… and the rest of you should be sitting down and not holding any sharp objects.
Judge Ricardo Urbina rejected the government’s arguments that he was without authority to order the release. He reasoned, despite the fact that the Uighurs are non-Americans held outside the United States, that they are vested by the United States Constitution with a right against indefinite detention. The government has been trying to find a country that (a) will take them and (b) will not persecute them. Where in the Constitution it says these aliens have a right to enter the United States and live among our population is not clear.
Note that under the 2005 REAL ID Act, the immigration law grounds for excluding aliens from the United States were expanded to include, among other grounds, the following: If the alien (a) “is a representative of (1) a designated or non-designated terrorist organization; or (2) any political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity”; or (b) “has received military-type training, from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization.
The Uighurs endorse and espouse terrorist activity against — at the very least — China. (As I explained in yesterday’s post, an elementary understanding of jihadist ideology would alert one that militant Muslims do not confine their jihad against a single country.) They have also received military-type training at al Qaeda connected camps — that, indeed, is why they were detained in the first place. As I detailed in a prior NRO article, “These guys weren’t out of China on Hajj. They were getting combat training from Islamic militants in Afghanistan. Moreover, many … have been involved in serious incidents at Gitmo, including numerous assaults on U.S. military personnel and participation in riots incited by jihadists.”
But not to worry. Judge Urbina thinks they’re suitable neighbors for you.
Meanwhile, did anyone notice that a federal appeals court in New York last week reversed convictions in a major terrorism case on the ground that it was unduly prejudicial for the government to introduce evidence about vicious terrorist attacks?
A year ago, the prosecutor on that case, Kelly Anne Moore penned an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, “Take al Qaeda to Court.” Highlighting her case as Exhibit A, Kelly (a friend with whom I deeply disagree on this subject) argued that the criminal justice system is the ideal way to combat Islamic terrorism.
That’s Sen. Barack Obama’s position, too: Go back to September 10th and let the federal courts handle it. Now, Sen. John McCain has been given on a silver platter perfect examples of where that will lead us. Let’s hope he takes the opportunity.
And let’s hope the Justice Department gets its appellate lawyers cranking up.