• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
 
Wow "change we can believe in" once again. :roll:
 
And.........cue silence...
 
Over an hour and not a peep.
 
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.
 
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.


Over an hour and not a peep.
Over an hour, over 2 hours, over infinity...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?!?!?!

There's another great new story about the new DoJ and DNA testing, but I'm waiting for it to go from the law blogs to a news source so I can start a new thread. :lol:
 
Is it any shock the lefties have nothing to say? TNE, ADK... the loudest screamers about Bush's "crimes" and here is their hero... "committing" the same crimes. They are hosed, completely.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Here's an interesting idea. Stop baiting and discuss the topic.
 
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?!?!?!

A rose known by an R or a D smells the same.
 
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?!?!?!

Obama is picking up where Bush left off, because the game remains the same. It is extremely foolish for people to assume they know what is going on in this world better than those in the intelligencia circle or the White House. This includes "Senator" Obama. There is information only privy to a select few. And this is because wider dissimenation of sensitive information only encourages the possibility for our enemies to learn from our "openness." Now that "President" Obama has entered the White House and can see for himself what is going on, his "change we can believe in" will become more practical.

I told everyone that GITMO is not so cut and dry as they think. I warned them that this war is generational. And I told them that this war is global wide, not confined to the wastelands of Afghanistan. Of late, people have been informed of China's issues with one of their providences. Turns out some of the GITMO prisoners were captured for seeking to rebel against Chinese oppression. Not so cut and dry is it? We backed Islamic warriors against an oppresive country (Soviet Union) once before only to have to battle them later didn't we? Are today's Islamic warriors against China our friends and will we be paid back later with violence for our troubles? And what of the HOA, which is a region where Al-Queda has turned for recruitment now that the pool of ignorant suicidal minds in the Middle East has been slaughtered off in the past 8 years. But through it all, the greatest pain in the ass has been trying to please the global spectator bent on saving as much of the enemy as possible through lawyers, constitutions, human rights talks, and global BS harmony and love.

My faith in Obama, pre-election, was that underneath the slick talk and fantasy rhetoric, he is very smart. He knows he can't change the game. But unlike President Bush, he will play it with a smile and smelling sweet. Underneath both politicians, is the military man playing the same 'ole game. And despite my attempts to show people the light, they continue to cling to partisan politics and BS just to satisfy their visions about what the world should be with complete disregard for what it is and what it takes.

I was thrilled when Obama got elected. Because I knew that it would seperate the political slaves from the truth seekers.
 
Last edited:
It was a good move by Bush, and I am impressed and relieved that Obama sees it the same way. I said Obama would always get a fair shake from me, and on this particular issue I salute the man. That and his pick for NSA.
 
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.
 
I have no doubt whatsoever that this is not what he wishes but what he was told legally is.

Instead of making it an issue on top of all the other issues that are not going well for him..this one was an easy one to sidestep for now.

"I don' like it and want it changed but politically atm its not a good time. Lets just follow what is for now and change it later"
Or words to that effects in the meeting with advisors when the decision was made.



The hypocrisy of the left on this though is very very loud and transparent.
 
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.

Well, he was voted in based on the economy. And he knows he will get another 4 years based on this.
 
Is it any shock the lefties have nothing to say?

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?
 
Whoever heard of a war without prisoners? Even the Cold War had its prisoners. Prisoners of war deserve prisoner of war status. That's it. No lawyers...not American constitution....and no global audience who have absolutely nothing at stake because they are far removed sitting on plush couches gaining all their "intel" from CNN or FOX instead of cracking a ****ing book.

I've stated this before.....the best thing a military man can do on the battlefield is to kill the terrorists where they stand. Holding him for trial will only see the world encourage his freedom so that the military man has to fight him again. And oh yeah....it spares America the critic's BS.
 
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...
 
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...

Quite possibly.
 
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?
 
What do you think the threads were like the last 8 years? Hmmmm?

Well, if that's your thing, have fun with it. Just don't be surprised if no one who wants to discuss anything maturely ever gets involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom