ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

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

  1. #1
    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. #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.

  3. #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.

  4. #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.

  5. #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

  6. #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

  7. #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

  8. #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.

  9. #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

  10. #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.

Similar Threads

  1. What the Supreme Court's immigration ruling means for Arizonans
    By BoardWizard in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2012, 03:58 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 11:35 AM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 04:42 PM
  4. I am being welcome to the United States of America
    By Boritos la star ivoirienne in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-25-2004, 11:22 PM
  5. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S ASTROLOGICAL HOROSCOPE
    By ShiftAltO in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-29-2003, 03:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: