Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

[oldoldman]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...tc7WwD96FKURG0

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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."

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 a 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 government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same.

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.

Didn't see a thread on this and thought it was interesting.

[Elvis]

Sucks, but not surprising. IB4 back and forth between change/no change/spare change/changing underwear.

[Deejay]

Kind of hard to have a war when you don't even know who the fuck you're fighting. Can we at least give these "terrorists" just a little bit of rights? I don't think the middle east has that much of a problem with Barack, but he or we stay on this witch hunt and continue treating their innocent like shit I honestly don't see why they wouldn't want to bomb us again.

[Acturus]

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.

Where exactly does "review" equate to "overturn"?

[GeneJackit]

the more things change, the more they stay the same

Im thinking that this is gonna surprise a lot of people, but really...BHO doesnt want to look soft on terrorism in anyway...im not gonna argue the merits of the decision, but its all politics.

[oldoldman]

It's always easier to call for change than it actually is to change things.

[GeneJackit]

It really is hard to discuss this w/o letting your political bias being inserted. For instance, if you are conservative you'll come up with some variation of "told you so!!!" and if you are a liberal and voted for the man then you'll come up w/ some excuse while at the same time decrying Bushitler of 6 months ago

Politics is a zero sum game...dont believe any politician.

[Kiro]

Politics is a zero sum game...dont believe any politician.

This, ladies & gentlemen, is the correct answer to everything political.

[oldoldman]

It really is hard to discuss this w/o letting your political bias being inserted. For instance, if you are conservative you'll come up with some variation of "told you so!!!" and if you are a liberal and voted for the man then you'll come up w/ some excuse while at the same time decrying Bushitler of 6 months ago

Politics is a zero sum game...dont believe any politician.

Well put.

[ZarakiKujata]

I honestly don't think this is as bad as people are making it out to be, there is some logic to why the Justice Department is doing this, not the same with all of Bush's BS Justice Department decisions. At least these guys aren't getting tortured now?

[pohibaba]

It really is hard to discuss this w/o letting your political bias being inserted. For instance, if you are conservative you'll come up with some variation of "told you so!!!" and if you are a liberal and voted for the man then you'll come up w/ some excuse while at the same time decrying Bushitler of 6 months ago

Politics is a zero sum game...dont believe any politician.

It amuses me when people call President Obama's win a "landslide" or a "mandate" when only about 26% of eligible adults voted for him. It isn't because there was anything wrong with him necessarily, but there is something wrong with our 2 party-1 idea government that we have in America.

[Lordwafik]

It's always easier to call for change than it actually is to change things.

He was probably doing the whole "Change" speech while in his mind saying "Oh god I really hope I don't win, I'm just running for pres to impress my wife, I can't change my kid's diapers let alone a national policy"

[Kuya]

So basically, with no rights, they are technically not really people, and the government can do whatever it pleases with them, and we'll never be able to know whether their guilty of anything, because we can't force a charge?

Am i right here or am i assuming too much?

[aurik]

The situation is not analogous with Guantanamo. The people held in Afghanistan are either:
1) prisoners of war, thus under Geneva, not the jurisdiction of the US legal system.
2) actually prisoners of the Afghanistan government, and thus not under the jurisdiction of the US legal system.

I believe the (1) is the actual classification. They're prisoners of the war between the US & coalition and the Taleban in Afghanistan. Under Geneva, I believe they can be detained without charge or representation until the cessation of the conflict.

Much different from the Guantanamo situation.

[noblemountain]

The situation is not analogous with Guantanamo. The people held in Afghanistan are either:
1) prisoners of war, thus under Geneva, not the jurisdiction of the US legal system.
2) actually prisoners of the Afghanistan government, and thus not under the jurisdiction of the US legal system.

I believe the (1) is the actual classification. They're prisoners of the war between the US & coalition and the Taleban in Afghanistan. Under Geneva, I believe they can be detained without charge or representation until the cessation of the conflict.

Much different from the Guantanamo situation.

this is correct, they are prisoners of war and are being held under geneva...which means they can be held until the conflict is over as threats to our ongoing efforts. as for whoever said "at least they're not being tortured" you need to be a little less naive. if you don't think we are going to do whatever it takes to get critical info or that our enemies are not doing the same, you need to wake up.

[archibaldcrane]

The situation is not analogous with Guantanamo. The people held in Afghanistan are either:
1) prisoners of war, thus under Geneva, not the jurisdiction of the US legal system.
2) actually prisoners of the Afghanistan government, and thus not under the jurisdiction of the US legal system.

I believe the (1) is the actual classification. They're prisoners of the war between the US & coalition and the Taleban in Afghanistan. Under Geneva, I believe they can be detained without charge or representation until the cessation of the conflict.

Much different from the Guantanamo situation.

Thank you. The Guantanamo issue was skirting both the Geneva Convention and U.S. laws, that was the huge problem.

edit: although if they are still using the "enemy combatant" definition, then it's Guantanamo v.2 - they need to classify them as prisoners of war or they fall into the legal void that Bush carved out - if they are still using that enemy combatant bullshit then fuck Obama.

[Khamsin]

But they aren't being tortured, they're being vigorously interrogated.

[Tristam]

Torture dosen't work, everyone knows that right?

[Kuya]

So can anyone clarify; are they are or are they not being given rights, i'm assuming under the Geneva convention? The phrase enemy combatant made it seem like that was not the case.

[archibaldcrane]

Well, this ruling was that they are not being given rights under the U.S. constitution, meaning they don't have access to U.S. courts, etc. - neither would POWs.

This doesn't touch on specifically whether Obama is going to use the "enemy combatant" definition to skirt the Geneva Convention as well.