Amazingly enough, I had three explanations for what you write – and they are very similar.

I take it you don’t believe Mr. Boumediene owes a sincere thank you to former President. That is one point of view, although the facts would indicate that by walking out of the situation he was in alive it showed the benevolent nature of the past administration.

Your willingness to let terrorists back into society is probably seen as admirable by those on the left, but I tend to think of it as a naïve outlook on people who want to kill Americans.

We must agree to disagree.

1. You don't necessarily believe anything you write, but you do it for shock value, because you find it entertaining to make people think you are a raving right-wing lunatic.

2. You do believe what you write, in general, but deliberately exaggerate your statements because you find it entertaining to make people think you are not not simply right-wing, but a raving right-wing lunatic.

3. You are a raving right-wing lunatic, and to be completely accurate, probably on the edge of being clinically insane.

Although I didn’t agree with the Bush/Cheney administration’s policy of simply detaining enemy combatants and only using enhanced interrogation on the highest value prisoners, I went along with this kinder, gentler approach to international terrorists.

However, now that it’s clear that Mr. Boumediene didn’t even bother to voice his appreciation that he wasn’t placed against a wall and shot (as was the right of the U.S. forces) for being an admitted enemy combatant, I believe subsequent administrations should learn from this experience and execute future detainees immediately after questioning.

So says HemmD. And the very next comment….

Hemm, you should know better by now, There is nothing so heinous in the U.S. government's treatment of human beings in their custody under George W. Bush that can draw the condemnation of a certain group of hard-core apologists. You may think whatever news account you are reading is so clear-cut, so straightforward, so clearly wrong, that *no one* could defend it or deny it. I know. I have been drawn into that deluded line of thinking many times. But you, and I, would be wrong.

Maybe the source was correct. Maybe the government had other indications that he might have terrorist ties that weren't brought to the judge for whatever reason. Who knows? They felt like they needed to hold him for 7 years. Maybe it was sheer incompetence, but maybe not. I don't know and neither do you — unless you have full access to everything the administration knew.

Why would the government not give all the evidence to a judge? They wanted him released? They wanted to set one of “the worst of the worst” free? It appears you do not consider a judge–any judge–to be a capable arbiter of justice. You no longer believe in our justice system? You seem to believe the only ones who can accurately assess guilt are the CIA and the President. No, I mean Republican presidents, since I'm sure you wouldn't want Obama to have sole authority to throw someone in prison without a trial. Unless I'm misunderstanding your viewpoint, that is a shocking admission that you actually want a monarchy, not a “nation of laws”.

So now our own legal system is just tangential to their justice.

Yeah casual… Except Rudi's comments beat the hell out of your ad hominem.

For those “dumb enough to not notice” ad hominem is defined as:
1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Ranting? I made a couple of mild observations. If you want to see ranting there's a comment above by someone raving about Dick Cheney.

” But it was revealed that evidence the five men had planned to travel to Afghanistan was based on a single un-named source

So what? Maybe the source was correct. Maybe the government had other indications that he might have terrorist ties that weren't brought to the judge for whatever reason. Who knows? They felt like they needed to hold him for 7 years. Maybe it was sheer incompetence, but maybe not. I don't know and neither do you — unless you have full access to everything the administration knew.

All of what you posted about the judge is completely irrelevant to anything I wrote. I said nothing about “activist judges.” You can save time commenting by not arguing against strawmen.

Supreme Court ruling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhdar_Boumediene
On June 12, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of “enemy combatant”.
[8]
…
Release order

On 20 November 2008 US District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that the USA had no credible evidence to justify the detention of Boumediene and four of the five other men.[10][11][12][13] According to the Washington Post Leon took the extraordinary step of encouraging the Department of Justice to not appeal his ruling, because seven years was enough. Because the Government claimed the evidence should be considered classified Leon considered the evidence in camera. But it was revealed that evidence the five men had planned to travel to Afghanistan was based on a single un-named source

The judge that released him was appointed and worked for Republican administrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Leon

Legal career

Leon served as a law clerk to the justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from 1974 to 1975 and to Thomas F. Kelleher of the Rhode Island Supreme Court from 1975 to 1976. Leon was an attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States Department of Justice from 1976 to 1977 and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York working in the Civil Division from 1977 to 1978.

Leon received his LL.M. from Harvard Law School in 1981.

Leon was an assistant professor of law at St. John's University School of Law from 1979 to 1983 and a senior trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice from 1983 to 1987. Leon served as deputy chief minority counsel on the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran of the United States House of Representatives, which investigated the Iran-Contra affair, from 1987 to 1988.

Leon was appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General and served from 1988 to 1989, when he entered private practice in Washington, D.C., first with Baker & Hostetler from 1989 to 1999 and then with Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease from 1999 to 2002, when he was appointed to the district court.

Leon was a member of the President's Commission on White House Fellowships from 1990 to 1993. Leon was appointed chief minority counsel on the October Surprise Task Force of the House Foreign Affairs Committee from 1992 to 1993. He served as special counsel to the House Financial Services Committee in 1994. He has been an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center since 1997.

[edit] As federal judge

Leon was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by George W. Bush on September 10, 2001, to the seat vacated by Norma Holloway Johnson. Confirmed by the Senate on February 14, 2002, he received commission five days later.

Leon was responsible for adjudicating the habeas corpus petitions of several dozen captives held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[1][2][3] Boumediene v. Bush, which was eventually considered by the Supreme Court, was first heard by Leon.

By August 28, 2008, Leon had 24 cases assigned to him. [1]

The Associated Press reported Leon hoped to resolve those cases before the presidential inauguration in 2009 and was concerned that the public and the detainees will be barred from observing the hearings: “If it can't be done, I have great concern that these hearings will be virtually or exclusively classified, closed to the public and, I might add, to the detainees.”

During a hearing on October 23, 2008 Leon commented on the ambiguity of the term “enemy combatant” and criticized Congress and the Supreme Court for “We are here today, much to my dismay, I might add, to deal with a legal question that in my judgment should have been resolved a long time ago. I don't understand, I really don't, how the Supreme Court made the decision it made and left that question open… I don't understand how the Congress could let it go this long without resolving.” [2]

On November 20th, Judge Leon ordered five detainees released from Guantanamo Bay due to insufficient evidence.[4][5]

LOL Another activist liberal Democrat judge…

” look forward to the usua suspects find reasons for thngs like this are justified.”

Imprisoning him was of course justified. Even Boumediene appears to recognize that the U.S. needed to err on the side of protecting the country. As he said, it just shouldn't have taken 7 years to figure out that he was innocent. Since he was only a suspect held on what appears to have been thin evidence, if he was tortured as he claimed, that was not justified.

Great post.

Someone prominent needs to call the SOB out. He is an absolute disgrace to the vice-presidency, the country and himself. I'm old enough so I should remember, but can someone tell me what rock this creature came out from under?

Sorry to vent, but this is as good a time as any.

Richard York