1115.org

BBC:

An US federal appeal court has blocked a judge’s order that 17 Chinese detainees at the Guantanamo Bay camp should immediately be released.

A district court had said it was wrong for the Bush administration to continue holding the Chinese Muslim Uighurs, as it had no evidence against them.

The White House then appealed, saying the original ruling - the first of its kind - could set a dangerous precedent.
[...]
The White House said if they were released it could set a precedent that would allow “sworn enemies” to seek US entry.

Isn’t that like saying that if you approve a mortgage loan for a creditworthy applicant, it could set a precedent that would allow “certified deadbeats” to seek mortgage loans?

Or, if an baseball umpire once rules a catch out-of-bounds, he will set a precedent that would allow managers to demand that all catches be ruled out-of-bounds?

Or, if a mathematician once testifies that two plus two is four, he runs the risk of being forced to testify that anything plus anything is four?

Or, if you once vote Republican, the RNC will sue your stupid ass to force you to vote Republican for the rest of your natural life.

On an entirely different tack, hasn’t everyone in Guantanamo who is considered a “sworn enemy” already been trying for years and years to seek release? Isn’t there perhaps a non-trivial gap between seeking and finding?

So, just to be clear, this is what the Bush administration is really saying, isn’t it?
“These Uighurs, who aren’t really guilty of anything except being in the wrong place (Guantanamo) at the wrong time (the time of Bush), still can’t be set free, because if we free them, we’ll have to spend a significant time and effort saying “Go take a ruddy hike!” to every sworn enemy who tries to invoke this ruling as a legal precedent? It’s just too much trouble, really.”