Obama vindicates Bush, again

posted at 10:16 am on April 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

When will Barack Obama apologize to George Bush?  He spent the entire campaign impugning Bush’ handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, claiming that they required access to federal courts and that military detentions were not necessary.  On Friday, Obama took another big step towards Bush by deciding to fight a federal court that essentially endorsed Obama’s views on the campaign trail:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.

Jim Geraghty’s axiom applies: All of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date — all of them.  That actually is good news for the Right, since we disagree with most of Obama’s statements.  This case is a a good example.

Terrorists and insurgents captured by military and intelligence personnel engaged overseas do not get habeas corpus.  Not even the Nuremberg defendants got habeas corpus in American courts, the example Obama liked to use (and got wrong) on the campaign trail.  Their military tribunals were the final word, as they should be with detainees at Bagram or at Gitmo.

I’m glad to see Obama coming to his senses on this point.  This is change I can believe in, but Obama should apologize to Bush in every brief his DoJ files along these lines.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yet, we are going to try pirates.

faraway on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Hey, Ed. I join your hurrah in OBAMA’S about face “change” that is NOT America’s change. It is up to Obama to learn to BELIEVE IN AMERICA because otherwise, Obama comes up short at every instance. And when Obama comes up short, WE HAVE TO PAY IN SPADES.

maverick muse on April 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Now to just find a way to help the left understand this …

eforhan on April 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM

This is change I can believe in, but Obama should apologize to Bush in every brief his DoJ files along these lines.

Never going to happen. I doubt that this arrogant bastid has ever apologized to anyone in his adult life.

Just like he won’t admit that he bowed to teh Saudi king. He is a compulsive liar and narcissist.

UltimateBob on April 13, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Obama is probably thrilled the pirates were shot instead of captured

jp on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Now to just find a way to help the left understand this …

eforhan on April 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM

“Obama didn’t, and Bush did tooo!”

the_nile on April 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Obama apologize to Bush? Obama is not only the anti-Bush but the anti-America. His entire foreign policy is based on the premise that America is and always has been wrong-headed and that Bush was the epitomy of all that is wrong with it. Any public acknowledgment that Bush got anything right would completely undercut his entire ideology. And yes, I know Obama thinks everyone but him is driven by ideology.

ProfessorMiao on April 13, 2009 at 10:26 AM

All of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date — all of them.–Geraghty

Being coerced into position on quick sand is nothing to celebrate. Obama does not respect rule of law or contractual agreements.

Whatever Obama giveth, he taketh away all the more.

Ex: Banks attempting to repay the recent emergency federal loans now are being charged 60% Obama fees that were not contracted.

maverick muse on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Heads at the ACLU and CCR exploding in 3..2..1

muggedbyreality on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Now would be a good time to press this to the SCOTUS. My bet is that the libs on the court will go along with this since Obama wants it, and they don’t want to make him look bad. It would be nice to have this precedent to argue when Republicans get the presidency back.

mwdiver on April 13, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Heads at the ACLU and CCR exploding in 3..2..1

muggedbyreality on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM

About a quarter of Obama’s supporters will actually be angered by his shift to supporting the same WOT legal tactics as the Bush Administration. The others will just go along with whatever Obama does, and of that group, at least two-thirds will actually believe Obama’s doing something different, even if he’s doing the exact same thing, or in some of the latest court arguments, is pushing an even stronger line on government surveillance rights than Bush’s DOJ people were.

jon1979 on April 13, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I’d say the scariest Bush-enacted policy in the hands of Obama is the Patriot Act.

Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Destry Rides Obama Lies Again.

Heigh-Ho Hussein!

profitsbeard on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I’d say the scariest Bush-enacted policy in the hands of Obama is the Patriot Act.

Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 10:29 AM

You mean the one that they will condemn and then continue while blaming BOOOOOOOOOOSH!

bloggless on April 13, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Now to just find a way to help the left understand this …

eforhan on April 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM

My thought exactly. Good on Obama if his administration remains consistent with this. And it would speak volumes to us on the Right if he gave credit to the Bush Administration when they have these watershed events that justify his administrations actions.

hawkdriver on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Yea, it’s easy to spout a bunch of rhetoric while you’re trying to get elected, and make a lot of promises come to find out you shouldn’t keep because they aren’t in the nation’s best interest. He was all talk. Now when he has to act, he’s finding that you need a lot of facts before making these types of decision. Facts he didn’t bother to seek before being elected. They were “distractions.”

scalleywag on April 13, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Hussein is a liar and not even clever about it.

Dem House + Dem Senate + Dem President + MSN buddies = Liarfest 2009.

fogw on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM

our country and our cousins in Britian have always, during times of war, enacted policies to protect against “Fifth Column” attacks at home. We’ve also both often found ourselves in odd alliances.

jp on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Amazing what one learns when one gets the “inside” information. Take a lesson here liberals….you don’t have all the facts!

fbcmusicman on April 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM

If Obama keeps doing what Bush did, I’m not sure why he did the apology world tour. It seems that he is just continuing the “arrogance” that he spent so much time apologizing for.

DWSC on April 13, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Just as GW Bush stated during the campaign, Obama and his staff will have a different opinion on things when they are getting the daily briefings GW was witness to. I’m glad to see Obama taking these briefings as something other than “screw that, that’s what Bush did.”

Keemo on April 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Now to just find a way to help the left understand this …

eforhan on April 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Using left and understand in the same sentence can be confusing. I’d chalk this decision up to the broken clock sydrome and part of the community organizer’s on the job training.

Rovin on April 13, 2009 at 10:52 AM

You know, the further we get away from the last administration, the more evident it becomes that W was a pretty patient guy. I haven’t always agreed with him, and I have thought that there were some good ideas that he under-sold. But I certainly hope that history is kinder to him than the last 8 years have been.

It’s a long shot, I know…

bluelightbrigade on April 13, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Obama now knows that he can’t just be president, he must act and all the world is watching. He isn’t too stupid to understand that if his administration releases any of these men into the US and something happens, his “legacy” is toast.

Jvette on April 13, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I doubt the ignorant Obama voters will hardly notice. They are all fixated on what free stuff they will be getting.

When the free stuff doesn’t show, there will always be gulags to house them.

tarpon on April 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM

jon1979 on April 13, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I agree, but the CCR & ACLU have relentlessly pushed these habeas cases. I am happy to see them thwarted by the ‘Constitutional scholar” that they so invested to carry their water.

muggedbyreality on April 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Obama is probably thrilled the pirates were shot instead of captured

jp on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 AM

I know that I am.

rbj on April 13, 2009 at 11:03 AM

unless the left totally revolts, all that will be left pushing these type of lies used to smear bush will be the fringe groups like Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell and company on the far-bircher end of things.

one difference is, they actually may be this stupid and beleive their own crap unlike obama.

jp on April 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM

So can we now call Obambi Little w.

poxoma on April 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I don’t think this is a case of Obama changing his mind. What we see here is Obama not wanting some mere judge to go around making decisions. This administration is all about power and control. Obama wanted to free those criminals himself.

joe_doufu on April 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Think the Great Naive One just needed some actual real world experience in order to take off the rose-tinted lenses…good thing the man learns quickly.

RepubChica on April 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM

One very interesting aspect of this case has to do with the War Powers Act, and how it is implemented.

These three were NOT captured in Afganistan, and yet are held as military prisoners there.

As there was no formal Act of War, designating a country we were at war with… they used the War Powers act to designate AREAS in which the Military has the ability to wage war…

If these guys were not in an area covered by those Bills, or if they are not part of groups designated by bills… this would give Carte Blanche to the Executive branch to declare ANYONE an enemy combatant ANYWHERE, and hold them indefinatly… with no oversite (like they tried in the Padilla case, and were correctly slapped down about it).

As the military tribunals were put on hold by the Obama administration (which would have granted said oversite)… this is a problem….

Administration, Supremes, and Congress, need to sit down and figure this out… how to we wage an asymetric War within our Legal system… and keep to the letter, and spirit of the the Constitution?

Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Obama is probably thrilled the pirates were shot instead of captured

jp on April 13, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Why shouldn’t he be?

I know I am.

JohnGalt23 on April 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM

This is change I can believe in, but Obama should apologize to Bush in every brief his DoJ files along these lines.

Apologizing to Bush is never going to happen. His slanderous statements were the very change his voters wanted.

But in the long run it will not matter. History will vindicate Bush and Obama will be shown to be a slandering opportunist.

shick on April 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 11:27 AM

there are two War Powers Resolutions passed, one right after 9/11 which is vague territorialy by design.

then the second that Iraq is fought under, both are defacto Declarations of War.

the guys that wrote the constitution did further encroaching things in their day: Washington, Adams, Jefferson….all 3 of them did things that people that call them “Civil Libertarians” would consider to be unconstitutional today(while many of them worship the founders and the constitution).

jp on April 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Many, including my sister, and all the pedo trolls on this site voted for TOTUS because he was the Anti-Bush or the Un-Bush.

There are so many examples now that he is the Ultra-Bush. Yet, they scream HYPOCRISY while sitting on hypocritical hill. You can’t engage these people or have a debate because they refuse to acknowledge the truth. Bow? What Bow?
Out of control spending? Well Chimpybushitler did it first!

You can’t win with them and they will never admit that. The pedo trolls here at HA are particularly lame in this regard.

John D on April 13, 2009 at 11:39 AM

jp on April 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM

the guys that wrote the constitution did further encroaching things in their day: Washington, Adams, Jefferson

It would have been very difficult for Thomas Jefferson to have written the Constitution, as he was in Paris at the time.

JohnGalt23 on April 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM

jp on April 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM

And Lincoln did unconstitutional things as well.. so your point?

We need our government to figure out how to do this… because currently the system is not working.

I for one do not want the Executive Branch to be able to hold a civilian indefinatly… there needs to be some oversite… or it will be abused.

But neither do I want the Civlilian courts hampering our ability to wage war…

And all this is going to take some action by Congres…

Thus, my point… like the Piracy laws, its a mess due to competing Legal authorities, Laws, precedents, and treaties….

They need to sit down and figure out how to make this work, within a Constitutional framework…

Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM

History will vindicate Bush and Obama will be shown to be a slandering opportunist.

shick on April 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM

I doubt that will be the case, at least not until a future generation of “historians” not even born yet examines Bush’s legacy.

The current crop of “historians” are still whitewashing the legacies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Considering that the majority of these “historians” either worked for one of the two or did even more (see: Doris Kearns Goodwin “serving under” Lyndon Johnson), they cannot be trusted to be objective.

Especially since their “Dean”, the late Arthur Schlesinger, compared Chimpy’s Congress-sanctioned action against Iraq to the Japanese sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.

No, we will not get an objective historical assessment of President Bush in our lifetimes.

Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Just as GW Bush stated during the campaign, Obama and his staff will have a different opinion on things when they are getting the daily briefings GW was witness to. I’m glad to see Obama taking these briefings as something other than “screw that, that’s what Bush did.”

Keemo on April 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM

For a while a couple of years ago, former Bush terrorism guy Jack Goldsmith was a hero to the Left, because he left the evil Bush White House and criticized some of Chimpy’s actions in the war on terror.

But then the evil Goldsmith went out on the lecture circuit, and started to defend Bush. One of the cornerstones of his speeches was that Bush was in fact under-reporting to the public what the actual terror threats were.

When Goldsmith started telling this truth, the Left quickly discarded him. But O’bama is finding out exactly what he didn’t have a clue on before conning all of the high school dropouts to vote for him-namely that there are still people out there who want to kill as many of us as possible.

And it’s no bumper sticker slogan. Except to John Edwards.

Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM

LOL… yep… seems to take about 80-100 years before Historians can look at an era through non partisan eyes..

Heck, just recently they are taking a new look at the depresion….

Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM

GetaDeath will jump on to say:”Patience and Persistence, the Adults are in charge”, or whatever to draw attention from the fact that Obama has broken every promise made, except for the Socialists ones. Can Reparations be far away? Another couple of Trillions?

To all in my Resistance Cell: “The Chair is against the wall, The Chair is against the wall, Johnny has a new bicycle, Johnny has a new bicycle.”

GunRunner on April 13, 2009 at 12:19 PM

FASCIST!!! Worst Person in the World! HALIBURTON!!

29Victor on April 13, 2009 at 12:23 PM

One more “war crime” they can’t prosecute Bush for.

Christian Conservative on April 13, 2009 at 12:23 PM

The adults left the White House, and the frat boys are throwing a kegger.

kirkill on April 13, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.

(Except for what other people have done.)

Socratease on April 13, 2009 at 12:43 PM

In the words of Cat Stevens, “Oh, baby, it’s a wild world.
It’s hard to get by just upon a smile.”

I have to think that a lot of the sub-Cabinet vacancies Obama has yet to try to fill are partially due to a lot of folks who’d otherwise fill them finding out that all that they saw during the campaign had nothing to do with reality, and now honestly (out of fear or out of simple logic) do not want to be part of any of it.

Hope and Change meet Hard Cold Facts.

The road to perdition is filled with good intentions…I would hope we can get off this road sooner rather than later.

coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Good for President Obama. How long until the left demands he be impeached for war crimes?

gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM

How long until the left demands he be impeached for war crimes?

gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM

The Left actually formally charged the evil Colon Powell with war crimes at The Hague.

And then they immediately forgave him for those war crimes
when he came out last fall and endorsed Dear Leader for President.

That’s “rehabilitation” that old Joe Stalin would be proud of.

Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Obama is correct here, as was Bush. Still, as a matter of law, I don’t see how you can square the Bush-Obama position with the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene.

paul006 on April 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM

seems to take about 80-100 years before Historians can look at an era through non partisan eyes..

Heck, just recently they are taking a new look at the depresion….

Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Sometimes they don’t take that long. For example, Ms. Kearns Goodwin’s husband, historian Richard Goodwin (who was an aide and speechwriter for JFK) came out in July of 1999 with a piece in the NY Times-owned Boston Globe where he concluded that the Presidency of Bill Clinton was a failure-a year and a half before it had even ended.

Goodwin listed numerous examples of Clinton’s failure, and interestingly enough the growing threat of Islamic terrorism was not one of them.

Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Not even the Nuremberg defendants got habeas corpus in American courts,

They shouldn’t have even got a trial. The only person who wanted a trial was Stalin. Churchill did NOT want a trial and FDR just liked kissing up to Stalin.

So since FDR agreed with Stalin to a trial, they got a trial.

Tim Burton on April 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM

More “Hypocrisy You Can Believe In”.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM

THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE MILITARY PLAIN AND SIMPLE

wade underhile on April 13, 2009 at 6:07 PM