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.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Psyche!
29Victor on February 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM
That was because of who we are and how we act, by our own decision, not because we were adhering to the Geneva Conventions – the 4th of which did not come into existence until after that war.
We also firebombed cities full of civilians (and rightfully so) which the 4th conventions made “illegal” afterwards.
progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 11:08 AM
No apologies for the war pig Bush from this guy. Lied us into Iraq, cost us 1 trillion dollars, killed 4000 of our boys, wounded 30,000. Hey Ed, when will Bush apologize to me for that? Didn’t think so.
athensboy on February 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM
A bunch of lawyers just had to take Zanex.
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Judging by how often Muslims tell their children to go out and play in the middle of Israeli military attacks, I would have to say it happens all the time.
Achmed: A day after the Israelis dropped leaflets telling us to evacuate, we heard drones and mortar fire, so I told my 15 children to go out and play.
Blake on February 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
So now they can simply move all the Gitmo boys to Bagram. Cute.
Apparently the only legal problem they have discovered with Gitmo is that well, it is in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a place too securely under US jurisdiction. It will be interesting hearing their argument presented to Ruth Bader-G, et al.
Looks like pretzel logic.
John E. on February 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM
*snicker*
MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I agree MadCon. And to Jeannies point too.
What is maddening is the fact that these were the things he spoke against to get elected. So “wink, wink” promises to his base or completely ignorant to world affairs and the GWOT. He has a long way to go before he tempers my utter mistrust of him. But I guess after all the evil spoke against my CinC, the dems “finally” deciding these animals don’t have Constitutional right is a least a step in the right direction. Question is will they keep moving in that direction?
hawkdriver on February 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM
athensboy,
Still clinging to that “Bush lied” hype? What a moron..
How do you manage to block out the reality that almost every major Democrat and most countries, thought Saddam had WMD?
Try becoming informed..
Star20 on February 21, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Bagram isn’t a big enough facility.
hawkdriver on February 21, 2009 at 11:14 AM
The left, liberal, Democrat logic is that they feel Bush never won the Presidency so therefore EVERYTHING Bush did was wrong; even if it was the right, correct and proper thing to do. In their minds he was not the legitimate President therefore nothing he did was authorized or proper.
albill on February 21, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Star20 on February 21, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Come on, now. If he actually became informed, that would ruin his whole view of the world.
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
And, like I said, if you think that we need to follow the 4th Conventions, then our strategic nuclear arsenal is illegal. Do you think that we should get rid of it, in order to be in compliance with a treaty that no other country respects (except for a few bits here and there)? Treaties are not a la carte menus that everyone gets to decide what to follow.
progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
No, “you” should apologize to President Bush and every military man and woman you see from this day forward for keeping you safe.
Most folks in the military would take President Bush over obama any day.
hawkdriver on February 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM
This isn’t an international money-laundering scheme we’re talking about here. The standard is ridiculously simple: “Is this person an ununiformed combatant?” It couldn’t possibly matter less what their intent was. And it should take no more than a few minutes for a tribunal to simply confirm the facts.
Of course they could have been shot on sight, so they don’t have to be “convicted” or “found guilty” of anything – basically they’re on parole from that moment forward. If they’re prisoners of war, they stay detained until the war is over; if they’re ununiformed combatants, they remain under a death sentence until it’s carried out or until they give a damned good reason to lift it.
logis on February 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Yah, Everything we humans do has to do with human nature. But what I’m seeing in your writing is a lot of touchy feely hopey changy nonsense. You hope Obama’s best nature comes out and all that rot.
I’m telling you that if you don’t get some primal instinct on this guy and use your head and your gut and see him through his actions and not his word, you and everyone else will suffer the consequences.
katy on February 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Has anybody been keeping count of how many campaign promises Mr. President has had to back off of so far?
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Most folks in the military would take President Bush over obama any day.
hawkdriver on February 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I’ll second that! Counting the families as well.
milwife88 on February 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
In WW2, we firebombed cities that had war industries and troop transports. The GC did not change that. The war crime is on those who hide amongst civilians.
Blake on February 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
No Change. No Hope.
No surprise.
Harpazo on February 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Somebody needs to make a 501 c group with the sole purpose of annoying Democrats with commercials chronicling every instance where Obama reverts to Bush policy. It wouldn’t directly help the GOP win votes, per se, but it would divide the Democrats, not to mention get The One’s blood boiling.
Possible name?:
O.bama & B.ush A.re M.uch A.like
Glenn Jericho on February 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM
We follow the Conventions by accident or coincident?
Pelayo on February 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Dresden was too much. It was war, but Dresden could have been attacked differently.
I think most folks who study WWII would have to agree.
hawkdriver on February 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Heh. How do you like Obama now Cindy Sheehan and friends?
Maxx on February 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM
We are who we are – which happens to be the country that has treated our enemies better than any other country has. It is coincident. But we also used to be a country that understood reality. That seems to have disappeared after the fall of the USSR, when we empowered the UN (one of the dumbest moves in all of human history) and started adhering to delusions about “international law” – which is a terrible misnomer for international treaties that no one else follows, except for a little piece here and there.
To hamstring ourselves with fantasy “law”, that we will be the only ones following, is a recipe for disaster – as we are seeing.
progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Can we get a comment from Code Pink? Hollywood?
TN Mom on February 21, 2009 at 11:38 AM
More like, it is not a comfortable enough facility, with all that sunny outdoor leg-streching space.
……………………………
I agree with those who suggest that Obama is not behind this. It shows that the DOJ is rather sincerely committed to the legal theories that they developed under the Bush admin. That they are in stark contrast to Obama’s political position (which has motivated the close of Gitmo) presents an interesting drama yet to unfold.
The decision of the SCOTUS was ambiguous regarding whether habeas rights should be granted to ICs the world over, but their logic implied it. Will the lefty’s on the Court start reversing themselves once the Obama admin stands behind the same arguments?
John E. on February 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM
And he’s bombing more sites in Poky-ston.
Yes, he is doing the WOT right and I give him credit -IOW, he’s following W’s lead. Now if only we could get him interested in Hayek or the Heritage Foundation’s economic policies….
A girl can dream!
PattyJ on February 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM
TN Mom on February 21, 2009 at 11:38 AM
They haven’t picked their jaws up off the floor yet. What part of the Volunteer State are you in?
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Boosh III?
And to think I thought it was Dhimmi Cah-tah part II.
rofl…..let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on February 21, 2009 at 11:42 AM
CODEPINK Heartbroken by Obama’s Commitment to Continued Military Aggression in Afghanistan
dKos and DhimmiUnderground still have their DoneAndStrange kneepads securely fastened….for now.
ex-Democrat on February 21, 2009 at 11:45 AM
“Dizzied and reeling” may best describe their collective response, thus far. ;)
Kent18 on February 21, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Even guerillas can be protected by the Geneva conventions if they are operating as the rules require.
An “insurgent” who hides his weapon until the last second would not be afforded protection under the rules.
When the VC infiltrated Siagon disguised as civilians, the US military was not required to treat them in any prescribed manner.
Basically an “insurgent” member of a loosely organized group is a terrorist and not a “lawful combatant.” I certainly will not worry about their welfare.
The Geneva Conventions are rather ludicrous when one thinks about them long enough, establishing rules for kiling one another.
When the Germans had the bright idea to put German soldiers in American uniforms in December 1944, when captured, they were very quickly tied to a post and shot. A few of these Germans were actually naturalized American citizens who returned to Germany and joined the Wehrmacht, and recruited because of their knowledge and “Americanization.” They were executed anyway.
Pelayo on February 21, 2009 at 11:46 AM
That is an over-simplification of the issue. Our current law(s) allow two paths:
1. We can treat these folks as EPWs (Enemy Prisoner of War); this classification places them under the rules of the Geneva Conventions. This instantly causes a problem, because “terrorist” is not defined in the Conventions, and terrorists do not fit nicely into the definition of enemy combatant. Under the Conventions, EPWs can be held until the end of hostilities. In the assymetric war on terror, the “end of hostilities” is not tangible, like an instrument of surrender (Germany/Japan). So how long can you hold them? Apparently forever, without charge.
2. We can treat these folks as common criminals; this classification would provide constitutional protections that you and I enjoy, but (and here is the conumdrom) only if they are on US soveriegn territory. This is why they are at GITMO, and not in Leavenworth or some other secret place inside the US.
BobMbx on February 21, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Bull.
1. Dresden was a legitimate military target. Over 100 shops and factories were making war-related materials in Feb 45.
2. Dresden was a legitimate communications target. In Feb 45, a total of twenty-eight troop transport trains, carrying almost 20,000 officers and men, passed though Dresden each day.
3. The Russians specifically requested that the RAF and USAAF bomb Dresden and other transport hubs.
The RAF attacked the city center, where many of the smaller shops were located, as well as a large concentration of civilians, many of whom worked in the larger factories. The USAAF’s primary objectives were the railroad marshalling yards.
Germany showed no signs of surrendering and her armies were fighting as fiercely as ever. Dresden was virtually untouched, had been declared a military strongpoint by the OKH and was an integral part of the military rail network. That’s why it was attacked, along with its arms production capabilities.
The city was not crammed with civilian refugees who generally passed through but did not stay more than a few days.
The death rate, as I am sure you know, was decreased from 250k to 25k.
In regards to bombing civilians, the Nazi’s opened the proverbial pandora’s box. They completely bombed Rotterdamn in May 1940 and then went on to bomb Coventry, London, Liverpool, and Glasgow during the blitz. However, strategic bombing of civilian targets was not in contradiction to the laws of war.
Blake on February 21, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Let me just ask you this, as I intimated before) what will your opinion be when our SCOTUS rules that our strategic nuclear arsenal (specifically designed to incinerate hundreds of millions of men, women, children, and pets) violates the 4th Geneva Conventions (which it clearly does)? I mean, you can’t really believe that we are not allowed to pour water down an enemy’s nose (never even approaching real physical harm) but we can maintain weapons with the threat of incinerating huge swaths of civilian life. That all falls under the “intimidation” sections of the Conventions.
You might think that I am speaking crazy talk, here, but our SCOTUS has been approaching this idiotic point, and with a Precedent in office who wants our arsenal gone …
So, in the decision between the fantasy of “international law” (that no one follows, has never really been enforced in any way, …) and reality, where should we go? I find this turn toward the theoretical and unrealistic to be so dangerous that there are no words available to describe it.
Just keep in mind, the same way we barred the tactics used in WWII (which resulted in the best end of a war that the world had ever seen, turning our mortal enemies into trusted, productive, close allies) we called WWI “The War to End All Wars”. These sorts of emotional and unrealistic responses always follow such events, and are also always expressions of utopian fantasies rather than reality. Well, we are now binding our actions to utopia. It will end in an ugly way. Very, very, very ugly.
progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
What a moron you are. Bush lied? Guess you forgot that when Clinton was in, All DemocRATS said Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. Love how people forget, or they blank out the truth of what came out of the DemocRATS mouths. You are a pig. You should apologize to Bush. He kept us safe, stayed out of our Business and didn’t keep us in the dark. Go drink more Kool Aid.
sheebe on February 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I don’t agree. We take precautions to a ridiculous level these days to prevent civilian casualties. We did back then also as best the Allies could. Dresden was different.
hawkdriver on February 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM
You failed to mention: “Liberated 20 mil people from rape rooms and tree shedders etc…etc”
Same old, same old, from the libtard wet furry footed creatures living under the bridge.
Not Over.
1GooDDaDDy on February 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM
sheebe on February 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Hey, sheebe. He can’t have any more kool-aid until he finishes his homework. Mom said so.
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Eh. I’m not going to go there.
Obama pandered to the hardcore antiwar Left to win the Iowa caucuses, which slingshotted him to the frontrunner position in the Democratic nomination race. He took the positions his political advisors told him would generate the most enthusiasm among the nutroots and get them to turn out for the caucuses. His entire campaign was built on taking whatever policy stances would put him to the left of Hillary. Then in the general election he ran to the middle with garbage about cutting taxes and fiscal responsibility. He painted John McCain and especially Sarah Palin as rightwing nutjobs and won the election.
It was all a scam. He doesn’t have a goddamned idea what he really stands for. He’ll abandon the nutroots on detaining terrorists and the next day he’ll poke the moderates with class warfare rhetoric and giant Porkulus bills. He looks clueless and rudderless right now because, well, he is.
But hey, he’s got that spiffy plane to fly around in for the next four years and all those cool Presidential seals everywhere!
rockmom on February 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM
West
TN Mom on February 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM
TN Mom on February 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I am a refugee from King Willie’s kingdom living in DeSoto County, MS. Howdy, neighbor.
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 11:58 AM
LOL! How are you kingsjester? Moms know what is best for the teeth. :)
sheebe on February 21, 2009 at 12:00 PM
sheebe on February 21, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I’m great, sweetie. Just hangin’ out at my favorite web site. I haven’t seen Beth or HornetSting in a while. Have you?
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Hope + Change = Guts
No hope + no change = “Present”
bmort on February 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Oh, please! We bombed what we needed to bomb. Dresden was only different in that the casualties were half of what they were when we firebombed Hamburg and a quarter of the casualties when we firebombed Tokyo.
Again, if you are going to put war industries and military transportation amongst civilians, be prepared to reap the whirlwind.
Blake on February 21, 2009 at 12:09 PM
ChimpyMcObamahitler strikes again!
The only things he does right are doing what Bush did.
Otherwise it’s one bog “I screwed up“-a-rama.
profitsbeard on February 21, 2009 at 12:11 PM
bog= big.
(Quagmire?)
profitsbeard on February 21, 2009 at 12:14 PM
We haven’t seen much of W in the last couple weeks, have we? Maybe he’s hiding in Gates’ office and telling Barry how to wage war.
PattyJ on February 21, 2009 at 12:14 PM
No, wish I have seen them. I was emailing Beth, but drive went down a few weeks back. Later on am going to see if I can recover the address book on drive. I miss them both. I love this site as well. Glad to hear things are great for you as well. Not to bad on this side too.
sheebe on February 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM
progressoverpeace, are you talking about the First Protocol of 1977, it was not submitted for ratification. If we insist on “fighting by the rules” against an enemy who ignores the rules, we shall lose.
The Soviet Union and the United States were able to intimidate one another to the point that a Third World War was avoided. We called it deterrence, and dammit it worked.
Deterrence against militant Islam will not work.
Pelayo on February 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Easy Blake. I’m not your enemy here. Very few things you post about that I disagree with. And I wasn’t in the military in WWII.
I concede many things happened back then that we had to do for all the reasons you mentioned. Nazis were evil. They had to be destroyed.
But, a mission analysis of the Dresden firebombing raid would not pass the ROE proportionality test today.
hawkdriver on February 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM
RACIST!
Harpazo on February 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM
How can it be racist when Obama is so transparent?
profitsbeard on February 21, 2009 at 12:25 PM
The whole “cost us x dollars” schtick is amusing now. Uhbama is about to give away more money to his friends and allies then seven years of the WoT has cost.
BTW, did you sign up for Uhbama’s “Afghan surge” or are you just one of those “chickenhawks”?
18-1 on February 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and other industrial cities were attacked because of the concept of total war where the worker who makes the rifle is just as important as the soldier who fires it. It was first practiced during the Shenandoah Valley campaign in the Civil War. Crops were destroyed becaue a starving soldier is less effective as a fighter.
In Islam all infidels are enemies, and there is no distinction between civilian and soldier. I will repeat it -if we adhere to the rules, we will lose the war between our way of life and theirs.
Pelayo on February 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I’m going to have to disagree with you. Uhbama does have one political principle. He will do whatever he thinks is best for Uhbama.
He’s like Bill Clinton, distilled by the slickest ad agency and then run through the best Hollywood FX guys. Yeah, personally he’s hard left wing, but as we’ve already seen ideology gets dropped when it is inconvenient.
18-1 on February 21, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I’m just speaking about the 4th Geneva Conventions that were ratified and that the SCOTUS loves to refer to, these days.
That’s my point. And all of our enemies have ignored “the rules”. That is a fact of history. We also ignore them, when our survival depends on it – as is only sane and reasonable.
Of course it did. But the tactics used are in violation of the Conventions – though no one took them seriously, since we were engaged in a struggle of total annihilation. After the fall of the USSR, much of America made pretend that this had never happened. Ask a lefty to explain JFK’s nationally televised threat to exterminate the USSR if Cuba launched a nuclear missile at French Guyana – a paraphrase, but the clear meaning of his words:
“Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”
The answer that I have usually gotten is that a threat is not covered under the Geneva Conventions – but it clearly is. Heck, the Conventions don’t even allow humiliation – which was one of our most powerful post-WWII tools in building the peace.
That’s absolutely correct. But even that deterrence is illegal, according to Geneva, so you can forget about any strategy that even comes close to what is needed to deal with the arab/persian/muslim enemies.
My point is that we decide for ourselves how to fight wars – as is true for every single other nation on Earth. We are generally fair, using the idea of reciprocity to gauge the “fairness” of our actions. But we have even strayed from that concept and are now interested in hamstringing ourselves with talk about “laws” that are totally meaningless and unenforceable and that none of our enemies have ever followed. Just to call these treaties “international law” is an indication of the twisted nature of the logic to incorporate something nonsensicle into our system.
Further, we are an individualistic nation (at least we were before the idiot messiah got in) trying to apply individualistic ideas to tribalistic societies. This will lead to disaster, unfortunately.
progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Apt name.
Johan Klaus on February 21, 2009 at 12:44 PM
This is now, that was then.
Johan Klaus on February 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Which is exactly what I am talking about. We are operating under constraints that will insure our eventual loss, or at least a gigantic amount of pain on our side until we realize that we must do what we must do to survive, regardless of whatever meaningless treaties that no one ever followed, outside of a piece here and a piece there.
In today’s world (and especially in the Geneva Conventions) the value of enemy civilians’ lives (and even their combatants’ lives) is supposed to be the same to our government as the value of our own citizens’ lives. That is nothing but pure insanity.
progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I resent this statement on its face. Us folks have been consistent in:
getting on board with supporting our President’s decision to take the fight over there. Full support of our military and their mission. understanding the strategic and tactical measures appropriate to win this thing.
It is you folks that would be doing something different by getting on board. Your side has been absent since 2003. We’ve been here all along.
So which is it? Get on board thus relegating yourselves to hypocrites of your principles or remain consistent?
anuts on February 21, 2009 at 12:49 PM
The more things change….
Heh, this brings a smile to my face not only because I know foreign terrorists should NOT be entitled to constitutional protections but all the grief the Left gave Pres. Bush for his stance on this matter.
Yakko77 on February 21, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Neither do the terrorist at Gitmo.
Johan Klaus on February 21, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Its all about the Chess Game of politics. The Lord Obama used the horrors of Gitmo while he could get mileage out of it, then incorporated the concept as his own idea when it served his cause. Brilliant. If the Conservatives want to get back into power they had better start thinking outside the box because they keep getting outflanked by the Democrats. Here is a comment I made last month about the “One’s” choice for CIA director. Hope it will help clarify my point:
I realized it is best to have a Democrat to run the CIA because, of its covert nature, you will need someone that knows how to be downright sneaky, covert and unethical to do the job right. Look at the much more successful KGB as my case in point. Whether Panetta will fill the job description is anyone’s guess, but at least you have the right party. Republicans are too business minded, enjoy having fun and believe in a strong work ethic and subscribe to the Geneva Convention and gallantry when they battle. Democrats know how to weasel their way to victory, no matter what. You could probably find others in their party that may have more of what it takes to do the job; after all, it’s about our safety and security, isn’t it?…
DL13 on January 7, 2009 at 11:28 PM
DL13 on February 21, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Are you talking about the Obama bus? Careful, lest you are thrown underneath it.
Johan Klaus on February 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Stretching back in a comfortable recliner, holding breath, inhale slowly, relax, nod off, snore, and dream .. waiting .. waiting .. waiting for the apologies. Nap time is over. That was fun. I think tonight I’ll try ‘hangin 10′ million years while surfing through a black hole.
Sergeant Tim on February 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM
And Bagram is different from Guantanamo in what way? Maybe that’s where Obama will send the Gitmo guys. Wouldn’t that be a hoot.
Kafir on February 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Shame the left didnt say that when Bush was president.
Why expect us to kiss Obama’s Butt for doing what he was suppose to do and lie before about not wanting to do ?
William Amos on February 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM
See, a little “Bush is worse” slobber from a hopeless nutbar and no sign of D2MH. Liberals are easier to predict than the weather.
TMK on February 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Rather simple, really. Baghram and other sites in Afghanistan hold prisoners (mostly Taliban) who, should Afghanistan demand, would be adjudicated under Afghan Law. For the present time, since the Afghan judicial system is incapable of dealing with the matter, it falls to the Joint Afghan Security Command to hold these prisoners to keep them off the battle area.
Gitmo is different, because civilians (which the detainees are under international law) are not subject to the UCMJ (nor the rules and regulations of conduct within the US Navy Station Guantanamo, but are subject to Cuban law, under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of Santiago, according to the stipulations of the treaties in which we obtained Guantanamo as a naval base, treaties which are still in force.
Since Cuba under Castro refuses to recognize US sovereignty over Guantanamo (still hasn’t cashed any lease checks since 1959, checks which are presented to the Swiss Embassy in Havana each year) and is powerless to kick us out, the detainees, thus, are in limbo as regards their legal rights.
Should, however, any of the detainees arrive on US soil…then they would be considered landed immigrants, and the entire US judicial system and law would be at their disposal.
This is why Guantanamo was chosen in the first place.
Congress more than once has passed legislation to provide for “military commissions” panels or boards of review to adjudicate the status of each detainee. Obama has set aside the Gitmo military commissions, et al., in effect denying the detainees lawful review of their status.
Previous Supreme Court decisions, some going back over 50 years, still valid, are what led to the establishment of detention camps at Gitmo.
coldwarrior on February 21, 2009 at 1:24 PM
From Athensboy’s Blog (linked above)
Language warning
William Amos on February 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
William Amos on February 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I don’t understand. If he’s banned, how can he comment on this thread?
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I suspect he was banned under a different SN. That is his new one.
William Amos on February 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
William Amos on February 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Slick little so and so, ain’t he?
kingsjester on February 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Who cares? You’re comparing apples to oranges.
In WW2, the ROE were set by Germany and its allies at the beginning of the hostilities: Rotterdam, Warsaw, Belgrade, Coventry, and Pearl Harbor. Dresden was no war crime and widely supported. This after the fact hand wringing is nonsense and offensive to the victims of the axis powers.
I would also reiterate that Germany had no intention of capitulating. And, until it did, the murder of Jews and other “undesirables” continued full speed.
Blake on February 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Athensboy Are you talking about Bush saying there are WMD or Clinton, Kerry or……….
Johan Klaus on February 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Good grief.
MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM
This too will change
notagool on February 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Liberals are more than okay with Obama using the same methods as Bush.They only railed against these methods as a way to undercut Bush and the War on Terror.
Just like Athens boy there who is pretty much nothing more than a parrot for Rosanne Barr and Rosie O’donell,it’s all about their liberal ideology,not truth,justice or freedom.
They are not just progressives,they are Obama progressive.
What ever he says,the sheep follow:
Is This What It Means To Be An Obama “Progressive?”
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:05:15 PM EST
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/8/13/17515/4808
Rendition,NSA wiretapping,enhanced interrogations,campaign finance reform,no lobbyist in administration,transparency of government,use of State Secrets,spending cuts to match spending proposals on…and on…and on….and on the lies and broken promises are piling up in only a month in office.Most of the press and the sheep that follow Obama are looking the other way now but are losing more credibility by the day.
One thing liberals don’t like is having their ineptness and ignorance exposed and Obama is doing a good job of this.
His staff is following in the same footsteps that they accused Bush of committing war crimes:
Panetta is okay with Rendition as far back as the Clinton administration.He is also leaving the door open to advanced interrogation techniques as is attorney general Holder.
This cabinet appointee is another example of liberals embracing the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeevil President Bush:
Solicitor general nominee says ‘enemy combatants’ can be held without trial
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-solicitor-general11-2009feb11,0,7158432.story
Liberals groups like code pink,answer,and move on were in the streets daily calling Bush a war criminal and yelling for his arrest over the same positions that their hero Obama is defending in his administration now.
Liberals are being exposed for their hypocrisy and ignorance of international policies on a daily basis.
Bush will not have to wait 10 or 20 years for validation of his Presidency.Obama will validate Bush and his administrations policies in less than 4 years exposing liberals for the ignorant mental midgets that they truly are.
Baxter Greene on February 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM
This is a good point from the corner:
(via instapundit)
The hope of change [Mark Steyn]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWMwOTRjYTljNGY2NmRlMDA3YzY0OTUyZDMwMmZiNTE=
Reality is like a big swift kick in the nuts when it is your butt on the line isn’t it liberals.
Just got to love seeing that chicken hawk Obama bombing villages and massacring civilians in his imperialist quest for ruling the world:
Obama Expands Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan
By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID E. SANGER
I guess “War is the Answer” liberals.You got a lot of bumper stickers to take off your cars.
Baxter Greene on February 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM
liberals and their hero Obama are in a corner.They either weaken the country and leave it exposed to attack by enforcing their idealogical policies or keep the successful policies of Bush and be exposed as the partisan hacks that sold out their country for political gain.
This is what Republicans said over and over again when we said it was real easy to whine and cry from the sidelines,but when it is their butt in the drivers seat,they will do what Bush has done or suffer the consequences.
Obama’s own investigations have shown that Gitmo is legal:
(via instapundit)
Review Finds Detainees’ Treatment Legal
Pentagon Report on Guantanamo Urges More Interaction for Some, Official Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022002191_pf.html
By Peter Finn and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 21, 2009; A03
It was legal under Bush too.
But the liberals yelled and screamed that it was a gulag that increased terrorism and hurt our reputation around the world.
No wonder liberals spend so much time drinking wine,you would have to be drunk as he!! to keep defending such ignorance and hypocrisy.
Baxter Greene on February 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM
I would donate money to that…if the Dems don’t outlaw anti-Dem commercials as part of the “Fairness Doctrine”.
Kevin71 on February 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Now we know where to send the Gitmo residents.
dalec on February 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Glorious beautiful Schedenfreud.
burt on February 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Ummm, no.
Sending the Gitmo detainees to Afghanistan would be/could be just like sending them to Yemen. Most would be out on the street within days.
Why change the legal status of the Gitmo detainees, anyway? If they didn’t commit crimes in Afghanistan, under current Afghan law, feeble as it presently is, those detainees not committing crimes inside Afghanistan would have to be released upon arrival in Afghanistan.
coldwarrior on February 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM
When someone campaigns on change and not on adherence to principle, you have to believe everything they say is subject to change and amendment and the only enduring principle is self interest of the person not of the country. Sometimes when the self interest of the individual and the country momentarily co-exist such as in the Bagram ruling, this may be temporarily applauded, but there will be many more times where Obama’s self interest and those of his country diverge markedly and on those occasions there will be gnashing of teeth in many quarters.
eaglewingz08 on February 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM
athensboy,
Still clinging to that “Bush lied” hype? What a moron..
How do you manage to block out the reality that almost every major Democrat and most countries, thought Saddam had WMD?
Try becoming informed..
Star20 on February 21, 2009 at 11:13 AM
=================================================
Now everybody can see what “O” Dumbo ears got elected. Its Jerks like Athenboy and his ilks that voted for him.
The only good thing about the new God of America is he is going to screw the masses that voted for him.
The non union construction workers.
The ones that pay their debts off.
the ones that are out of work because Mexicans cross the border and get all the freebies.
You can put lipstic on “O” dumbo but hes still a slimey Damn O Freakin Crap.
Rick007 on February 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Frankin and “O” Dumbo and the rest of the Dman O Craps will line their pockets at our expense.
Oh yea one other thing. The best part of Matthews and Olby ran down B Franks legs.
The working slobs will just have to pay for it.
Have their been any enquires into the Clintons offshore accounts yet?
Rick007 on February 21, 2009 at 3:47 PM
When someone either (1) convinces you you’re an idiot and totally wrong, or (2) you piss off one of those “Negroes” you hate and he pops a cap in you.
Until then, seethe on.
Squiggy on February 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM
The One keeps on makin’ friends…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/21/05813/4934/656/700051
RightWinged on February 21, 2009 at 3:54 PM
OT Reminder: “Taking Chance” is on HBO tonight.
When one falls, another brings him home. Kevin Bacon stars in Taking Chance, a new movie from HBO Films and an official selection of the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. Based on a true story, ‘Taking Chance’ premieres Saturday, February 21 at 8 pm.
Conservative_SAHM on February 21, 2009 at 4:08 PM
This policy will certainly change after the financial arm of Al Qaeda (or surrogates thereof) contribute(s) several million dollars to Obama’s mad money fund.
BottomLine5 on February 21, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Yeah, well, good luck on collecting those.
Daggett on February 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »