A federal appeals court ordered the government yesterday to turn over virtually all its information on Guantánamo detainees who are challenging their detention, rejecting an effort by the Justice Department to limit disclosures and setting the stage for new legal battles over the government’s reasons for holding the men indefinitely.
The ruling, which came in one of the main court cases dealing with the fate of the detainees, effectively set the ground rules for scores of cases by detainees challenging the actions of Pentagon tribunals that decide whether terror suspects should be held as enemy combatants.
It was the latest of a series of stinging legal challenges to the administration’s detention policies that have amplified pressure on the Bush administration to find some alternative to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where about 360 men are now being held at the United States naval base.
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington unanimously rejected a government effort to limit the information it must turn over to the court and lawyers for the detainees.
The court said meaningful review of the military tribunals would not be possible “without seeing all the evidence, any more than one can tell whether a fraction is more or less than half by looking only at the numerator and not the denominator.”
As you read this, the Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, the crack staff of spineless Bush sycophants at Red State, and Dan Riehl are all furiously googling the members of this appeals court, desperately hoping that one or more of them was appointed by Clinton or Carter so that the ritual smearing can begin. Because, as you know- nothing can get in the way of the Deciders decisions.
Hopefully this gets resolved quickly. One thing that irks me is the cherry picking of names and meanings. One minute they’re terrorist and the next they’re enemy combatants. Either one is used when convenient.
What bugs me the most is that we adhewre to the Geneva Convention out of a sense of honor, but our own bosses rip I to shreds every chance they get. While I’m not against holding these detainees, they should be processed as criminals and not as enemy prisoners of war.
Rather than refer to them as “spineless Bush sycophants” we should call them “Bush Brownshirts”.
I’m pretty sure that won’t matter. They could have been appointed by Jesus himself and those guys would smear them anyway.
Here’s the actual ruling if you’re into that sort of thing.
The bios of Ginsburg, Henderson & Rogers reveal … Hmmm. Ginsburg was appointed by Reagan, Rogers by Clinton. Henderson (dissenting) by Bush the Elder. Rogers is obvious for the Rah Rah Gang but how to attack Ginsburg without showing disrespect to St. Ron?
Oh wait, I forgot about the ACTIVIST JUDGES.
Don’t assume that Republican judges will always agree with a Republican administration – especially on an issue that would lessen their own power. Any lawyer can tell you that most judges want to be the “decider.”
What I found most amazing during the last 6 1/2 years was the eagerness of the Republicans in Congress to give away their constitutional power vis-a-vis the White House. They made themselves irrevelant. Now the Democrats are trying (with the Repbublicans working hard to obstruct) to regain the constitutional powers referred to as “checks and balances.”
The founding fathers understood the concept of the “unitary executive.” They called it “tyranny.”
I sure hope these guys end up living next to you..
I hope so too, Joe. Based on the hundreds of them that have been released and have not gone on to become terrorists despite their treatment, the statistics seem to suggest that the majority of them are decent people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who pissed off the wrong person. I’d love to have some of them as a neighbor so that I could personally apologize for what my country has done.
Yeah, Catsy, I think I’d like to apologize to some of those folks myself. There has been what, one conviction amongst the hundreds of people kept at Gitmo?
It’s probably very likely that most of them were turned in by people of a different sect, or an unhappy neighbor, and have absolutely nothing to do with Bin Laden. But we don’t know that, because King George won’t allow it. Lovely.
It’s good to be King.
I guess I would prefer most of these guys to members of the Bush junta.
While I don’t condone the detainment and psuedo-torture/ torture of innocents, don’t forget how many of these “innocent civilians” are just as culpable in the deaths of American Soldiers by remaining quiet and not helping us do our job. While it is reprehensible to treat non-combatants and criminals i this way, the Iraqi people as a whole don’t deserve your sympathy or apologies.
And if we ended up getting invaded by China tomorrow, are you going to go run to them and tell them your military secrets?
Excuse me while I barf.
Try not to get your “compassion” all over your shirt.
Cassidy likes pie. He’s gotten as big as Jabba the Hutt on the pie he’s been eating around here.
Rachel, the archives could be searched to find several instances where we were in agreement, and I even defended your POV against Darrell a few times. So if “I like pie” then you are feeding at the same trough, my dear.
You are an moral juggernaut to even dare such a feat, in the face of such mortal danger.
Cassidy, I don’t care who you say you defended against what because you’re still acting like a pie-eating concern troll. Your niggling kind of pissiness has only limited entertainment value, so if you don’t see any more replies to or comments on your posts, you can assume that I’m hitting “page down” when I see your name–as I often do already. I’m sure you won’t mind, as there are plenty of other sources of pie here.
Typical…disregard facts because they make your argument uncomfortably wrong. You know…there are some people in the White House right now who think amazingly similar to you in that regards.
Oh, what the hell, I’ll bite.
If the Iraqis are so worthless, then why is it so important that we “spread freedom and democracy” (tongue firmly in cheek) to them?
I have no idea. As far as I’m concerned that was just one of the moving goalpost that this Administration used. My stance is from that of a Soldier who has been on the ground and tried to do right by the Iraqi people.
Talk about mealy-mouthed.
What is the end result that you, as a soldier, were looking for? What was the signal that the duties of all soldiers there would be done? What kind of government would Iraq have at that point?
Let’s get something else clear, you weren’t doing right by the Iraqi people, you were doing right by the imperialist president who sent you there. You yourself said the Iraqi people as a whole don’t deserve our respect or compassion.
Don’t feed me that line of bullshit that you care about them, because you know you don’t, and you already have admitted so on another thread yesterday.
No, I don’t care for them. Not any more. I tried, but they didn’t earn my compassion or my care. You can only put yourself on a limb too many times, before you realize that it’s a worthless endeavor.
Cassidy, even granting your premise that “the Iraqi people as a whole don’t deserve your sympathy or apologies”, what on earth does that have to do with this discussion? The vast majority of the people in Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan. It’s a complete non sequitur.
The great war on terra has no boundaries, don’t you know?