Obama: No rights for Bagram prisoners.detainees.

[Elfdart]

Perhaps the lose-lose situation Obama faces with regard to prisoners of the "war on terror" is precisely the reason he has no desire to address the issue. It might not be particularly brave or honorable, but it is eminently logical.

In the short term, maybe. But sooner or later he's going to have to make a decision and his dithering and ducking of the issue is the worst one. If he backs down from abiding by the rule of law, the Torture Party will see this (rightly) as weakness and try to roll him again and again -just like they keep doing to Harry Reid.

[Dominus Atheos]

Obama's going to appeal the decision

Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON — 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.

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

I wish one of the Obama apologists would comment on this. I'd love to hear how this isn't as bad as when Bush did it, but unfortunately they're all too cowardly to speak up.

Sanchez, Nitram, anybody? Come on, I know you're out there.

[Big Phil]

I wish one of the Obama apologists would comment on this. I'd love to hear how this isn't as bad as when Bush did it, but unfortunately they're all too cowardly to speak up.

Sanchez, Nitram, anybody? Come on, I know you're out there.

What would you like me to defend Captain Douchebag? It's not a good decision; that being said, compared to the shit Bush successfully pulled, this is child's play. As I've said before many times, call me when Obama suspends habeus corpus or has legal opinions written that he can act as a dictator. Until then, I want the economy fixed, the soldiers out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and Gitmo closed (in descending order of importance - not limited to just those four items, but those are pretty important to me); I don't give a rats ass about shitheads in Afghanistan screeching for their legal rights.

[Dominus Atheos]

I wish one of the Obama apologists would comment on this. I'd love to hear how this isn't as bad as when Bush did it, but unfortunately they're all too cowardly to speak up.

Sanchez, Nitram, anybody? Come on, I know you're out there.

What would you like me to defend Captain Douchebag? It's not a good decision; that being said, compared to the shit Bush successfully pulled, this is child's play. As I've said before many times, call me when Obama suspends habeus corpus or has legal opinions written that he can act as a dictator. Until then, I want the economy fixed, the soldiers out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and Gitmo closed (in descending order of importance - not limited to just those four items, but those are pretty important to me); I don't give a rats ass about shitheads in Afghanistan screeching for their legal rights.

Let's back the fuck here. Did you just say it only counts when he suspends habeus corpus for Americans, but not people of other races? Because it sounds like that's what you just said.

But maybe I should just be glad that you even support a black president. I suppose that that's all your racist little mind is capable of. Support for the human rights of brown people as well as white people is probably asking too much.

[SAMAS]

Let's back the fuck here. Did you just say it only counts when he suspends habeus corpus for Americans, but not people of other races? Because it sounds like that's what you just said.

Um... "races?"

[Darth Yoshi]

No, Sanchez doesn't give a shit because the ones affected aren't American citizens. And strictly speaking, he's correct. The President of the United States is beholden to the people of the US, not to the people of Afghanistan. What does it matter that the Afghanis are getting shafted; we've still got our rights.

I don't agree with that, of course, since not giving a shit about how our government treats foreigners is a good way to piss off the rest of the world. Not to mention that if the government is willing to do that abroad, what's stopping it from doing the same at home?

[Big Phil]

Let's back the fuck here. Did you just say it only counts when he suspends habeus corpus for Americans, but not people of other races? Because it sounds like that's what you just said.

But maybe I should just be glad that you even support a black president. I suppose that that's all your racist little mind is capable of. Support for the human rights of brown people as well as white people is probably asking too much.

Essentially you have argument, so you feign outrage and accuse me of racism. That's not even clever

Tell you what, rather than continue to waste my time, just write whatever strawmen you wish I would say and just argue against that.

[Dominus Atheos]

Let's back the fuck here. Did you just say it only counts when he suspends habeus corpus for Americans, but not people of other races? Because it sounds like that's what you just said.

But maybe I should just be glad that you even support a black president. I suppose that that's all your racist little mind is capable of. Support for the human rights of brown people as well as white people is probably asking too much.

Essentially you have argument, so you feign outrage and accuse me of racism. That's not even clever

Tell you what, rather than continue to waste my time, just write whatever strawmen you wish I would say and just argue against that.

Let's go back to what you said.

As I've said before many times, call me when Obama suspends habeus corpus.

I don't give a rats ass about shitheads in Afghanistan screeching for their legal rights.

Now go ahead, try to argue you didn't mean that you only care about it when it happens to Americans and not to dirty sand niggers. This should be good. *Grabs popcorn*

[Big Phil]

Nice selective quoting, liar. First I'm an Obama apologist, then I'm a racist because I want my president focusing on other things. Given that I agree it's a bad decision by Obama, I'm guessing you're now grasping for other things to be outraged about, am I right?

[MKSheppard]

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration on Thursday informed CIA officials who used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects that they will not be prosecuted, senior administration officials told The Associated Press.

Even before President Barack Obama took office in January, aides signaled his administration was not likely to bring criminal charges against CIA employees for their roles in the secret, coercive terrorist interrogation program. It had been deemed legal at the time through opinions issued by the Justice Department under the Bush administration.

But the statement being issued Thursday by Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, is the first definitive assurance that those CIA officials are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time.

The officials spoke about the Holder statement ahead of its release on condition of anonymity, so as not to pre-empt the attorney general.

LInk 2

CBS/AP) Attorney General Eric Holder says the government won't prosecute CIA officials for using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects.

The decision comes as the Obama administration releases four long-secret legal memos from the Bush administration authorizing a dozen harsh interrogation techniques against high-value terror suspects.

Holder said in a statement Thursday it would be unfair to prosecute CIA employees for following the legal advice given at the time. And he says the government will defend any CIA employee in any court action brought in the U.S. or overseas.

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution," President Barack Obama said in a statement.

Even before Mr. Obama took office, aides signaled his administration was not likely to bring criminal charges against CIA employees for their roles in the secret, coercive terrorist interrogation program.

But the statement being issued Thursday by Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, is the first definitive assurance that those CIA officials are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time.

So when do we start calling Obama the Torturer-in-Chief or Enabler-in-Chief?

[Cecelia5578]

Wow, another Shep hit and run piece. Holder said nothing about not prosecuting those who tried to find legal authorization for torture, only that the actual torturers themselves would not be prosecuted. Did you even read the just relased memos? I'd say Jay Bybee's explicit authorizing of waterboarding would qualify as an impeachable offense (being a federal judge).

[Elfdart]

So when do we start calling Obama the Torturer-in-Chief or Enabler-in-Chief?

Right about now, I should think.

[Dominus Atheos]

Nice selective quoting, liar. First I'm an Obama apologist, then I'm a racist because I want my president focusing on other things. Given that I agree it's a bad decision by Obama, I'm guessing you're now grasping for other things to be outraged about, am I right?

Oh, so you're trying to claim it's out of context? Alright, what did you mean when you said it, if it wasn't "it's okay when it happens to brown people, but not Americans" ?

[Stark]

So when do we start calling Obama the Torturer-in-Chief or Enabler-in-Chief?

Now now Shep, you know everyone tortured was really, honestly a terrorist.

[Kuja]

Let's back the fuck here. Did you just say it only counts when he suspends habeus corpus for Americans, but not people of other races? Because it sounds like that's what you just said.

But maybe I should just be glad that you even support a black president. I suppose that that's all your racist little mind is capable of. Support for the human rights of brown people as well as white people is probably asking too much.

Because "American" is an ethnicity *I'm a smarmy asshole* lol?

[Julhelm]

Business as usual then, except they have to do it in Bagram rather than Gitmo.

[Big Phil]

Nice selective quoting, liar. First I'm an Obama apologist, then I'm a racist because I want my president focusing on other things. Given that I agree it's a bad decision by Obama, I'm guessing you're now grasping for other things to be outraged about, am I right?

Oh, so you're trying to claim it's out of context? Alright, what did you mean when you said it, if it wasn't "it's okay when it happens to brown people, but not Americans" ?

As a "brown person myself" (I find it telling that you use that phrase), I'm not wasting my time defending against your ridiculous charges of racism. If you can't comprehend my original post, that's your problem, not mine.

[Sephirius]

I can't believe some of you people bloody well give a fuck about these scumbags.

1. They aren't US Citizens, US law doesn't apply to them
2. They're non-uniformed combatants, and technically subject to summary execution if so desired.
3. They had to have done something awful to land them there anyway.

[Mr Bean]

3. They had to have done something awful to land them there anyway.

Hey Sephirius remember when we offered bounties(And still do) for Afghan warlords and Iraqi tribal leaders if they turned over Al-Q leaders or fighters over to us? And many of them promptly grabbed any foreigner they could get their hands on and turned them over with for large bounties of cash money?

Yeah I remember that, good thing all foreigners are awful people. It makes dealing with the rest of the world so much easier.

[Thanas]

I can't believe some of you people bloody well give a fuck about these scumbags.

I can't believe you are an ignorant jackass who doesn't care about human rights.

I can't believe some of you people bloody well give a fuck about these scumbags.

1. They aren't US Citizens, US law doesn't apply to them

And that makes it alright? Hey, where is your support for Mugabe? After all, he only starves non-US citizens as well?

2. They're non-uniformed combatants, and technically subject to summary execution if so desired.

But still not subject to torture, jackass.

3. They had to have done something awful to land them there anyway.

Like all the innocent guys who landed in Guantanamo?

[Elfdart]

I can't believe some of you people bloody well give a fuck about these scumbags.

1. They aren't US Citizens, US law doesn't apply to them

An outright lie. The law does apply to non-citizens.

2. They're non-uniformed combatants, and technically subject to summary execution if so desired.

Another lie. The United States Government does not allow summary executions.

3. They had to have done something awful to land them there anyway.

Like Dilawar, right?

Fuck you, asshole!

[Qwerty 42]

The last time I checked:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.

not

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Americans are created equal.

[Dominus Atheos]

So when do we start calling Obama the Torturer-in-Chief or Enabler-in-Chief?

He obviously qualifies for " Enabler-in-Chief", and he'll qualify for "Torturer-in-Chief" if he ever approves of anybody torturing someone on his watch, or refuses to prosecute anybody who tortures somebody without his approval on his watch.