Obama Backs Bush On Bagram Detainees

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

NEDRA PICKLER and MATT APUZZO | February 20, 2009 07:48 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

WASHINGTON — 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.

WASHINGTON — 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 Justic...
WASHINGTON — 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 Justic...
 
Comments
4664
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (64 pages total)
- bascombe I'm a Fan of bascombe 37 fans permalink
photo

this will continue until Obama ejects the boosh operatives in the justice dept and the military.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 PM on 02/22/2009
- K-Dog76 I'm a Fan of K-Dog76 8 fans permalink

um no it will continue until we pull out of Iraq.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 PM on 02/23/2009

Who do you think our soldiers are picking up, harmless sheep or goat herders? There capturing terrorists who believe in shariah law and wahhabism, they are not soldiers of a nation but that doesn't make them any less dangerous when there shooting at you. Get a grip guys, you have to do something with them and letting them loose is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Do they have human rights? Yes, do they have constitutional rights.....NO.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 PM on 02/22/2009
- bascombe I'm a Fan of bascombe 37 fans permalink
photo

lies

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 PM on 02/22/2009
photo

I agree with gladiator777. It doesn't make ANY sense to give non-Americans constitutional rights. It is the UNITED STATES Constitution, NOT the Global Constitution. What is applicable, however, are the standards set by the Geneva Convention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 AM on 02/23/2009
- LeLoup I'm a Fan of LeLoup 32 fans permalink
photo

Gee! Let me see if I got that straight:

You mean to tell us that soldiers capture ONLY terrorists?
That they NEVER make mistakes, that they have 100% record, no faults, always the bad guys? And that in combat, knee-deep onto the fog of asymmetric warfare in a country that NOBODY has ever been able to conquer? Why don't we replace all the cops in the US by these super-gifted crime fighters?

There are some "practical" aspects that motivate the Administration's position, but if they want to be practical without being moral, they're nothing worth keeping in office.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 PM on 02/22/2009
- hairyhuman I'm a Fan of hairyhuman 4 fans permalink

Yes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 AM on 02/23/2009
- K-Dog76 I'm a Fan of K-Dog76 8 fans permalink

The prisoners are afforded their rights through the Geneva Convention FYI

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 02/23/2009
- Ergon I'm a Fan of Ergon 93 fans permalink
photo

Here's a 'terrorist' who was raped and tortured till she lost her mind:
MIT neuroscientist Dr. Afia Siddiqui, accused by the FBI of being an Al-qaeda sympathiser. She was kidnapped, tortured and raped for 5 years in the US forces prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, and her three children disappeared. She was finally produced in Federal Court in New York where this frail woman was accused of attempted murder by overpowering 4 US guards, taking away a weapon, and blasting away at them until subdued by shots to the torso.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/09/21/18540573.php
http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner09102008.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 02/22/2009
- MsMadame I'm a Fan of MsMadame 7 fans permalink

What happened to Dr. Siddiqui is monsterous.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 PM on 02/22/2009
photo

And merely a symptom of a far greater issue of racism in America. Under the guise of combating terror, a lot of accepted racism is taking place. John McCain's classic retort, "No man he is a decent family man" to the woman who told him Obama was a muslim/Arab says it all. Americans praised McCain for standing up for Obama, without realising that he just implied that all muslims/Arabs are not decent family men.

The racist fears Palin and McCain stoked and kindled and the fact that close to HALF the country voted for them is further evidence of this racism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 AM on 02/23/2009
- katekid I'm a Fan of katekid 5 fans permalink

Bagram? Gitmo? Detainees?
If our nation freezes, refuses to acknowledge human rights we forfeit.
Call in the dogs. It’s over.
Maybe we should give our keys to Canada.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 AM on 02/22/2009
- Windchime I'm a Fan of Windchime 7 fans permalink

No one is refusing to acknowledge "human rights". The Geneva convention is still in pleace for these t e r r o ri s t s~

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 AM on 02/22/2009
photo

The Taliban do not qualify for protection from the Geneva Convention based on the requirements of Article 4. As such, a different legal status is required (enemy combatant, etc) to define the handling of these prisoners. We are not trying to deny them "human rights" but define their status; that certainly doesn't mean that they are entitled to the same rights as a US citizen bestowed by the constitution or the same rights as a soldier of a foreign army bestowed by the Geneva convention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 02/22/2009
- offred I'm a Fan of offred 58 fans permalink

No, the Geneva Convention was discarded as "quaint" by Rumsfeld, Yoo, and others in the Bush administration. How do we know the Geneva Conventions have been reinstituted?

By the way, Windchime, why do you choose to spend so much time at a blog site appealing to people you obviously have no respect for and whose opinions you find offensive? Are you being paid or something ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 02/22/2009
- K-Dog76 I'm a Fan of K-Dog76 8 fans permalink

katekid I guess its too late then for sure...

Modern society, even with these camps is more civilized and has more respect for human righrts than any other time in history.

We are obeying the Geneva Convention. We don't have to give trials to POWs we just have to end the war... that closes the prisons. No war, no prisoners of war.

You want moral high ground from the government? Please its a sham.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 02/23/2009
photo

The War behind The War is not being attented because many western companies selling products to stores and the education sector have created a sub culture and a dictatorship ,what i often mention the martial law sponsored quid pro quo.......................... Pres., barak's visit to Canada must have spun in that reference as to a gentleman must have a servant or a moonshi ..what age is it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 AM on 02/22/2009
photo

War behind the war? So much non information I don't know about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 AM on 02/22/2009
- KofTX I'm a Fan of KofTX 26 fans permalink
photo

The notion of NOT detaining people who have shot at you or planned to shoot at you in combat is absurd. Wether you like it or not, there are now people who set roadside bombs and fire artillery and shoot AK-47's at U.S. soldiers. Wether they were provoked by Bush's illegal "war" on terror or not, THIS IS REALITY! Stop trying to dream up a perfect solution and wrap your head around the fact that there is no good solution. There is only sustainable and non-sustainable. There is only bad and not as bad. The Geneva Conventions did not only address conventional war, the addressed international conflict as well. They addressed POW's and "combatants...

EVERYONE WITH AN OPINION SHOULD INFORM THEMSELVES....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 AM on 02/22/2009
- socalgal59 I'm a Fan of socalgal59 13 fans permalink

The notion that Afghanistan is an organized and structured war like WWII and the detainees at Bagram are legitimate prisoners of war is absolutely absurd.

Afghanistan is utter chaos. Our soldiers can’t recognize foe from friend. There is no organized war effort; the enemy isn’t in uniform; they don’t drive enemy army vehicles with insignia. Rather, they all look like civilians: a child, a boy, a man.

Our soldiers can’t trust the Afghanistanis and the Afghanistanis can’t trust our soldiers, can’t their neighbors or even their brothers. Everyone lives in fear; and many trade and exploit on that fear.

In truth, we don’t know who the detainees really are and if they are guilty of anything thing. We just know chaos, fear, anger, and a sense of urgency drove our military to arrest them. It’s time we found out whether or not we have actual cause to detain then, and if we do, we need to try them. If not, we need to release them.

Detaining Afghanistanis and Iraqis is not the way to win the war on terror--our government simply cannot arrest all the young males in the Middle East and send them to a Gitmo style prisons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 AM on 02/22/2009
photo

You think they're just rounding up people at random? Have evidence?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 AM on 02/22/2009
- Ergon I'm a Fan of Ergon 93 fans permalink
photo

See my comment above

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 02/22/2009
- bascombe I'm a Fan of bascombe 37 fans permalink
photo

prove they are not. while you're at it, do some research.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 PM on 02/22/2009
- Airmid I'm a Fan of Airmid 5 fans permalink

Other than that we usually call them 'Afghans', you're spot on... they can't all be arrested. this really does need a rethink. the British former politican, Lord 'Paddy' Ashdown, who was instrumental in helping solve the Balkans crisis was articulate this week in pointing out that there needed to be a more rounded approach. I haven't seen any sign that anybody anywhere is listening to him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 02/22/2009
- K-Dog76 I'm a Fan of K-Dog76 8 fans permalink

We don't just round these guys up, contrary to popular belief.

You're right though, we shouldn't just lock these guys because the got caught with explosives.

Hey, its their country, their culture... if they want to force their women to wear burkhas or cut off a person's hands for stealing bread. So be it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 02/23/2009
photo

Unlike other lefties and progressives with thier collective hair on fire...I'm going to wait and hear from the President himself on this issue or hear from Gibbs something other then "un-named sources"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 02/21/2009
- K-Dog76 I'm a Fan of K-Dog76 8 fans permalink

extremely reasonable

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 02/23/2009
- offred I'm a Fan of offred 58 fans permalink

Do we even know if this story is legitimate?

There are a suspicious number of "Obama's Department of Justice" decisions being publicized, without an actual quote from Obama, the press secretary, or the attorney general. That, plus the fact that the articles were released on a weekend, makes me really nervous. The right- and left-wing blogs and the progressive blogs seem to be going bananas over the Bagram article and the e-mail lawsuits article. This means 48 hours of turmoil and divisiveness being stirred up. Is anyone else concerned? I'll believe it when I hear it from an actual Obama person, not a retread Bush mole.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 PM on 02/21/2009
- dantanna I'm a Fan of dantanna 2 fans permalink

obama's rethoric does not match the facts... so many things now he is siding with bush that republicans should be pleased democrats had given them a bush-like presidency. i dont like the way he is spending money (remember bush?); the way he is contemplating the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (bush); claim national security concerns in court so that the public cannot know the truth through cases pending in the so call "justice system" (bush?); trying to drop lawsuits to make the bush administration emails be found and made public (isnt that what bush tried successfully to prevent for eight years?); etc etc etc... we are doomed - he is proving to be as inept as the previous president only he sounds articulate and smart - "sounds"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

It is scary!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 PM on 02/21/2009
- KofTX I'm a Fan of KofTX 26 fans permalink
photo

You don't know the facts....

You are blindly stating overly-simplified rhetoric that smacks of neoconservatism....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 AM on 02/22/2009
photo

what rhetoric? what facts?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 AM on 02/22/2009
photo

It is not the existence of detention centers that is the problem..

It is what goes on in these places that has been the problem.

I trust President Obama will put an end to the atrocities of torture.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 PM on 02/21/2009
- Amerigucci I'm a Fan of Amerigucci 12 fans permalink

I hope you feel the same way if you are ever detained indefinitely with no charges and no opportunity to have your day in court.

I really wonder about people who cavalierly dismiss people's right to not be locked up, for no crime, and are denied due process. How does this possibly square with being an American? How did you come away from school believing that this is what we are about or what we do?

We invaded two countries and overthrew their governments, put in puppet regimes, and keep prisons there filled with people who have not been charged with crimes and have had no opportunity to defend themselves. Most of them are there falsely. This is how terrorists get made.

Under Bush, these same abuses can now happen to US citizens.

This is not what we are about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:32 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

You obviously believe that we have no place in Afghanistan--I do not feel that way at all. It is in this country's best interests to see that there is a stable Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations. One was a diversion, the other is a real threat which should have been tended to a long time ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

It was also the transport of captives from the ME with the presumption of their guilt and the assumption that they're involved in terrorism that was also the problem.

The fact that so many detainees have been found not guilty of anything at all speaks of being presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The whole world sees that for what it is. That's still a problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 AM on 02/22/2009
photo

wow, you speak for the whole world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 AM on 02/22/2009
- MsMadame I'm a Fan of MsMadame 7 fans permalink

Ha!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:09 PM on 02/22/2009
- mbsq I'm a Fan of mbsq 14 fans permalink

Realize that these are POW's captured in a war zone. Can someone explain how the government's stance violates the Geneva conventions, or any historical tradition regarding conduct in war (say WWII)? And if you disagree with this legal framework, what is your alternative? Should all POW's be immediately shipped to Virginia so they can sue the US government for capturing them in a war?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:21 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

Bush said they were enemy combatants not prisoners of war and therefore the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 PM on 02/21/2009
- SamEllison I'm a Fan of SamEllison 16 fans permalink
photo

Enemy combatants or illegal enemy combatants?
One has Geneva rights and one doesn't, per the US Congress.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 02/21/2009
- Amerigucci I'm a Fan of Amerigucci 12 fans permalink

They're not either.

If you want to charge them with crimes, do it and try them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 PM on 02/21/2009
- bascombe I'm a Fan of bascombe 37 fans permalink
photo

lies! delusions at best.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 PM on 02/22/2009
- RachelMc I'm a Fan of RachelMc 77 fans permalink
photo

i heard that if u wound the opposing side in the war and then they surrender... the medic's have to take care of them and nurse them back to health, feed'em, shelter'em (no torturing, no obscene photos, etc). i wonder do our enemies do the same for our POWs? just a thought...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 PM on 02/21/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 75 fans permalink

no they behead the people

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 02/21/2009
- Rule Of Law I'm a Fan of Rule Of Law 161 fans permalink

You should have seen what we did to them in Nam. We are no less barbarians than they are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

If you are saying that we should do the same, I have to wonder what you think this country stands for?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 02/21/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 75 fans permalink

peace through superior fire power

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 02/21/2009
- RachelMc I'm a Fan of RachelMc 77 fans permalink
photo

did i make any suggestions or did i just ask a question. ooh touchy touchy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 AM on 02/22/2009
- momof3inGA I'm a Fan of momof3inGA 9 fans permalink
photo

"he 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."

Makes sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:52 PM on 02/21/2009
- Kartoffel I'm a Fan of Kartoffel 9 fans permalink

Not really. A big knock on Gitmo was that a lot of the detainees had been seized in places nowhere near actual combat. Besides that, they were not members of any nation's armed forces and they weren't wearing uniforms when taken. Moving such persons to a prison in a combat zone is not a magic trick that makes all the sticky legal questions disappear. Dick Cheney thought it was. Apparently so does the Obama administration.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:14 PM on 02/21/2009

WELL- what a mess - it is usual in a battle zone to confine prisoners when you apprehend them. You just don't let them run around. Since some are so concerned, lets do it according to the Geneva Convention. If they are not in uniform, then they are spies. Spies in war time are given a quick trial then shot. So, maybe they are POWs. If so, they are housed, feed, etc, etc. I guess what really matters is what you nay sayers what to do. House and feed them - or shoot them. Let President Obama and his people work out the details, or you good people decide.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 PM on 02/21/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (64 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect