Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breaking News - Supreme Court Ruling Jeopordizes Safety of United States of America

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Breaking News - Supreme Court Ruling Jeopordizes Safety of United States of America

    White House says ruling could free detainees in US

    By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 55 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - The White House said Thursday that dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay could end up walking Main Street U.S.A. 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.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    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-Qaida'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 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-Qaida 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.
    I am not racist. I am not anti-immigrant. I am AGAINST CRIMINALS, FRAUDSTERS, WHO DISOBEY THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW AND PERPETRATE THE FRAUD.

    You may not like what I have to say but that does not mean I am wrong.

  • #2
    White House says ruling could free detainees in US

    By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 55 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - The White House said Thursday that dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay could end up walking Main Street U.S.A. 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.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    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-Qaida'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 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-Qaida 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.
    I am not racist. I am not anti-immigrant. I am AGAINST CRIMINALS, FRAUDSTERS, WHO DISOBEY THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW AND PERPETRATE THE FRAUD.

    You may not like what I have to say but that does not mean I am wrong.

    Comment


    • #3
      Wow...terrorists have more rights than USC now USC are falsely labeled as abusers under VAWA through fraudulent VAWA affidavits but Supreme Court believes on releasing terrorists within America. Didn't I say reverse world mechanism is going on Lord help us all...
      I am not racist. I am not anti-immigrant. I am AGAINST CRIMINALS, FRAUDSTERS, WHO DISOBEY THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW AND PERPETRATE THE FRAUD.

      You may not like what I have to say but that does not mean I am wrong.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is some serious s.hit. America be careful and watch out. Keep your kids in door and safe. Never know what the bad intentions these people might have.
        I am not racist. I am not anti-immigrant. I am AGAINST CRIMINALS, FRAUDSTERS, WHO DISOBEY THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW AND PERPETRATE THE FRAUD.

        You may not like what I have to say but that does not mean I am wrong.

        Comment


        • #5
          wont Happen! At Least What Most Get To see!
          USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

          Comment


          • #6
            In case anyone is wondering, this link will provide the text of Boumediene v. Bush.

            I disagree this gives more rights to terrorists than USC, but what it does provide is an avenue, according the the GCIII of adequate determination to challenge their determination status
            "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

            Comment


            • #7
              What really bites me about this ruling is that is basically states people who are not Americans, have no interest in living in America or becoming Americans, and in fact want to destroy America have the same constitutional rights as Americans!

              OK - you want to give constitutional rights to illegal immigrants? I'm not happy with it, but at least they want to be here. But giving constitutional rights to foreign nationals who are enemy combatants? That's just dumb.
              --------------------
              "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. " - Thomas Jefferson

              Comment


              • #8
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JermCool:
                What really bites me about this ruling is that is basically states people who are not Americans, have no interest in living in America or becoming Americans, and in fact want to destroy America have the same constitutional rights as Americans!

                OK - you want to give constitutional rights to illegal immigrants? I'm not happy with it, but at least they want to be here. But giving constitutional rights to foreign nationals who are enemy combatants? That's just dumb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                Exactly JC. Giving rights to those f.king Mosleums who are hell bent on destroying America and then letting them wonder our streets is ridiculous. What the hell were these justices thinking? They should have said if you cannot provide evidence or are not ready to disclose it, just shoot them. End of story. Period. We cannot take any more chances with these people especially when they are hell bent of defying US of A laws.
                I am not racist. I am not anti-immigrant. I am AGAINST CRIMINALS, FRAUDSTERS, WHO DISOBEY THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW AND PERPETRATE THE FRAUD.

                You may not like what I have to say but that does not mean I am wrong.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I said nothing about Muslims. I said "foreign nationals" and "enemy combatants."
                  --------------------
                  "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. " - Thomas Jefferson

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JermCool:
                    I said nothing about Muslims. I said "foreign nationals" and "enemy combatants." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    I agree you never used the word Muslim. But you have to show me any other religion that is so desperate in destroying America, holding up signs Death To America, Death To Israel. I surfed but couldn't find any other religion with that sign. So taking that into account the folks of only one particular religion wants destruction of America and Americans. You know the answer to it very well.
                    I am not racist. I am not anti-immigrant. I am AGAINST CRIMINALS, FRAUDSTERS, WHO DISOBEY THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW AND PERPETRATE THE FRAUD.

                    You may not like what I have to say but that does not mean I am wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JermCool:
                      What really bites me about this ruling is that is basically states people who are not Americans, have no interest in living in America or becoming Americans, and in fact want to destroy America have the same constitutional rights as Americans!

                      OK - you want to give constitutional rights to illegal immigrants? I'm not happy with it, but at least they want to be here. But giving constitutional rights to foreign nationals who are enemy combatants? That's just dumb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                      JC, I think you are over blowing this a bit. Under the Military Commissions Act, there was no reaonable alternative for detainees to challenge their status. This is in direct contrast to unlawful German combatants of WWII. This really would not be an issue except for the fact that a significant number of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay had nothing to do with terrorism, Al Queda, or the Taliban. They were sent there by only being named in a phone conversation or perhaps under torture or even perhaps by a personal vendetta. Guilty by association and not by the intention or direct evidence to commit a terrorist attack is the reason why they are held. All the US Supreme Court said that under American jurisprudence they should be held lawfully.

                      Althoug we live in dangerous times, this is not 1940's nor during the Civil War and Reconstruction period. But perhaps you can reflect what Former US Attorney General Gonza*** said, ""There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away."
                      "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You think that there if the U.S. believes that there is some danger that the United States will allow these individuals to come to the United States??? Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No.

                        If the United States has their names, it will never allow them to come here. If anything, the only thing that will happen is that they will win release to return to their home country, and some slick attorney will find a way to attempt to form a class action suit on behalf of the detainees.

                        A ridiculous habit of U.S. citizens is the use of the term "terrorism" to refer exclusively to Muslim extremists. While some of them have "terrorist" ideolgies and habits that undermine the quality of life in the United States, they are not the only ones.

                        Many individuals here already know the story regarding my husband, the former Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere (yeah, I said "former." He lost his senatorial seat a few days ago due to, of all things, election fraud. See http://www.huhuonline.com/news207.html, bottom of page).

                        Acts of terrorism against the U.S. and her citizenry is not restricted to blowing up buildings. These are, in my opinion, other acts of terrorism:

                        1) Green card marriage fraud;
                        2) 419 e-mail scam;
                        3) Identity fraud;
                        4) Bribing of U.S. immigration officials;
                        5) Importation of illicit drugs;
                        6) Hiring of illegal aliens; and
                        7) Immigration practitioners' habit of pretending not to see their clients' acts of fraud -- especially in green card marriage cases.

                        Every single one of the aforementioned situations can be and are often turned into acts that disrupt and cheapen the quality of life in the United States and are therefore potential security risks.

                        Urban sprawl, the overcrowding of cities due to uncontrolled immigrant population growth, the exponential increase of "anchor babies" to mothers who are illegal aliens, the expansion of the the illicit drug trade, foreign prostitution rings and other crimes are things that exist in many neighborhoods.

                        As amazing as this may sound, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, hashish, hemp, and other plants used to process illegal drugs do not grow in poor black neighborhoods. They are grown outside of the U.S. and brought in by foreigners.

                        The U.S. government is so busy frightening her citizenry regarding the acts of terrorism committed by Islamic extremists that she has lulled most Americans into a state of complacency regarding real and constant acts of terrorism associated with America's lax immigration policies.

                        One way to make a real difference in a slowing the tide of "terrorism" associated with immigration fraud:

                        END GREEN CARD SPONSORSHIP THROUGH MARRIAGE ONCE AND FOR ALL (please read my opinion at http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.com/end_green_card...ge_sponsorship.html)
                        I AM A VICTIM OF A GREEN CARD MARRIAGE SCAM. THE PERPETRATOR IS SENATOR EHIGHE EDOBOR UZAMERE. THE IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS WHO PROVIDED SERVICES THAT HELPED HIM USE SUBTERFUGE TO TRICK ME ARE ALLEN E. KAYE AND HARVEY SHAPIRO. THIS IS THE TRUTH -- AND

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          http://www.thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.com/end_green_card...age_sponsorship.html

                          Pardon my mistaken.
                          I AM A VICTIM OF A GREEN CARD MARRIAGE SCAM. THE PERPETRATOR IS SENATOR EHIGHE EDOBOR UZAMERE. THE IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS WHO PROVIDED SERVICES THAT HELPED HIM USE SUBTERFUGE TO TRICK ME ARE ALLEN E. KAYE AND HARVEY SHAPIRO. THIS IS THE TRUTH -- AND

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hudson, J and I have had many arguments to similar effect. I hope you have more luck than I did.

                            Cheryl, in your fight to get all marriages between USC's and foreigners deemed null and void, I wish you luck. Quite aside from the fact it goes completely against the US Constitution and would never hold water, it's a step towards the ideologies you profess to be against. For one that invokes Godwin's Law so regularly in her defense, it is pretty ironic to see you preaching this.

                            Regardless, I'm off to bed now, secure in the knowledge that I'm probably the most patient green card scammer in history, having waited almost 10 years while suffering my husband living in my home country all that time. Oh, what terrible memories ... the endangered penguins we saw together, the endangered dolphins we got to swim with, the whales, the seals, the extraordinary sights we got to see ... and to think ... we had to drive a whole 40 minutes to see it all. Such hardship.
                            **************************************
                            The whole of life is but a moment of time. It is our duty, therefore to use it, not to misuse it - Plutarch

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X