Hope and Change Administration: Detainees have “no constitutional rights”

posted at 9:45 am on February 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

As the Who said, “Meet the new boss — same as the old boss“:

Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.

The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.

Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.

The ruling has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.

Prof Barbara Olshansky, the lead counsel in a legal challenge on behalf of four Bagram detainees, told the BBC the justice department’s decision not to reform the rules was both surprising and “enormously disappointing”.

The exact quote from the Barack Obama-era Department of Justice?  “Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position.”  The DoJ and the DoD consider Bagram detainees “unlawful combatants” without any rights to access the US court system and with no recourse for release.

Just as it did in the George Bush administration.  Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position?  I’d like to see how they square the circle with Obama now.  A few like Glenn Greenwald will rip Obama on principle, but the rest will suddenly discover the reasonableness of detaining terrorists and treating them not like burglars but like enemy combatants who have themselves violated Geneva Conventions through their terrorism.

Just as we did in the George Bush administration.

All statements from Barack Obama come with expiration dates.  That’s something that the HopeandChangizoids have begun to learn just a month after the dawning of the Age of Obama.  A lot of them owe Bush — and us — apologies.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Angry Dumbo on February 22, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Yes. They’ll be subject to the Afghan legal system once that gets underway…and in the interim, with NATO being part of the joint command in Afghanistan, I am sure the Dutch and a few others will do what they can to get the detainees released on humanitarian grounds.

That’s the legal beauty of Guantanamo, why it was selected to begin with.

coldwarrior on February 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Well, that didn’t need a rocket scientist, or even a slime-sucking lawyer, to figure out. Any intelligent person reading the Fourth Geneva Convention would readily see this.
.
This “Bush war crimes” straw man was of the rankest sort. Any intelligent person doing an hour or two’s reading of the Conventions and related matters -that excludes lazy leftist “journalists”, I guess- would see that the “Bush War Crimes” mantra is but another manifestation of Bush Derangement Syndrome and Anti-Americanism.

DavePa on February 22, 2009 at 7:43 PM

progressoverpeace

coldwarrior

Hawkdriver

Blake

Pelayo

Great discussion, I learned a lot.

I do have one thing to add though.

This line by Blake:

Better for who?? Daylight raid = more dead Allie airman. Meaningless to you, but important to those airmen and their families

I have read hawkdriver’s posts many times and think the accusation that a Vet like himself thinks the deaths of fellow Soldiers is meaningless is absurd and ridiculous on it’s face.
Having a disagreement is one thing.
Making ignorant assumptions about men or women who have defended this country lessens your credibility on the issue and comes across extremely ignorant.

Baxter Greene on February 22, 2009 at 9:13 PM

A lot of them owe Bush — and us — apologies.

Don’t hold your breath.

csdeven on February 22, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Moore’s movie on the lying Obama administration begins filming in 3…2….

29Victor on February 22, 2009 at 11:43 PM

I just said considering the civilians in the city, conventional bombing would have been a better way to attack it

That was the state of technology in 1944/45, and it was conventional for the time. If by conventional bombing you mean American “daylight precision bombing” it was a stupid idea and did not work in the face of a determined air defense. All it accomplished was an Eighth Air Force that was nearly defeated in 1943 when no Eighth Air Force air crew member had a statistical chance of surving his 25 missions. The British knew this but the US Army kept it up anyway.

Hitler did not allow the cities to be evacuated, which added to the toll.

The “daylight precision bombing” didn’t work effectively against some targets ball bearing fabricators are durable easily transported machines and are thus almost impervious to bombing. Oil refineries are easily damaged.
The Eighth Air Force worst losses percentage wise were only average for the British night bombing, that was having trouble hitting a given city at the time.

darktood on February 23, 2009 at 8:20 AM

Baxter Greene on February 22, 2009 at 9:13 PM

I don’t know if he is a vet and I don’t care. It does not give him a pass. So, can your faux outrage.

Blake on February 23, 2009 at 8:46 AM

Move the folks from Gitmo to Bagram along with all the members of ACORN and the human rights lawyers.

workingforpigs on February 23, 2009 at 8:58 AM

Maybe I’m missing something here. What’s the difference between holding them at Baghram and holding them at Gitmo constitution-wise?

rotorhead on February 23, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Baxter Greene on February 22, 2009 at 9:13 PM

I don’t know if he is a vet and I don’t care. It does not give him a pass. So, can your faux outrage.

Blake on February 23, 2009 at 8:46 AM

I’m active duty actually. And I didn’t ask for a pass from you or anyone else.

I don’t know what your problem is with me or other folks you engage with from time to time. It really doesn’t matter to me that you debate in such an insufferably obnoxious manner. Big boy rules apply. Got it. The only problem with this thread was “your” faux outrage with something I wrote and then went on and on about it like I was defending the Nazis. Laughable! I am an airmen. I’ve made those decisions about what time of day to conduct a mission over the past 32 years. I’ve had to evaluate the safety of my men “and” the collateral damage to civilian that we might cause during our mission during the mission planning process. I’m not saying that to impress the point I’m military, I’m saying that to impress the point you assume you’re a damn expert with everyone you exchange with and once in a while you should type less and read more. It’s real easy to sit behind your keyboard and say screw the civilians when you’re not out there seeing them dead.

I assume you and I will never agree on a single thing that we actually agree with. Great. Your style. The sad part is that the people you seem to have the biggest problems with don’t have a dimes difference in political thinking from you. I guess to you, the debate is the thing.

PS

You can learn about war from a book, but you certainly can’t experience it.

hawkdriver on February 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Maybe I’m missing something here. What’s the difference between holding them at Baghram and holding them at Gitmo constitution-wise?

rotorhead on February 23, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Yes, you are missing something, as are way way too many Americans and foreign critics.

Those held at Baghram and Gitmo are exempt from Geneva…

Further, those at Baghram are subject to Afghan Law (once the Afghan’s revamp their judicial system) and those at Gitmo are in a “law limbo” thanks to Cuba’s refusal to recognize our sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, and treaty obligations currently still in force.

Neither are subject to US law, based on US Supreme Court rulings going back over 50 years. Once ANY detainee arrives on US soil, however, then they are subject to US law, and will be afforded full access to the US judicial system.

A recent federal court ruling that an infant born in an aircraft while over US airspace, is a “US person” means that we cannot even fly Gitmo or Baghram detainees over US airspace, even for a few minutes, lest they be considered “US persons” or “landed immigrants,” thus be afforded full access to US federal courts.

Laws and treaties and court rulings often have impact well beyond the intended scope.

coldwarrior on February 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Baxter Greene on February 22, 2009 at 9:13 PM

Thanks

hawkdriver on February 23, 2009 at 10:14 AM