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 10 11 Next › Last » (64 pages total)
- Marichu I'm a Fan of Marichu 16 fans permalink
photo

So what will eventually happen to these "detainees"? If they are denied access to US courts then they should have access to a military tribunal. Let them be charged, tried, and sentenced if found guilty. But a review of the enemy combatants' status every six months is not justice, as defined by a country that prides itself and is founded on the rule of law.
Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 02/21/2009
- Firbolg I'm a Fan of Firbolg 38 fans permalink
photo

All depends who carries out and attends the review. If it is done with some degree of independence, that would work, but if it is just by the same people who hold the detainees is just window dressing. VP Biden made some encouraging remarks at Leon Panetta's swearing including about allowing Red Cross access to detainees. If they also could see lawyers who could later appear at the reviews that would improve the process.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:45 PM on 02/21/2009
- Marichu I'm a Fan of Marichu 16 fans permalink
photo

Sounds promising.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:07 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

This hearing is about what happens to the detainees.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 02/21/2009
- Marichu I'm a Fan of Marichu 16 fans permalink
photo

I'm not sure I follow. Every six months they have a hearing to determine the status of the detainees. Does the review board then make a determination as to their guilt or innocence? Or something more along the lines of a parole board?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 PM on 02/21/2009
- offred I'm a Fan of offred 51 fans permalink

I just saw a story about the Obama administration telling the Department of Justice to kill the CREW and the National Archives lawsuits requesting access to the missing 14 million e-mails from the Bush administration. (Sorry, I don't have a link. I lost the site because I immediately fired off an e-mail to whitehouse.gov asking if this was true. I know, I'm naive and I'll probably get blocked from e-mailing the White House.)

Now I see this story that Obama's Department of Justice is backing Bush's Bagram detainee policy.

Is this really Obama's Department of Justice? Or is it still Bush's? There are still an unpleasant number of Bush moles burrowed in there. Can we believe that DOJ information released to the press is accurate?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 02/21/2009
- Ramirez I'm a Fan of Ramirez 271 fans permalink
photo

Democrats and Bush:

In their hearts they know he's right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 02/21/2009
- Sandmann I'm a Fan of Sandmann 6 fans permalink
photo

OK, I voted to get President Obama elected, and I'm not getting what the big fuss about this decision is. For those that are opposed to having any troops deployed in the middle east whatsoever, this objection about Bagram Airfield makes sense. For those who believe that the need to have troops in Afghanistan is necessary for whatever reason...t­hen those captured in military operations are actually Prisoners of War not permanent detainees--in a secret prison-- in another country. Take a few minutes to peruse the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War:

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Until President Obama violates Geneva convention rules, there are no legs to this argument. President G.W. Bush violated the Geneva Convention rules without question, President Obama hasn't even begun any significant operations in Afghanistan yet. Now we are looking at the situation like taking P.O.W.'s = illegal detention (what are you supposed to do with P.O.W.'s otherwise?). Put them in court you say? No, not until the battle in that particular country (Afghanistan) is finished. It's not as though he's encompassed the War on Terror free-for-all (any country we bag a combatant from gets sent to Camp "Shady St. Elsewhere"). President Bush has taken a necessary element of war and made it into something sinister, I wouldn't start getting worked up until whatever happens in Afghanistan either confirms or alleviates our fears.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 02/21/2009
- chargerman I'm a Fan of chargerman 38 fans permalink

It's good to see Obama following Bush policies. Now we have to get Biden following in Cheney's footsteps.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

Now that would be a good start.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 02/21/2009
- dhinds I'm a Fan of dhinds 26 fans permalink

On the road to Infierno!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 PM on 02/21/2009

Sweet, the first thing that Obama has done that makes any sense, I knew he'd be better on foreign policy than he would be domestic. I LIKE IT, glad were rejecting habeas corpus for terrorists, about time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 02/21/2009

Wow......I haven't liked anything Obama has done yet, but I LOVE THIS, glad Obama is rejecting the habeas corpus supreme court ruling from last year. These terrorists aka barbarians should have NO constitutional rights period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 PM on 02/21/2009

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080312/afghan_detainees_080312/20080312?hub=TopStories

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

Which only proves that when the courts align with the State over the human rights and safety of the individual we're all s.crew.ed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

Regardless of how we treat "detainees" in Afghanistan, we never should have gone into the "Graveyard of Empires" in the first place. Obama is escalating Bush's stupidest war and the uncritical cheerleading on Huffingtonpost and elsewhere is as frightening as it was on Sept. 12, 2001.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

That is exactly what I believe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 02/21/2009
- jcwtts1 I'm a Fan of jcwtts1 151 fans permalink
photo

are you kidding. They attacked us!!!!! We didn't start this thing but they attacked our nation we are going to hold the country forever. Ask Japan how we handle being attacked on our own soil.

J

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 02/21/2009
- offred I'm a Fan of offred 51 fans permalink

Afghanistan didn't attack us. The Taliban did. And granted, the Taliban harbored Bin Laden but he's no longer there and the Taliban was under control and on its way out until Bush took his eye off the ball and started a vanity war in Iraq.

Afghanistan helped bring down and bankrupt Russia because Russia couldn't bring it under control. Do we want to risk that happening here just to make the point that "America, yeah, we're the biggest, the baddest, don't mess with us."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 02/21/2009
- dhinds I'm a Fan of dhinds 26 fans permalink

Japan sided with Hitler and Mussolini and sent it's armed forces to attack the USA. It was nation against nation.

Al Qaeda destroyed the NY WTC and part of the Pentagon using hijacked commercial airliners. Their training camps in Afghanistan were destroyed and the Taliban government that allowed Al Qaeda to establish those bases was removed from power.

Today, after squandering the country's financial reserves and devaluing the currency of what is now a highly indebted nation, after wasting over four thousand American and over half a million Iraqi (most civilian) lives; there are more Muslims willing to avenge the destruction of their fellow Islamic Arab States than there were before the invasion.

The ONLY WAY to protect the USA is by doing so AT HOME, protecting it WHERE IT IS, not where it isn't!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 02/21/2009
- dhinds I'm a Fan of dhinds 26 fans permalink

Japan sided wit

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 02/21/2009
- Daniboy I'm a Fan of Daniboy 19 fans permalink

I think we should bring them all to the US-they deserve rights too-think of it as stimulus-more courts and judges will be needed-will create many new jobs. Also need bigger and better prisons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

I'm sorry that sounds like an absolutely terrible idea.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

The border fence is not finished..­.free labor..I like it..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 02/21/2009
- jcwtts1 I'm a Fan of jcwtts1 151 fans permalink
photo

Wow. So when we were fighting WWI and WWII and Korea we held their prisoners of war where we took them. And you think we should have brought them to the US to stand trial. That doesn't make any sense. These are enemies of our country and they should be treated as Prisoners of War. That means all of the Geneva convention rules apply. But suing in a US court doesn't exist as a right of war.

J

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:37 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

This all came about because Bush insisted that Al Queda members were not prisoners of war.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 02/21/2009
- alm123 I'm a Fan of alm123 9 fans permalink

No Prisoners taken alive, what ever happened to that motto?
Battlefield executions; look at all the money taxpayers (whatever is left of them) will save!
Sorry,
But I’m sick of hearing about rights for people who have no regard for life!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

Do you realize how or how many people are detained? A majority of detainees are not caught on the "battlefield". Many of them are detained from Raids from sometimes faulty Intel based on hearsay and Intel intercepts with poor contextual translation. BTW, I am a OIF US Army Infantry Veteran. I saw what went on there.

It would be a different story if we were up against a uniformed enemy. But guess what? insurgencies can't be fought in the same way and NO Where in HISTORY is a victory shown against one. We start executing innocent civilians and it will create the next generation of Anti-American Extremist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 02/21/2009
- alm123 I'm a Fan of alm123 9 fans permalink

In a War of Terror, the World is a Battlefield.

Maybe we should take another look at the Geneva Convention rules and adopt new policies.
A new type of war should dictate new ramifications for the accused.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

Afghanistan IS the battlefiel­d..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 02/21/2009
- offred I'm a Fan of offred 51 fans permalink

Many were detained because the U.S. military was paying bounties (up to $10,000) for people with al Qaida ties. Don't like your neighbor, your brother-in-law, the mayor? Call them al Qaida, take them to the Americans, and collect $10,000. Sounds like capitalism to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 02/21/2009
- lornejl I'm a Fan of lornejl 636 fans permalink
photo

At long last , human rights organizations are exposed for the frauds that they are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

Indeed. Human rights are only for those who hate America.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 02/21/2009
- lornejl I'm a Fan of lornejl 636 fans permalink
photo

Left and right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 02/21/2009
- jcwtts1 I'm a Fan of jcwtts1 151 fans permalink
photo

not at all. But the human rights people have a basic point. Treat prisoners of war as prisoners of war.

J

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 PM on 02/21/2009
- Jezreel I'm a Fan of Jezreel 62 fans permalink
photo

According to this article, human rights attorneys assumed that captured Afghan citizens, who are associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda and being held in military compounds in their own country would be allowed to exercise the same rights as US citizens under the auspices of US Constitution?

If so, that's ridiculous. The US Constitution applies to US citizens. Those people are enemy combatants according to the US military. They are imprisoned in their own country and are subjected only to the rights extended under the Geneva Convention and other international rules of war.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 02/21/2009
- rblaquinta I'm a Fan of rblaquinta 20 fans permalink

I totally agree with you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 02/21/2009
- Gunwing I'm a Fan of Gunwing 5 fans permalink

I have to agree with the blog poster here. This is not a thing to be mad about. Afghanistan is vary different then Iraq plus Gitmo was not in Iraq but on US soil, and did not fallow the Geneva Conventions that was what most people were mad about the US Air Base in question is going to be closed, and those held there will be moved to a new location with a brand new set of rules that fallow the Army rule book.

For those who don't know it clearly states the fallowing:

"Your not allowed to use violence during interrogation of any kind with captured POWs"

"You are allowed to offer incentives for POWs to work with you"

I think that clears up this anti-Obama crap that the GOP keeps spouting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 02/21/2009
- canobserv I'm a Fan of canobserv 33 fans permalink

Yes......I agree

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 02/21/2009
- Paul Peete - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Paul Peete 401 fans permalink

Don't buy into the hype surrounding the decision that the anti-Obama forces are mounting. We are about to make Afghanistan the theater of operations, we cannot afford to allow those that will be detained there clog the American court system. President Obama has ordered the military to follow the Army Field manual in treating these and future detainees. NO TORTURE! All detainees in Afghanistan will be treated under the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

Do you want them to be held by Afghanistan's puppet government which cannot venture out past Kabul? Our military is the only solution for the time being. Under President Obama there will be no tolerance for Abu Graib style detention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 02/21/2009
- theMightyT I'm a Fan of theMightyT 173 fans permalink

seconded

well said

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 02/21/2009
photo

Thank you for clearing that up....I was alarmed at the wording of the article.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 02/21/2009
- gonnuts I'm a Fan of gonnuts 15 fans permalink

You really believe this tripe?

Hey, Sparky, we have torture going on in our own prisons. You really think that after years of conditioning to be good little sociopaths that it will stop half-way around the world?

Of course let's not even touch on why we're in Afghanistan to begin with? Just what is our purpose there? If it's fighting terrorism, well fighting a tactic with an army might be the dumbest thing one can do. And if you can provide proof that we're there to "get binLaden" because he was part of 9/11, please by all means contact the FBI, because to date they have posted no evidence that he was involved. I'm not making this up, go look.

So again, why are we killing people in those countries? I can think of two reasons, oil and drugs.

And you defending a war-mongering president, be he Pub or Crat, doesn't make what we're doing right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 02/21/2009
- Jezreel I'm a Fan of Jezreel 62 fans permalink
photo

Thanks Paul, you are absolutely correct on both fronts. First, this is nothing more than political hype. And second, Afghan prisoners are subjected only to the rights extended under the Geneva Convention and other international rules of war.

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

Typical apologist defense. Tell us, Mr Peete, why by implication, you have no concern about expanding the invasion into Afghanistan? Killing more people is okay as long as we are not torturing them?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 02/21/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (64 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect