"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Bush administration has been assuring us for years that the men in detention at Gitmo are the worst of the worst, pure terrorist scum, men so dangerous that the very future of America depends on keeping them locked up forever.  “Trust us,” they said.  Well, now that the evidence for detaining these men is about to be reviewed by actual, real judges beholden to actual, real law and actual, real rules of evidence instead of the bullshit kangaroo court system the Congress created, the government’s lawyers are making a few revisions to their cases.

The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.

The government has stood behind the evidence for years. Military review boards relied on it to justify holding hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without charge. Justice Department attorneys said it was thoroughly and fairly reviewed.

Now that federal judges are about to review the evidence, however, the government is saying that it needs to make changes.

Attorneys for the detainees criticized the idea, saying the government is basically asking for a last-minute do-over.

“It’s sort of an admission that the original returns were defective,” said attorney David Remes, who represents many detainees and attended Wednesday’s meeting. “It’s also an admission that the government thinks it needs to beef up the evidence.”

Wow, what a shocker!  Now that the system isn’t gamed in their favor, they have to go in and make, y’know, actual cases against the detainees.  And if this is any indication of what is to come, the administration is in deep shit.

In the first civilian judicial review of the government’s evidence for holding any of the Guantánamo Bay detainees, a federal appeals court has ordered that one of them be released or given a new military hearing.

The ruling, made known Monday in a notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, overturned a Pentagon tribunal’s decision in the case of one of 17 Guantánamo detainees who are ethnic Uighurs, a Muslim minority from western China.

The imprisonment of the 17 Uighurs (pronounced WEE-goors) has drawn wide attention because of their claim that although they were in Afghanistan when the United States invaded in 2001, they were never enemies of this country and were mistakenly swept into Guantánamo.

The court’s decision was a new setback for the Bush administration, which has suffered a string of judicial defeats on Guantánamo policy, most recently in a Supreme Court ruling on June 12 that dealt with a separate issue of detainee rights. The Uighur case was argued long before that ruling by the justices.

The one-paragraph notice from the appeals court said a three-judge panel had found in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a former fruit peddler who made his way from western China to a Uighur camp in Afghanistan.

“The court directed the government to release or to transfer Parhat, or to expeditiously hold a new tribunal,” the notice said. It said the court had found “invalid” the military’s decision that he was an enemy combatant.

Not an enemy combatant?  But… but… we were told that these guys were the worst of the worst!  But here’s the most deliciously ironic part.

Its practical consequences for Mr. Parhat, however, are not clear. The administration has said it will not return Uighur detainees to China because of concerns about their treatment at the hands of the Chinese government, which views them as terrorists. A State Department official said Monday that the department had not found a country to accept any of the Guantánamo Uighurs since Albania accepted five of them in 2006.

As a result, said one of Mr. Parhat’s lawyers, Susan Baker Manning, court victory may not mean freedom for him.

And what law prevents sending a person in US custody to a country where they have a reasonable expectation of being tortured?  This one.