• Home
  • News
  • High Court Accepts Gitmo Case on Detainees Ordered Released in US

U.S. Supreme Court

High Court Accepts Gitmo Case on Detainees Ordered Released in US

Posted Oct 20, 2009 8:54 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether federal judges have the power to order Guantanamo detainees to be released into the United States when they are no longer considered a threat.

The appeal was filed by Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs who are no longer classified as enemy combatants, the Associated Press reports. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had ruled that decisions about the release of the detainees must be made by the president and Congress, rather than the courts.

The case, Kiyemba v. Obama, is the first case addressing the war on terrorism that the court has accepted since President Obama took office, SCOTUSblog reports.

The Obama administration argues that the Supreme Court decision Boumediene v. Bush established a right to a habeas appeal for detainees, but did not authorize courts to order their release here.

One of the detainees can't find a nation willing to accept him, his lawyer told the Supreme Court. Bermuda and Palau have agreed to accept the other 16 Uighur detainees, AP says.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Oct 20, 2009 9:09 AM CST

It seems like the government should be able to put detainees back where they were picked up.  That’s where they were, so returning them should be “no harm, no foul,” even if the country they were taken from does not want them.  If no permission was needed to take them away, why should permission be needed to put them back?

2.

P. Bryson
Oct 20, 2009 10:09 AM CST

I like your solution, McLeod. Its a grown-up version of “put that thing back where it came from.” I heard that a lot as a kid after visiting the creek.

3.

AndytheLawyer
Oct 20, 2009 10:17 AM CST

B.McLeod—Here’s the problem(s).  First, the Uighurs in this case weren’t picked up on a “battlefield,” but were detained in Afghanistan and Pakistan in non-combat situations.  The US military later determined that they were not enemy combatants.  They can’t be returned home to China because there, they’d be jailed for “breathing while Muslim.”  But they have no legal standing to be in Afghanistan or Pakistan, where they’d be subject to arrest on status grounds if returned there.

The real issue is—is the USA genuinely in danger from people that the military has determined are not and never were “enemy combatants”?  I think not.  The US government screwed up in picking them up in the first place.  Time for us to suck up the consequences.

4.

JR
Oct 20, 2009 11:09 AM CST

Of course courts may release the detainees.  What else does the right to habeas corpus mean?

5.

William Bednarz
Oct 20, 2009 4:55 PM CST

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had ruled that decisions about the release of the detainees must be made by the president and Congress, rather than the courts.
The Court Rukled Te Court Can Not Rule -.- The President has no authority to order torture / illegal rendition ?.?  In Texas is a piece of property will a renoun security systmem installed at a cost of Millions & Millions of taxpayers dollars…a place to place them within the United States without being within the United States…..
..Would it be considered an illegal taking of property as the illegal rendition is considered Kidnapping ?.?

6.

AndytheLawyer
Oct 21, 2009 10:11 AM CST

I’ve been trying to come up with a halfway funny riff on the “Uighurs” / “Wiggers” near-homonym.  It’s not working.  Suggestions are welcome.

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.