If you believe the U.S. military is doing a dandy job figuring out exactly who is the enemy and who is not at Guantanamo, Bloomberg colunmist Ann Wolner has a court ruling she’d like to tell you about. It was made last week by a conservative-leaning appeals court. For the details, here are some clips from yesterday’s column by Wolner:
The federal appeals court in Washington D.C., the first court to look into the facts behind a specific Gitmo detention, decided the military had no credible evidence to label a man an enemy combatant and keep him locked up for six and a half years.
“It is undisputed that he is not a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and that he has never participated in any hostile action against the United States or its allies,” the court said.
Made public last week, the ruling found not a shred of credible evidence to support the government’s claim that Huzaifa Parhat had anything at all to do with America’s enemies, whether through combat or support or association with a group that may have associated with them.
Parhat is one of 13 Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo who fled persecution in China, camped in Afghanistan and wound up in Pakistan, where authorities handed him over to the U.S. His case is essentially identical to the dozen other detainees who are all members of the Uighur ethnic group. (That’s pronounced WEE- gur.)
Beyond those 13 cases, the Parhat decision shows how little it takes to get labeled an enemy combatant and imprisoned for years on end……
Read the rest of the column here.
The U.S. military is at a disadvantage in U.S. courts versus military tribunals. To provide proof sufficient for U.S. courts would likely expose friendly sources to death and give away intelligence methods and information. So, you’re left with believing that the military likes to hold prisoners for absolutley no good reason or that they have internal information justifiying that holding.
In this case, the make-up of the court is not pertinent, because conservative judges will honor precedence handed down by the Supreme Court on this issue–liberal, and the liberal judges don’t care and can be counted on to rule against our nation’s interests.
Think things all the way through rather than accepting the first answer that you hear.
Think things all the way through rather than accepting the first answer that you hear.
That self-awareness train runs by still empty.
“He has transported people accross the sea to stand trial in courts in other lands.”
One of the particulars in the reasons for separation fron Great Britain as a charge against King George III in the Declaration of Independence. But those wild and crazy guys in Philly supported the terrorists!!!
Well, well, well. Leave it up to a liberal Democrat to compare our founding fathers seeking liberty to terrorists wanting to deprive everyone of it.
But, let’s see another grievance of our founders:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages (read, Islamic terrorists) whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
This gives some perspective to the grievances of conservatives against liberals who want to protect terrorists.