Former Gitmo detainee responsible for attack in Lybia

https://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/pre...ration-grant-guantanamo-detainee-access-attor

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377783,00.html

A federal judge overseeing Guantanamo Bay lawsuits ordered the Justice Department to put other cases aside and make it clear throughout the Bush administration that, after nearly seven years of detention, the detainees must have their day in court.
"The time has come to move these forward," Judge Thomas F. Hogan said Tuesday during the first hearing over whether the detainees are being held lawfully. "Set aside every other case that's pending in the division and address this case first."
The Bush administration hoped it would never come to this. The Justice Department has fought for years to keep civilian judges from reviewing evidence against terrorism suspects. But a Supreme Court ruling last month opened the courthouse doors to the detainees.
About 200 lawyers, law clerks and reporters sat through the nearly three-hour court hearing. Other lawyers joined by phone for the historic hearing. Attorneys, nearly all of them working for free, have long asked for a judge to scrutinize the evidence, saying the detainees could not be held indefinitely, simply on the government's say-so.
"A day in court on the Guantanamo cases is a treasured moment," said Gitanjali Gutierrez, one of two attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights selected to address the court on behalf of all the lawyers.
There are about 270 detainees being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government has already cleared one of five for release and is just looking for a country to send them to, the Justice Department said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/20/56224/judge-orders-release-of-5-guantanamo.html

WASHINGTON — In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge ordered the speedy release Thursday of five Algerian men after concluding the government didn't have the evidence to hold them for nearly seven years in Guantanamo Bay prison.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, was the latest setback for the administration's detention policies and could foretell more court-ordered releases.

Leon, however, backed the continued imprisonment of a sixth Algerian from the same group, concluding that the Justice Department had sufficient evidence he was a supporter of al Qaida.

One of those ordered released is Lakhdar Boumediene, whose appeal to the Supreme Court became the underpinning of a 5-4 decision that gave Guantanamo prisoners the right to challenge their detention in court. Boumediene, 42, had maintained all along that he was a relief worker with the Islamic Red Crescent.

http://www.publicagenda.com/blogs/federal-judge-orders-release-17-gitmo-detainees

A Federal District Court judge, in a major blow to the Bush administration's detention policies, has ordered the release of 17 detainees from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The New York Times reports the men are ethnic Uighurs, a Muslim minority in western China, and have been held at the prison since 2002 under the required classification of "enemy combatants." Judge Ricardo Urbina has ordered them brought to court on Friday, at which time they are to be released into the care of supporters in the Washington, D.C., area.
The Bush administration - which has long associated the Uighur detainees with terrorist groups in Afghanistan, where they fled to escape Chinese rule - recently conceded that it will no longer try to prove that the 17 men are enemy combatants. Judge Urbina dismissed the Justice Department's arguments on detaining the men as an attempt to assert an executive power of detaining individuals indefinitely without court review. That, said the judge, is "not in keeping with our system of government."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now let's please stop acting like retarded children with the wild claims that BUSH released terrorists. It's CLEAR who released terrorists, it was LIBERALS!
 
Still no takers?

Something tells me, if a Conservative group pushed for released of a detainee from Gitmo and they turned around and attacked an embassy and killed an ambassador, we'd probably at least have to talk about it, don't you suppose?"

Consulate.
 
So the Bush Administration caught the guy and then released him. I get it. You don't.

Here's a hint - show me the lawsuit and the court order that required the Bush Administration to release the guy, dipshit.


WOW...suddenly the DixTard, who spent the past two days whining because he couldn't get anybody to play with him, is now G-O-N-E!

Two days ago he was screaming for some debate, then some facts got presented that he didn't feel comfortable discussing aaaaaaaaaand...POOF...he's outtahere!
 
WOW...suddenly the DixTard, who spent the past two days whining because he couldn't get anybody to play with him, is now G-O-N-E!

Two days ago he was screaming for some debate, then some facts got presented that he didn't feel comfortable discussing aaaaaaaaaand...POOF...he's outtahere!

Yeah, my last post on the thread was at 10:34 PM yesterday.

There is no "debate" happening here. Just more liberal hooey and refusal to be honest. No facts have been presented by the left, just dodging of the facts, as you try to manipulate reality and morph it into fantasy. Bush caught the terrorist and put him in Gitmo, Liberals had a cow and demanded he be released, Bush said NO, he is a threat and danger, Liberals took it to court and wrapped themselves in the flag, demanding he be given constitutional rights, the court found in the liberals' favor and told Bush he had to give him a tribunal, and the tribunal was pressured by liberals to release him, so they did... he returned to Libya and orchestrated attacks on the US again. Liberals now want to claim Bush let him go!
 
Yeah, my last post on the thread was at 10:34 PM yesterday.

There is no "debate" happening here. Just more liberal hooey and refusal to be honest. No facts have been presented by the left, just dodging of the facts, as you try to manipulate reality and morph it into fantasy. Bush caught the terrorist and put him in Gitmo, Liberals had a cow and demanded he be released, Bush said NO, he is a threat and danger, Liberals took it to court and wrapped themselves in the flag, demanding he be given constitutional rights, the court found in the liberals' favor and told Bush he had to give him a tribunal, and the tribunal was pressured by liberals to release him, so they did... he returned to Libya and orchestrated attacks on the US again. Liberals now want to claim Bush let him go!


Look who's refusing to be honest...a number of times now you've been asked which administration stood back and allowed that guy to be released and yet you refuse to answer honestly.
 
Look who's refusing to be honest...a number of times now you've been asked which administration stood back and allowed that guy to be released and yet you refuse to answer honestly.

Well Bush didn't "stand back and allow" anything... see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld above. A LIBERAL GROUP, Center for Constitutional Rights, led the charge to obtain the release of Gitmo detainees, who the Bush administration argued were a threat and danger. When this was happening, pinheads like you were here insisting these people were "innocent victims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time."

After YEARS of court wrangling, the Bush administration was finally FORCED to give these terrorists tribunal hearings, whereby many of them had to be released. You simply can't blame that on Bush! Was he supposed to defy the court orders? Well... actually, he DID defy them, until the Supreme Court ruled he couldn't do it any longer. So should he have defied the SCOTUS and ignored their order?
 
Michelle Malkin?

For many years, Malkin was a frequent commentator for Fox News Channel and a regular guest host of The O'Reilly Factor. In 2007, she announced that she would not return to The O'Reilly Factor, claiming that Fox News had mishandled a dispute over derogatory statements made about her by Geraldo Rivera in a Boston Globe interview.[16] Since 2007, she has concentrated on her writing, blogging and public speaking, although she still appears on television occasionally, especially with Sean Hannity on Fox News and Fox & Friends once a week. In December 2009, Malkin began writing for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat.

In August 2004, following claims by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that presidential candidate John Kerry had exaggerated his record during the Vietnam War, Malkin appeared on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and stated that there were "legitimate questions" over whether Kerry's wounds were "self-inflicted." When host Chris Matthews asked her eleven times whether she meant Kerry had shot himself on purpose, she dodged the question,[17] but ultimately said that other soldiers had made this claim.[citation needed] Malkin criticized Matthews and the MSNBC staff in her blog the following day.[17] Georgia Senator Zell Miller accused Matthews of "browbeating" Malkin.[18]

Malkin founded the websites Hot Air, an internet broadcast network, and Twitchy.com, a Twitter curation site.[19]

What a loser...as is her opinion blog.
 
Yes, Michelle Malkin... she is an unapologetic right winger. Can you refute the facts she presented, or are we to automatically dismiss anything she says because she isn't a liberal? You know, whenever Micheal Moore or Bill Mahr throw something out there, whether true or false, I never see anyone dismiss it because of their political bias. Why do you expect a double standard? Are you THAT partisan?
 
Well Bush didn't "stand back and allow" anything... see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld above. A LIBERAL GROUP, Center for Constitutional Rights, led the charge to obtain the release of Gitmo detainees, who the Bush administration argued were a threat and danger. When this was happening, pinheads like you were here insisting these people were "innocent victims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time."

After YEARS of court wrangling, the Bush administration was finally FORCED to give these terrorists tribunal hearings, whereby many of them had to be released. You simply can't blame that on Bush! Was he supposed to defy the court orders? Well... actually, he DID defy them, until the Supreme Court ruled he couldn't do it any longer. So should he have defied the SCOTUS and ignored their order?


Well doesn't it just SUCK when our elected officials have to OBEY THE LAWS of this nation like you and I do?

UNFORTUNATELY FOR BUSH AND CO, the SC ruled the man's imprisonment violated the law...now I know you'd like to just conveniently ignore any law which you don't like, but the fact remains we are a nation of laws.
 
Well doesn't it just SUCK when our elected officials have to OBEY THE LAWS of this nation like you and I do?

UNFORTUNATELY FOR BUSH AND CO, the SC ruled the man's imprisonment violated the law...now I know you'd like to just conveniently ignore any law which you don't like, but the fact remains we are a nation of laws.

No, what sucks is when they obey the court rulings against their better judgement, then get blamed for exactly what they warned us against.
 
No, what sucks is when they obey the court rulings against their better judgement, then get blamed for exactly what they warned us against.


You might have a point if it was truly a "Liberal" court as you claimed.

Unfortunately, it was the Supreme Court presided over by BUSH APPOINTEES CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS and newly appointed Justice ALITO.
 
You might have a point if it was truly a "Liberal" court as you claimed.

Unfortunately, it was the Supreme Court presided over by BUSH APPOINTEES CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS and newly appointed Justice ALITO.

Yeah, if we completely ignore why it was at the Supreme Court to begin with... I guess that flies? The problem is, it was because of LIBERALS the issue was taken up as a "cause" and mush-brains like you rallied around it, and refused to hear the Bush argument that we needed to keep these people detained because they represented a danger. Now, when it would be most appropriate for Bush to say "I TOLD YOU SO" you want to spin it into HIS FAULT! That's really about as dishonest and sleazy as it gets.
 
Yeah, if we completely ignore why it was at the Supreme Court to begin with... I guess that flies? The problem is, it was because of LIBERALS the issue was taken up as a "cause" and mush-brains like you rallied around it, and refused to hear the Bush argument that we needed to keep these people detained because they represented a danger. Now, when it would be most appropriate for Bush to say "I TOLD YOU SO" you want to spin it into HIS FAULT! That's really about as dishonest and sleazy as it gets.

It's just possible that more might have taken the Bush Administration at their word, if their word had not already been compromised thanks to the lying they did to to you and I about 9/11, Iraq, Saddam Hussein and WMD'S.
 
No, what sucks is when they obey the court rulings against their better judgement, then get blamed for exactly what they warned us against.

That doesn't suck, it is an extension of the risk we take to live in a free society with government limitations. Would you prefer that the Executive just ignore the courts and start taking and keeping prisoners indefinitely? Seriously, that would be a far larger hit on what makes us the US than letting people go who may harm us later. We need the Executive to follow the constitution, even when it seems "insane" to do so.
 
That doesn't suck, it is an extension of the risk we take to live in a free society with government limitations. Would you prefer that the Executive just ignore the courts and start taking and keeping prisoners indefinitely? Seriously, that would be a far larger hit on what makes us the US than letting people go who may harm us later. We need the Executive to follow the constitution, even when it seems "insane" to do so.

The Constitution does not, and never has, applied to enemies captured on the battlefield, Damo! The battlefield in a time of war, is NOT a free democratic society, I'm sorry... it's just NOT! The executive branch SHOULD have had the authority to hold enemy combatants as long as necessary, if you want to call it "indefinite" so be it, but they damn well shouldn't have been released to Libya, where they could turn around and assassinate a US Ambassador. That didn't "make us the US" it made us STUPID IDIOTS! You and your Libertarian friends are part of the problem here. You decided to jump up on your moral high horse and 'side' with the ACLU and Liberals, and THIS is what happened! THIS is why you were warned that it was a STUPID idea at the time, and now here we have the Liberals parading around blaming it on the man who warned you! And what are you going to do? Jump up on your idiot moral high horse again, and hoot down the people who are trying to defend American lives. I honestly don't know who is more stupid, I'm beginning to think it's the Libertarian tards! Now run misquote Franklin about security in the name of liberty again, as usual!
 
https://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/pre...ration-grant-guantanamo-detainee-access-attor

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377783,00.html

A federal judge overseeing Guantanamo Bay lawsuits ordered the Justice Department to put other cases aside and make it clear throughout the Bush administration that, after nearly seven years of detention, the detainees must have their day in court.
"The time has come to move these forward," Judge Thomas F. Hogan said Tuesday during the first hearing over whether the detainees are being held lawfully. "Set aside every other case that's pending in the division and address this case first."
The Bush administration hoped it would never come to this. The Justice Department has fought for years to keep civilian judges from reviewing evidence against terrorism suspects. But a Supreme Court ruling last month opened the courthouse doors to the detainees.
About 200 lawyers, law clerks and reporters sat through the nearly three-hour court hearing. Other lawyers joined by phone for the historic hearing. Attorneys, nearly all of them working for free, have long asked for a judge to scrutinize the evidence, saying the detainees could not be held indefinitely, simply on the government's say-so.
"A day in court on the Guantanamo cases is a treasured moment," said Gitanjali Gutierrez, one of two attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights selected to address the court on behalf of all the lawyers.
There are about 270 detainees being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government has already cleared one of five for release and is just looking for a country to send them to, the Justice Department said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/20/56224/judge-orders-release-of-5-guantanamo.html

WASHINGTON — In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge ordered the speedy release Thursday of five Algerian men after concluding the government didn't have the evidence to hold them for nearly seven years in Guantanamo Bay prison.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, was the latest setback for the administration's detention policies and could foretell more court-ordered releases.

Leon, however, backed the continued imprisonment of a sixth Algerian from the same group, concluding that the Justice Department had sufficient evidence he was a supporter of al Qaida.

One of those ordered released is Lakhdar Boumediene, whose appeal to the Supreme Court became the underpinning of a 5-4 decision that gave Guantanamo prisoners the right to challenge their detention in court. Boumediene, 42, had maintained all along that he was a relief worker with the Islamic Red Crescent.

http://www.publicagenda.com/blogs/federal-judge-orders-release-17-gitmo-detainees

A Federal District Court judge, in a major blow to the Bush administration's detention policies, has ordered the release of 17 detainees from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The New York Times reports the men are ethnic Uighurs, a Muslim minority in western China, and have been held at the prison since 2002 under the required classification of "enemy combatants." Judge Ricardo Urbina has ordered them brought to court on Friday, at which time they are to be released into the care of supporters in the Washington, D.C., area.
The Bush administration - which has long associated the Uighur detainees with terrorist groups in Afghanistan, where they fled to escape Chinese rule - recently conceded that it will no longer try to prove that the 17 men are enemy combatants. Judge Urbina dismissed the Justice Department's arguments on detaining the men as an attempt to assert an executive power of detaining individuals indefinitely without court review. That, said the judge, is "not in keeping with our system of government."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now let's please stop acting like retarded children with the wild claims that BUSH released terrorists. It's CLEAR who released terrorists, it was LIBERALS!


The first three links are about events that occurred in 2008. The guy in question was released by the Bush Administration in 2007. The last link is about the rights of U.S. citizens that were detained as enemy combatants. The guy in question was not a U.S. citizen.

Really poor effort on your part here to try to blame "liberals" for stuff the Bush Administration did.
 
The first three links are about events that occurred in 2008. The guy in question was released by the Bush Administration in 2007. The last link is about the rights of U.S. citizens that were detained as enemy combatants. The guy in question was not a U.S. citizen.

Really poor effort on your part here to try to blame "liberals" for stuff the Bush Administration did.

Look you little fucktard, the Liberals started whining the second a terrorist set foot on Gitmo soil. They didn't stop whining until Obama got elected, and suddenly it wasn't a big deal anymore. You can run around trying to find caveats and excuses all you like now, a US Ambassador is dead because Liberals (and Libertarians) wanted to act stupid. I only posted a few links I found off the cuff, you want me to post the 150 or so, legal cases brought by the liberal cabal over the course of the past 10 years? Are you so fucking obtuse and inept that you can't even admit that Liberals have pushed for these releases all along?
 
The Constitution does not, and never has, applied to enemies captured on the battlefield, Damo! The battlefield in a time of war, is NOT a free democratic society, I'm sorry... it's just NOT! The executive branch SHOULD have had the authority to hold enemy combatants as long as necessary, if you want to call it "indefinite" so be it, but they damn well shouldn't have been released to Libya, where they could turn around and assassinate a US Ambassador. That didn't "make us the US" it made us STUPID IDIOTS! You and your Libertarian friends are part of the problem here. You decided to jump up on your moral high horse and 'side' with the ACLU and Liberals, and THIS is what happened! THIS is why you were warned that it was a STUPID idea at the time, and now here we have the Liberals parading around blaming it on the man who warned you! And what are you going to do? Jump up on your idiot moral high horse again, and hoot down the people who are trying to defend American lives. I honestly don't know who is more stupid, I'm beginning to think it's the Libertarian tards! Now run misquote Franklin about security in the name of liberty again, as usual!

You are misapplying the argument, and horribly. Tell me again what that SCOTUS ruling was, once you are done reading about it come back once you realize your mistake.
 
You are misapplying the argument, and horribly. Tell me again what that SCOTUS ruling was, once you are done reading about it come back once you realize your mistake.

Misapplying the argument? No, I don't think I am. Bush argued these people were a potential threat to Americans, and as such, required detention as enemy combatants. Liberals pumped untold millions into liberal defense funds, and lawyered the terrorists up to the hilt, in order to 'defy' the president, in order to embarrass him, and for purely political motivations. Ultimately, the relentless legal challenges ended up at the SCOTUS, where SCOTUS ruled as if enemy combatants captured on a field of battle in a war, were United States Citizens, subject to Constitutional freedoms. But there would have been NO case at the SCOTUS if liberals (and you libertarian cheerleaders) had kept your nose out of US Military affairs. It simply doesn't matter what the SCOTUS ruling was, or the reasons behind it, the case should have never existed.

Now we have a dead Ambassador, a former Navy SEAL, and two private contractors, and a consulate destroyed, by a man we had captured and detained at Gitmo! Who do liberals blame? BUSH! It just blows my mind, and here you are, right back on your shining white libertarian high horse, riding in to declare liberty for all, security be damned! You are as big of a threat to national security as the Libs, maybe bigger!
 
Back
Top