- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
President Barack Obama sided with the Bush administration Friday, saying 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.
...
After 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.
Care to add any commentary aside from one line quips that don't add to the substance of the post?
Good, yet surprising, move by Obama here. I agree with Right in regards to the legality here, and its good to see the Obama administration agreeing as well despite what I'd have imagined. I imagine fans of his will either be, rightfully, upset with him or likely just excuse this away in some way shape or form like so many other things. That said, this is an act by him showing a slightly more moderate stance as he was trying to portray towards the end of the election cycle.
Over an hour, over 2 hours, over infinity...Over an hour and not a peep.
Bagram and Gitmo are two different things. Bagram is still bound by the Geneva Convention because the war on Afghanistan is a war on a sovereign country, so I do not see its existence as an attempt to sidestep the law like Gitmo did. Seeing as how the war there is ongoing, allied forces will need a place to hold captured enemy combattants. Though I would be interested to hear arguments from the opposition to see why some think it's such a bad idea.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The Associated Press: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners
God I wish Billo were still here. I told you this was legal years ago, damnit.
Glad to see the Obama administration taking a principled stand on the issue.
Care to add any commentary aside from one line quips that don't add to the substance of the post?
Yea, Obama is picking up right where Bush left off. All the Liberals cheered when he said he would change things, but all he did was lie to them, and now they are supporting him....... HUH?!?!?!
Moderator's Warning: |
Yea, Obama is picking up right where Bush left off. All the Liberals cheered when he said he would change things, but all he did was lie to them, and now they are supporting him....... HUH?!?!?!
Yea, Obama is picking up right where Bush left off. All the Liberals cheered when he said he would change things, but all he did was lie to them, and now they are supporting him....... HUH?!?!?!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Obama is going to do well on foreign policy. I especially liked his move to keep Gates as the Secretary of Defense; very sensible. The only problem is that while he's doing well abroad America will crumble from the inside-out.
Is it any shock the lefties have nothing to say?
Well, he was voted in based on the economy. And he knows he will get another 4 years based on this.
I'm predicting a massive failure on the economic front for Obama, thus I do not feel it's likely he'll be re-elected, but this depends on the GOP's ability to field a viable candidate in 2012 whose modus operandi isn't simply trying to outwhore the Democrats. Either way, the future looks bleak...
Regardless of whether the attacks against Obama are justified or based on actual substance anymore, what's the point? When I go into a thread and immediately see the usual "I guess this is the CHANGE we HOPED for" or "Thou shalt not question the Messiah!" along with the usual line of litanies using "lefty," and "liberal" and nearly half of posts ending with ever insightful "FAIL", well, if the shoe were on the other foot would you bother participating anymore?
What do you think the threads were like the last 8 years? Hmmmm?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?