Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

  1. #1
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    The Associated Press: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    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.
    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.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #2
    User Defensor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    04-21-09 @ 09:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    144

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    Wow "change we can believe in" once again.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    And.........cue silence...

  4. #4
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,255

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    Over an hour and not a peep.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    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.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.

    All the meaning and fun of this is to hear and read them either upset and/or excuse this away in some way shape or form

    ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

    Washington, Jun 10, 2008 - Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio
    In the United States House of Representatives
    Monday, June 9th, 2008

    The president has publicly admitted that since the 9-11 attacks in 2001, the US has been kidnapping and transporting against the will of the subject (renditioning) in its so-called "war" on terror—even people captured by US personnel in friendly nations like Sweden, Germany, Macedonia and Italy—and ferrying them to places like Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, and to prisons operated in Eastern European countries, African Countries and Middle Eastern countries where security forces are known to practice torture.

    These people are captured and held indefinitely, without any charges being filed, and are held without being identified to the Red Cross, or to their families. Many are clearly innocent, and several cases, including one in Canada and one in Germany, have demonstrably been shown subsequently to have been in error, because of a similarity of names or because of misinformation provided to US authorities.

    Such a policy is in clear violation of US and International Law, and has placed the United States in the position of a pariah state. The CIA has no law enforcement authority, and cannot legally arrest or detain anyone. The program of "extraordinary rendition" authorized by the president is the substantial equivalent of the policies of "disappearing" people, practices widely practiced and universally condemned in the military dictatorships of Latin America during the late 20th Century.


    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Over an hour and not a peep.
    Over an hour, over 2 hours, over infinity...

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    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.

  8. #8
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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.
    It's actually the other way around - there are more Geneva Convention protections for the detainees at Gitmo than at Bagram. The fact that it's a war in a sovereign country doesn't necessarily mean that the 3rd Geneva Convention applies. Here is what the GC has to say about whether or not individuals qualify as prisoners of war:

    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.
    If we were fighting the actual organized army of Afghanistan, this provision would apply. When we're fighting groups like Al-Qaida, it doesn't.

    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.
    Here's where it provides for protections for extranational militias and resistance movements, but it only applies in certain scenarios.

    If Al-Qaida was an organized group that was commanded by a responsible leader, wore distinctive military insignias, carried its weapons openly, and acted in accordance with the laws of war, they would fall under this provision. Needless to say, they don't.

    Nowadays, people tend to assume that the Geneva Convention declared that all people involved in war will be treated with a basic level of human rights, because that was what the signatories agreed. In reality, the purpose of the Geneva Convention was to declare that all people and nations involved in war who agreed to abide by a particular set of rules would then be entitled to claim those same protections. Leaving these loopholes was not an accident of drafting - it was done intentionally, so as to incentivize parties to act in a civilized fashion, lest something equally cruel be done to them.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #9
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,720

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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.
    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?!?!?!
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

    Care to add any commentary aside from one line quips that don't add to the substance of the post?
    No....quips will suffice for now. Whenever the Obamaphiles deign to discuss anything concerning the Messiah - aside from how great he is and how much neo-cons suck - then I believe substance will come about naturally.

    However, your post was good; lucid and substantive; continue setting the example and perhaps the partisans will follow.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •