Justice Department Imports Terrorist into Lower Manhattan
Obama administration officials are having a head/desk moment explaining to Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and John Q. Public why moving prisoners from Guantanamo to the U.S. mainland is not, in fact, a matter of releasing them to wage a jihad in your hometown. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports that the first Gitmo detainee has been moved to New York City to face trial:
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian national held at Guantanamo since September 2006, arrived at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, which has housed several suspected terrorists during their prosecutions in the federal court for the Southern District of New York, the department said. He was due to appear in federal court today….
Ghailani is charged with murder in the deaths of each of the 224 people killed in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. His March 2001 indictment also accuses him of conspiring with Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda to kill Americans anywhere in the world, according to the Justice Department.
Note that the U.S. mainland's prisons already hold a motley crew of terrorists—355 of them, of both the Muslim and non-Muslim varieties—who make Ghailani look pretty unremarkable. Defying expectations, they have difficulty terrorizing Americans from cells in ADX Florence.
Hop over to USA Today for this totally reasonable reaction to the transfer:
"This is the first step in the Democrats' plan to import terrorists into America," said House Republican leader John Boehner.
For Reason's coverage of Gitmo, look here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Boner; what a fucking retard.
Nice work, Buckeyes!
I thought the Solicitor General had a very interesting point, one that seems to be completely ignored by the Justice Department.
These people are foreign nationals. There is no basis under US immigration law for admitting them into the country, even to face trial. In fact, US immigration law specifically bars them from entering the country due to their association with terrorism.
So, just what is this guy's immigration status? What kind of visa does he have?
I'd love to see someone from ICE step in, arrest him as an illegal alien, and deport him to Tanzania.
Do you really expect me to take you or your party (house minority leader, right?) seriously?
Concentrating prisoners in New York City. Hmmmm. This sounds familiar to me somehow. . . .
OJ went free. This guy might too.
This is the Boehner who said we should listen to elected Republicans, instead of those crazy unaccountable radio talk show hosts who say those outrageous things.
Bill Flanigen, whoever you are, and if that is in fact your real name: THE US CONSTITUTION IS NOT A DEATH PACT! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
OJ went free. This guy might too.
It is at this point that you deport him. It's win/win, people.
Listen here Brooks ... there are many a proud Buckeye, of the liberty loving sort, that say "fuck off!" ...
These people are foreign nationals. There is no basis under US immigration law for admitting them into the country, even to face trial.
Bullshit. Foreign nationals are extradited to the US to stand trial all the time.
Seriously, Bush dead-enders, let go. If you're building the GOP around defending the policies of the Bush administration, you're going to have single-digits in the Senate within 10 years.
So I read this column by Clive Crook which outlined the issue succinctly (if incorrectly):
Can one of you liberty-minded people please refute the "several medium-sized US cities" part because although it's hyperbole it seems like a valid point.
And as for the less liberal folks, I have spoken to individuals who believe that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and thus these terrorists must be tried, (likely) released, and kept under surveillance (within the limits of the law, of course). I didn't have much to say to that, other than "that's a bad outcome" so I'd appreciate help on that front too.
Tulpa,
No. Our system is based on one simple fact: There are two parties, and we grow annoyed with the one in power. At such time, we switch.
These days, we're increasingly impatient. I suspect one house will go back to the GOP in 2010, and Obama will very likely have a very tough road to re-election in 2012.
It shouldn't work like this, but it does. Naturally, my preference would be for the GOP to have to totally embrace limited government and less foreign intervention, but they know they don't have to do any such thing to regain power.
mark,
I don't think that's the threshold question. Are several medium-sized cities actually threatened unless we surrender some civil liberties? I'm dubious about that kind of claim. Just like Cheney suggesting that torture actually saved a U.S. city.
Destroying a city doesn't appear to be within the capacity of the terrorists we're facing, anyway, does it?
Fixed, unfortunately.
If he's involved with the Embassy bombings, this guy seems like a better candidate to attempt to try in a civilian court than guys that we just picked up during a military operation.
Although I generally respect Clive Crook, his point is easy to refute ... all things being equal, his acceptance into the general population of US prisons does not pose the type of threat he proposes, unless he believes that such a transfer would be accompanied by a total evisceration of the Patriot Act. After all, conservatives and defense junkies believe that the PA is responsible for dismantling home grown terrorist cells. Therefore, it has the power to combat a prisoner, let alone an ostensibly free person within our borders to carry out an attack of any kind.
Ahoy!
Importing terrorists? With no restrictive tariffs? Well color me suprised....
Let the state without idiot politicians case the first stone, P Brooks.
*cast
"This is the first step in the Democrats' plan to import terrorists into America," said House Republican leader John Boehner.
I presume the next step is in the Democrats' plan is to get us all gay-married.
I just saw Escape from Alcatraz on Turner Classic Movies last night. No one escapes from The Rock.
Oh, wait?
Why are conservatives such pussies? And why do they get to dominate the "tough guy" side of the argument when they're clearly such pathetic frightened little pussies?
Call me Snake.
Bullshit. Foreign nationals are extradited to the US to stand trial all the time.
Good point. I went and looked at the brief (search for "Uighur" at the solicitor general's website), and she is addressing a petition to be released in the US pending habeas corpus proceedings. She doesn't address extradition.
However, it does raise the additional question of how, exactly, the Gitmo detainees would be admitted to the US. They haven't been extradited, after all. I wonder just what procedural/legal category their admission falls into.
And, it raises the further question of what would be done with them if they were acquitted. Presumably, an acquittal can't be ruled out in any fair trial.
They are illegal aliens, after all, and their home countries have either refused to allow them to return, or returning them there is politically unpalatable due to their likely reception. What would we do with them after acquittal? They aren't eligible for any of the usual visas, lacking as they do a sponsoring employer.
Our justice system is based on the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty. Much of the time, the cases against people like this are thrown out from lack of evidence.
So what's the big deal? You treat him like any other murder suspect. If the judge or jury finds him guilty, send him to prison. If innocent,deport him.
We have plenty of home grown murderers out there who may or may not be more dangerous than this guy.
They are illegal aliens, after all,
How does someone who gets arrested in a foreign country, taken to an american jail, and brought to the US in government custody become an "illegal alien" ?
They didn't enter the country illegally. They were brought here by our government. They aren't illegal aliens. They may be aliens in the immigration sense of the word, but they are not illegal aliens who have broken immigration laws.
I tire of legal fictions. I should've been an engineer.
"They aren't eligible for any of the usual visas, lacking as they do a sponsoring employer."
Too bad the NY Times isn't hiring right now.
Well, CT, what visa do they have? What's the exception?
Foreign nationals who are extradited are brought here under treaties, so there is law on the books allowing for their entry. What law is there that covers this?
Just because the government does it, doesn't mean its legal, unless you want to concede that the government is legally detaining all those guys at Gitmo.
Its pretty clear from Kagan's brief that they can't be released in this country while they are awaiting trial. What law allows them to be detained in this country while awaiting trial?
Its an easy fix. All Congress has to do is grow a pair and pass a law.
"""There is no basis under US immigration law for admitting them into the country, even to face trial."""
I think Manuel Noriega tried that claim.
information is very clear. good and understandable explanation. super-topics. Thank you for sharing a very nice web site.
information is very clear. good and understandable explanation. super-topics. Thank you for sharing a very nice web site.
Can one of you liberty-minded people please refute the "several medium-sized US cities" part because although it's hyperbole it seems like a valid point.
The fact that anyone says they'd be willing to sacrifice the cities or the fact that you'd have to be retarded to think that housing terrorists at a military supermax in the US and giving them military trials would somehow result in the loss of those cities?
True, but you'd also have to be retarded to think that that's somehow better treatment than Gitmo and military trials there too.
True, but you'd also have to be retarded to think that that's somehow better treatment than Gitmo and military trials there too
Well, you wouldn't have the whole, "The Constitution doesn't apply there" decision by SCOTUS to lean on.
No. Our system is based on one simple fact: There are two parties, and we grow annoyed with the one in power. At such time, we switch.
Uh, no. During the history of the US, major parties, i.e. "one of the big two" have died a few times and been replaced. Unless you know of a secret Whig senate majority being concealed by media conspiracy or something.
Just because the government does it, doesn't mean its legal, unless you want to concede that the government is legally detaining all those guys at Gitmo.
Maybe we are arguing different ideas here.
When the government BRINGS them here, they have not entered the country illegally -- THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL aliens.
Now maybe the government is violating the law by bringing them here. I dunno. Regardless of what authority the US government has to hold them, to say that because they were brought here by the government (against their will as prisoners) they become illegal aliens strikes me as odd.
CT, surely you see the problem with asserting this:
When the government BRINGS them here, they have not entered the country illegally
while also stating this:
Now maybe the government is violating the law by bringing them here.
I think you may be operating under the mistaken idea that you cannot be an illegal alien unless you entered this country voluntarily and with the intention of being an illegal alien.
Not true. You are an illegal alien of you are in this country, are not a citizen of this country, and do not have the proper visa or allowance. I'm sure there is also some provision for folks we have extradited.
But I know of no provision that allows foreign nationals to reside in this country without one of the above.
Elemenope,
True, but how long has it been? The character of the parties changes over time, but that's not the same as a third party taking over for a major.
Maybe it's time for a Whig revival!
Ack! I did it again!
Libertate
Libertate
Libertate
Libertate
Libertate
Libertate
Libertate
Dammit!
Put Reid and Boehner together in the same test tube and you'll get a vacuum so intense it makes Miss California look intelligent.
You also don't know of any provision for the extradited (however "sure" you may be that one exists). So maybe you shouldn't be arguing technical details on an issue you know so little about.
Do you even think about what your position entails (besides being a flimsy justification for the Bush detainee policy, which I suspect is your main motive)? You are arguing that if the US picks up a foreign national in their home country, and brings them here against their will to stand trial, and they are acquitted, that the law requires that we imprison them for the rest of their lives.
Maybe it's time for a Whig revival!
[Shudder]
True, but how long has it been? The character of the parties changes over time, but that's not the same as a third party taking over for a major.
When it does happen, it happens fairly rapidly (if history is any guide). I dunno, do you think the GOP will pull itself out of its current cycle of unbelievably entertaining self-destruction this time like they did in '80, or will they finally fall through the floor and be replaced by something (hopefully) better?
Elemenope,
Nah, they'll be back. Probably a bit more like 1994, with promises about reining in an out-of-control government, then they'll revert to form in short order.
I heard the same thing about the Democrats being dead for a good chunk of the 90s and even the Aughts. I think the problem they have is that there's no consistent theme for them. The GOP has that anti-government bit they can turn back to, which seems to resonate well with a lot of voters. Without 9/11, I think they'd be still running things. But the terrorist attacks made them crazier than ever.
Parties appeared and disappeared many times during the first 50-60 years of the Republic. That was before ballot access laws became so prohibitive, and before power was concentrated at the federal level, where fledgling parties are going to have zero influence. You think it's a coincidence that we've had the same two parties for the past 150 years?
Without 9/11, I think they'd be still running things.
Their numbers were tanking before 9/11. They rode that wave for years before the people started remembering their incompetence.
"Probably a bit more like 1994, with promises about reining in an out-of-control government, then they'll revert to form in short order.
It is easy to forget the great amount of good that the R's did in 1994.
But it was important and key from a liberty standpoint.
Getting rid of the 55 mph limit alone is a huge step in the direction of liberty, and better government.
Now if we could get rid of drug prosecutions, and get the drinking age down to at least 18, that would even be bigger.
I don't see them going that way, but they are doing good things re gun rights.
No matter what you position on the war is, remember one thing, kids: These guys were not at Guantanamo Bay for helping an excessive number of old ladies cross the street.
Web Tasar?m
nice article, I thank the hard work. I'm still waiting for your posts ...
Thanks for the post
Otomasyon Sistemleri
H?z Kontrol Sistemleri
Thanks for the post
Otomasyon Sistemleri
H?z Kontrol Sistemleri
THANKS
thanks
thank you
thanks
thanks
thank you
thank you
Thanks for the post
Otomasyon Sistemleri
H?z Kontrol Sistemleri
thanks
Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!
Thanks for the useful tip
information is very clear. good and understandable explanation. super-topics. Thank you for sharing a very nice web site.