try for US citizenship?

    How to prove that black is white in three simple steps, by ras:
    China fears the Muslims ...

    (otherwise) [step 1]

    ... they wouldn't be in danger if repatriated ...

    (and we know this because) [step 2]

    ... All we know is that the Chinese Muslims daren't go home ...

    (because of) [step 3]

    ... (their) fear of their own govt.
    I have seen some pretty dubious arguments advanced in RW posts, but this one definitely wins the Multiple Non-Sequiturs of the Year award! Is it any wonder that Bush's supporters can't tell if he's breaking the law or ignoring the Constitution?

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#26)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:14:41 PM EST
    Cymro, You calling TL a liar? They can't go back to China because they would be persecuted there. No other country will take them. "Persecution" in China is usually life-threatening. If they're innocent, why is China persecuting them? And why did those riots take place between Muslims & non-Muslims in China? Don't make me say "yeesh!", kid.

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#27)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:19:54 PM EST
    Cymro, Poor phrasing on my part. I should have said, not "if they're innocent" but rather, "if the Chinese govt thinks they're innocent." Other than that, my q's stand as written.

    ras:
    If they're innocent, why is China persecuting them?
    In other words, the fact of their persecution means they must be guilty -- of something bad enough to justify persecution, whatever that might be. This is exactly the puzzling logic I am criticizing, and it is at the core of your argument. If your logic is accepted, we would have to conclude that every persecuted minority in every country in the World must, on the basis of that persecution, actually be guilty of some dire act or intent (such as maybe attempting to overthrow the government of that country by force) and therefore deserves to be persecuted. While this is a line of thinking that was acceptable to Hitler, Stalin, and Idi Amin, I have to inform you that it is not usually accepted in the US. Are you claiming that you and other Bush supporters think this way?

    Re: Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocen (none / 0) (#29)
    by ras on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:03:00 PM EST
    Cym, You're attacking a straw-man. I rephrased almost an hour before your reply just to make sure you wouldn't misinterpret the original remark, which came out wrong. Did you reply before reading to the end of the thread and seeing the rephrase? It looks like it.

    ras, rephrasing your statement to read ...
    If the Chinese govt thinks they're innocent, why is China persecuting them?
    ... make no difference at all to my point. Of course every totalitarian regime thinks it is justified in persecuting people it disapproves of, for whatever reason. But what they think still does not prove that their persecution of a minority is in any way justified (*). I saw your correction, but I thought this point would be so obvious that I did not even bother to mention it, because most people in the US simply do not approve of totalitarian regimes who persecute their minority citizens, no matter what the leaders of those regimes may think. I already mentioned Hitler, Stalin and Idi Amin as examples; more recently, I could cite Saddam Hussein, who persecuted the Kurdish minority in Iraq. If we were to accept your logic, we would have to conclude that all those regimes must have been doing the right thing, because they certainly thought they had a reason for doing whatever they were doing. In my opinion, since that conclusion is patently absurd, this proves that your reasoning concerning the Chinese muslims is flawed. [(*) By the way, I do not accept that any persecution can ever be considered justified. But that is a separate issue I have with your posts, which I have set aside for the purpose of the focusing on the logic of your argument.]