Obama: No rights for Bagram prisoners.detainees.

[Thanas]

MSNBC.

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.

Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

The change we need indeed. Am I missing something crucial here or has he just embraced the idea of Guantanamo Bay?

[Kanastrous]

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action.

I think that depends upon whether or not you accept the distinction that the Justice Department apparently claims to exist, between the two.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

The change we need indeed. Am I missing something crucial here or has he just embraced the idea of Guantanamo Bay?

I snipped all but the part I felt was most relevant. If the Justice Department is acting in good faith about this, then it makes sense to continue detentions at Bagram; the issue is simply confused by the Bush administration's meaninglessly broad application of the title "enemy combatant," meaning "virtually anybody we don't like the looks of." It's possible that the Bagram detainees are held under a more honest definition of "enemy combatant", meaning "someone known to be an insurgent and captured in the course of military operations".

That said, I think the bad faith of the prior administration demands that every detainee currently held by the United States must have his case thoroughly reviewed, wherever he might be held.

[MKSheppard]

Damn you thanas! I was gonna post this!

Basically; we just found out Obama's plan to close Gitmo; move everyone to Bagram.

[Dominus Atheos]

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

I snipped all but the part I felt was most relevant. If the Justice Department is acting in good faith about this, then it makes sense to continue detentions at Bagram; the issue is simply confused by the Bush administration's meaninglessly broad application of the title "enemy combatant," meaning "virtually anybody we don't like the looks of." It's possible that the Bagram detainees are held under a more honest definition of "enemy combatant", meaning "someone known to be an insurgent and captured in the course of military operations".

That said, I think the bad faith of the prior administration demands that every detainee currently held by the United States must have his case thoroughly reviewed, wherever he might be held.

That quote is a huge false dilemma fallacy. No one is saying we should release all the prisoners currently held at Bagram, just that they should be able to challenge their detention. The last part isn't even a fallacy, it's an outright lie. Allowing lawyers to review these cases shouldn't have any effect on national security. Lawyers are allowed to review cases for Gitmo detainees, the Obama hasn't tried arguing that threatens national security (yet).

[salm]

So basically Obama is a scumbag. Damn, the US sucks even more than i had thought. Even the good guys are bad guys.

[Big Phil]

So basically Obama is a scumbag. Damn, the US sucks even more than i had thought. Even the good guys are bad guys.

Hey, look. Another black/white fallacy... whup dee doo

[CJvR]

It is easier to take a stand on principles and be morally outraged when you dont have to take responsibility. It is a bit more difficult to decide on releasing probable terrorists and enemy soldiers who will most likely start shooting again as soon as they get a gun, which in Afghanistan and Iraq is about 15 minutes.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If you are going to be petty about it, it might be within the rights of the Afghan government to charge a number of them for treason etc. or for being enemies of the state.

[Stark]

It is easier to take a stand on principles and be morally outraged when you dont have to take responsibility. It is a bit more difficult to decide on releasing probable terrorists and enemy soldiers who will most likely start shooting again as soon as they get a gun, which in Afghanistan and Iraq is about 15 minutes.

Prove it. Then demonstrate that 'most likely' and 'probable' = 'evidence' and why 'suspects' ought to have no rights. Did you ever consider that imprisoning terrorists and POWs doesn't necessarily involve trampling on rights? Frankly I doubt you even care.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Prove it. Then demonstrate that 'most likely' and 'probable' = 'evidence' and why 'suspects' ought to have no rights. Did you ever consider that imprisoning terrorists and POWs doesn't necessarily involve trampling on rights? Frankly I doubt you even care.

None of these people can be strictly considered POWs, and that was dealt with in threads ages ago.

Also, many of these people are not US citizens, nor were there any extradition treaties signed whatsoever, or were the crimes and conspiracies commited on US soil. In which case, the US court has no authority on them. REmember Hambali? He's also at Gitmo. I can imagine none of the SEA countries want him back just to "wash their hands off him". Not even the Australian Government can try Hambali, unless the Indonesian government agrees to it.

[Dominus Atheos]

It is easier to take a stand on principles and be morally outraged when you dont have to take responsibility. It is a bit more difficult to decide on releasing probable terrorists and enemy soldiers who will most likely start shooting again as soon as they get a gun, which in Afghanistan and Iraq is about 15 minutes.

Hey, you know what's even easier then that? Talking about how it's difficult to decide to release people who you kidnapped and brutally tortured without so much as an apology or even admittance you did anything wrong because they "might" be pissed off at you when it's not you who was kidnapped and tortured. You're damn straight they might try to kill us. If that happened to me I know I'd try to kill as many of them as possible.

But on the other hand, if the people who were responsible for it were tried for their crimes against me, convicted, and hung from a rope, then I wouldn't have any reason to kill anyone, would I?

[CJvR]

You're damn straight they might try to kill us. If that happened to me I know I'd try to kill as many of them as possible.

And you don't think that if that was to happen the 'idiots' who let them out would be blamed? Faced with that prospect the reasons for sending them to Gitmo must look better every time you read through them.

Correct me if Im wrong but doesn't the Guantanamo facility hold all the non-Afghan fighters from Afghanistan, the A-Q foreign legion in effect, as well as suspects rounded up from around the world during the WoT?

[Dominus Atheos]

You're damn straight they might try to kill us. If that happened to me I know I'd try to kill as many of them as possible.

And you don't think that if that was to happen the 'idiots' who let them out would be blamed? Faced with that prospect the reasons for sending them to Gitmo must look better every time you read through them.

Right, which is why releasing them has to go hand-in-hand with punishing the people responsible for doing those things to them in the first place. If the people responsible are already dead (they can even testify at the warcrimes trial and we can give them front row seats to the execution), then they don's have any reason to kill anyone else, now do they?

[Edi]

Also, many of these people are not US citizens, nor were there any extradition treaties signed whatsoever, or were the crimes and conspiracies commited on US soil. In which case, the US court has no authority on them.

Why shouldn't it? If they shot at US forces, that's targeting American citizens and thus a US court would have jurisdiction.

I'm willing to see where this goes in a few months, but the beginning has been less than auspicious and doesn't look too good for Obama.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Why shouldn't it? If they shot at US forces, that's targeting American citizens and thus a US court would have jurisdiction.

I'm willing to see where this goes in a few months, but the beginning has been less than auspicious and doesn't look too good for Obama.

That wouldn't work. A good point of reference would be the fact that if a US serviceman was attacked on foreign soil while off duty in say Korea or Germany, the local authorities have jurisdiction on the matter, not the US Courts.

[Edi]

Why shouldn't it? If they shot at US forces, that's targeting American citizens and thus a US court would have jurisdiction.

I'm willing to see where this goes in a few months, but the beginning has been less than auspicious and doesn't look too good for Obama.

That wouldn't work. A good point of reference would be the fact that if a US serviceman was attacked on foreign soil while off duty in say Korea or Germany, the local authorities have jurisdiction on the matter, not the US Courts.

Yes, they would have primary jurisdiction. If they refused to handle the case for whatever reason and a US court could get its hands on the perpetrator, it would have jurisdiction. There is an order of precedence there, and in this case since it's the US holding those people and having de facto custody of them, as well as there being no Afghan instance that is willing to handle this, in the US courts it belongs. Unless the US legal system has no rules for when its jurisdiction applies outside of US borders, in which case it would be even more fucked up than it already is, of course.

[Big Phil]

I'm willing to see where this goes in a few months, but the beginning has been less than auspicious and doesn't look too good for Obama.

Or perhaps he's focusing his attention on the economy, and saving his political capital for that fight rather than spending it on the issue of enemy combatants. Quite frankly, if Obama were to do fix the economy and salvage the Iraq/Afghanistan military/political situation, I'm not sure if any Americans would care if he personally ass raped and then gutted these prisoners on live television, to give you some idea of where people's priorities are right now.

[Wicked Pilot]

Just like in every other war when the Taliban and AQ sign the official surrender documents we can have a prisoner exchange.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I'm willing to see where this goes in a few months, but the beginning has been less than auspicious and doesn't look too good for Obama.

Or perhaps he's focusing his attention on the economy, and saving his political capital for that fight rather than spending it on the issue of enemy combatants. Quite frankly, if Obama were to do fix the economy and salvage the Iraq/Afghanistan military/political situation, I'm not sure if any Americans would care if he personally ass raped and then gutted these prisoners on live television, to give you some idea of where people's priorities are right now.

I would. As for other Americans; they are still the same scum that voted Bush in twice. They wouldn't care about our victims regardless of the economy.

Just like in every other war when the Taliban and AQ sign the official surrender documents we can have a prisoner exchange.

And what if they aren't members of either organization ? And in any case, they aren't being held as POWs.

[Sea Skimmer]

And what if they aren't members of either organization ? And in any case, they aren't being held as POWs.

Neither factor is relevant if such a preposterous agreement happened. We could spell out any conditions we wanted on the release in the document, such as the Taliban (who actually occupy territory) being required to accept and house all US held prisoners stemming from operations in the Global War on Terror. Just look at the Korean War ceasefire, its prisoner exchange deal was hardly short and to the point.

The deal could also specify that the Red Cross be allowed to make regular inspections of housing and monitor the population to ensure that for some specified period (say five years) that no released prisoner may be forcibly evicted from the camps. That gives them time to seek resettlement outside the Afghan mountains… which I’m sure 99.99% of them would want. This would be an utterly ironic way to end the war too…send all the worlds’ terrorists back to Afghanistan.

[Lord of the Abyss]

And what if they aren't members of either organization ? And in any case, they aren't being held as POWs.

Neither factor is relevant if such a preposterous agreement happened.

Of course it matters if they are members of those organizations. If they aren't, then what happens with either organization has no more relevance to any argument over what to do with the prisoners than does Obama's shoe size.

That gives them time to seek resettlement outside the Afghan mountains… which I’m sure 99.99% of them would want. This would be an utterly ironic way to end the war too…send all the worlds’ terrorists back to Afghanistan.

And how do you know they are terrorists ?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Of course it matters if they are members of those organizations. If they aren't, then what happens with either organization has no more relevance to any argument over what to do with the prisoners than does Obama's shoe size.

You don't need to be part of Al Qaeda proper to be call yourself an Al Qaeda agent. Some of them there were rounded up from other corners of the world, and were involved in terrorist activities. Even more interesting that their own governments dumped them onto the US to take care of them.

And how do you know they are terrorists ?

Then you should ask the governments who handed them over. The other inmates themselves were from Afghanistan caught fighting the Americans.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The other inmates themselves were from Afghanistan caught fighting the Americans.

According to whom ? America ? I see no reason to believe anything the US government says.

[Samuel]

The other inmates themselves were from Afghanistan caught fighting the Americans.

According to whom ? America ? I see no reason to believe anything the US government says.

That is pretty paranoid. I'm pretty sure the US government is competent enough to identify people who are shooting at them.