Someone explain why Obama backs Bush's detainee policy

[LittleBlue]

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/obama-backs-bush-on-bagra_n_168766.html


This is unacceptable, and a sad mockery of the change theme.

Someone please explain this to me. I will not support human rights abuse(rs) under any circumstances.

[babylonsister]

1. My opinion? They're buying time to figure out just wtf they have

to deal with. Stall! Just tell me the truth when they figure it out.

[LittleBlue]

2. This was honestly the last place I expected betrayal.

I thought of all the election issues, Obama would certainly stand firm on this one. It is so fundamental to a nation of laws that, as a constitutional lawyer, Obama should understand the need to adhere to basic human rights policy.

When I saw the headline I saw little black spots and, after reading it, feel slightly ill.

[babylonsister]

6. Betrayal? Not at all. You asked .

And black spots? :rofl:

[EFerrari]

50. Well, I see you've been ridiculed, called a ditto head, a PUMA

a Naderite and a ron paul supporter on this thread. The level of discourse really goes into the toilet around here sometimes.

There are many people around the world that, like you, are following this situation very closely, including myself.

To be fair, Obama inherited a DoJ that is completely dysfunctional, a bunch of prisons where people have been tortured and abused and denied their rights, a rapidly unfolding situation in both Afghanistan AND in Pakistan and all that in addition to the worst economic crisis we've had since God was a teen.

I am not liking that Leon Panetta defended rendition in his confirmation hearing. Ditto for hiring Brennan and Blair. The Pentagon seems to be fighting the administration behind the scenes over the Iraq draw down, too. A lot of people from Gates, the Iran Contra criminal, on down could be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity so it's hard to believe that one of their highest priorities isn't CYA right now.

This is a big mess right now.

[liberalsince1968]

77. I felt the same way!

[pmorlan1]

57. Wake Up!

They aren't stalling they are actively advocating the Bush position. It's not like they don't know what they're doing, they do. It's up to all of us Obama supporters to put them back on course.

They need to hear from all of us

www.whitehouse.gove

[pmorlan1]

58. Ooops

Sorry for the link error.

www.whitehouse.gov

[FrenchieCat]

3. Please explain this to me, because this is what I don't understand.....

Why would Afghanistanis detained in afghanistan have US constitutional rights to challenge their detention in US Courts?

I'm a bit puzzled about that angs?

There are the Geneva Conventions for these folks....and cannot quite see why the rights to trial in in a US court would apply to them. Can you help me with this?

Here's the opening lead paragraph in the article that you are citing...."WASHINGTON — The Obama administration ............., 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."

[LittleBlue]

4. Because everyone deserves a trial before being held indefinitely?

Nobody, regardless of whether they're a citizen or not, deserves to be held indefinitely without trial?

"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 above is a Bushism- trial threatens U.S. security. Yet it comes from the Obama admin. Very curious.

[FrenchieCat]

8. They do not deserve a trial in US courts....which is what this is about.

I believe that there will be further detail that will be clarifying this. Afghanistan is a NATO enterprise, not a US one.

Otherwise, you seem to be saying that non Americans held who have never set foot in the United States, and who are jailed in times of war (that is ran by an international coalition) have the right to access US courts per the constitution.

I believe that there was a reason that the trials after WWII were held in Nuremberg. Was that ran via US Courts? :shrug:

[LittleBlue]

10. The admin is saying that trials at Gitmo = ok, but trials

for the Bagram detainees "threaten national security." What a bunch of Bushist garbage.

I've got the ACLU on my side, and I'm comfortable there. On the Obama side is Bush.

[FrenchieCat]

13. You can say what you want, but it still makes no sense.

They are not saying trials are not ok...they are saying not in a US court.

I think that you are jumping the gun.

Unfortunately for you, while you might be able to bark about this (in progress) story,
you will still have to wait to see how it concludes, as others here have stated.

FYI, You equating Obama with Bush even in this case, loses you credibility......
because you are running with only a piece of the story...and yet you are already at the
end of the story.

I do not believe that these folks will be detained without end under an Obama Administration,
which thus far is only a month old.

[LittleBlue]

14. There are human rights officials equating his policies with Bush

in the article.

I criticized Bush when he did something wrong, and I will criticize Obama equally for doing the wrong things. W

[FrenchieCat]

17. But you are not a ditto head, right?

Just because a Human Rights Official says something, doesn't make it 100% accurate.

The point is that these Human Rights folks aren't wrong in wanting an avenue for these detainees....but they may not be correct in asserting that this avenue should run through the US courts.

Considering that the War in Afghanistan is in actuality a NATO war, the trials should be held either by an Afghan court or an International Court, IMO. US courts should not have to apply constitutional rights that protect American citizens to everyone in the world, IMO. I would have stated the same thing if Saddam Hussein would have been brought the the US and tried in a US court under the Constitution. I would have been scratching my ass asking WTF was that about?

[LittleBlue]

20. You can make the argument ad nauseum

I'm simply saying that criticizing me for not properly considering the issue for sharing the same opinion as civil rights attorneys is obviously inappropriate. Unless of course the people here on DU have a greater understanding of civil rights law than civil rights attorneys themselves.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I'm not criticizing you,

I'm giving you my opinion on this.

There are civil rights and there are human rights.

This is a Human Rights issue which needs to be dealt with, one way or the other. However, there is a distinction to be made between folks from another country, captured and held in that country during a war in where an international force is fighting and are the detainers, versus American Citizens seeking justice about their Constitutional rights in US courts. Just because you squish it all together to make a point, it doesn't make your position as coherent as you would like it to be.

[Clio the Leo]

43. Or unless people here on DU.....

.... have a greater understanding of the laws governing the NATO allaince than the President himself.

Works both ways. ;)

[Political Heretic]

22. I've yet to see you ever utter the smallest critical word about Obama on anything

Which, in my view - makes your opinions suspect.

Obama is wrong on this whole policy of ramping up in Afghanistan. He's wrong to find ways to attempt to take protections away from people that we are detaining for whatever reason - whether he technically "has to" or not. He's wrong to continue embracing this bull shit "war on terror" narrative that nothing but cover for expansion of our imperial interests around the globe. Right now he's either accidentally complicit because he's too inexperienced to handle foreign policy in a more humane and just fashion, or he's willfully culpable as part of the elite establishment that has absolute no plan to change its hegemonic agenda.

I think that the stimulus bill he shepherded through congress is a wonderful bundle of desperately needed on progressive things like social services and infrastructure. I think the four pro-labor executive orders he's signed and his pick for labor secretary are all exciting signs for the future. Recinding the global gag rule, ordering the closure of gitmo - these were excellent actions!

But Obama is just way, way, way, waaaaaay of the mark when it comes to foriegn polciy, and I would include our treatment of persons detained by our government on foreign soil in that category.

[FrenchieCat]

25. I didn't agree with Obama on his FISA reversal and stated such.

Although I didn't hyperventilate the matter to death,
I did write my letter, and made my comment.

You see, like you, I have the right to disagree with a particular decision,
but I also have the right to believe that I understand why it was made,
even if it isn't the one that I would have made.

Besides that, I have the right to support Barack Obama's
as long as what I articulate is done coherently.

Beyond that, you have the right to criticize President Barack Obama as much as you feel the need.

[Clio the Leo]

44. Yeah because Barack Obama is SUCH the imperialist.

That's why he went to Canada ya know .... to sus them out. :)

[Two Americas]

86. of course

Americans are in denial about the United States being an empire. Imperialism is not some personal character feature and it is nonsensical to say that a person "is" an imperialist. The President just assumed leadership of what is in fact an empire. There is tremendous momentum in that direction, and powerful people have a vested interest in preserving and advancing the empire. Obama has absolutely no choice but to be an imperialist - no politician does - until and unless we build public support for opposition to empire and give him political support and cover for going a different direction.

I don't remember Obama running on a "dismantle the empire and head in a new democratic and peaceful direction" platform. Of course he did not, and many of the people here denying that the US is an empire would not have supported him had he run on any such platform.

"Imperialist" means nothing more to most people here than a "bad" word, and they are reacting on a childish and naive level to this as though Obama had been called a poopy head or a nose picker, as though imperialism were a matter of a bad personal habit or something.

Of course Obama "is" an imperialist - we all "are" until and unless we face the truth and take a stand against empire and for peace and democracy until we speak out for the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party, organized Labor and the political Left, for people over profits, for democracy over authoritarianism, for labor over capital.

Yes, he did go to Canada to sus them out and make sure they are on board with the aspirations of the wealthy and powerful few here and will continue to support the system - the system of rapacious and destructive capitalism, finance and Wall Street, and the global empire that the US government maintains for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful few. Of course.

Hope it is OK that I take a political position here that is slightly to the Left from the libertarian free market Reaganomics political program. hat seems to be unpopular around here lately, as unpopular here as it was a few months ago among Republicans. In fact, I am hearing the exact same arguments from Democrats that we have been hearing from republicans over the last 8 years.

[Cha]

54. The OP's MO is to equate Obama

with bush, raise its fist at the cloud and yell "it's not Acceptable".

Like the little boy who cried "wolf".

[EFerrari]

61. Well, there have been a number of similar headlines that the OP didn't write

over the last two weeks. And CREW, ACLU and Amnesty are all chiming in. I don't see how anyone gets "crying wolf" out of that.

But, Pickler and Matt Apuzzo are rightwing hacks. There is more than one thing going on here, imho.

[Cha]

63. It's the way the OP

writes it..not constructive. Just mean.

[pmorlan1]

62. Sounds Like a Bush Supporter

This kind of comment sounds like the kind of comment we heard from Bush supporters. They were always ready with some lame excuse for Bush's behavior. Please, think for yourself and stop being an apologist. Obama is not Bush but when his administration does bad things we need to call him out! He, more than anyone, would expect us to do that. Stop making excuses and start making him do the right thing.

[Hello_Kitty]

59. Gitmo is U.S. territory, Afghanistan is not. eom

[Odin2005]

46. They can be labeled POWs.

The whole "unlawful combatants" BS was created by Dumbass so he didn't have to follow the proper protocols for POWs.

[Political Heretic]

19. Because I believe anyone WE detain should be subject to OUR constitutional garuntees.

I believe that to be the only just and humane position.

That's why.

[LittleBlue]

21. Bravo, well said friend.

:D

[FrenchieCat]

28. The war in Afghanistan isn't just being waged by the United States Government.

Bush hasn't truly followed the Geneva Conventions....but that doesn't justify allowing the detainees to be heard in a US court, IMO.

The means used must conform with international humanitarian law

Just war theory insists that the means used in any war accord with the rules defined in international law, such as the Geneva Conventions.6 These rules apply to states when they engage their forces in combat, whether the targets are states or non-state actors, and they set high standards for civilian protection, design and use of weapons, and treatment of combatant prisoners of war.

The term “war” carries great potential for political, economic, and military mobilisation, which the United States has used to full effect, but it also has great responsibilities. These cannot be evaded, despite US avowals that this is a “new kind of war.” Although there have been advances in pinpoint targeting and “smart bomb” technology, there is nothing novel about this conflict in Afghanistan that allows it to slip outside the frame of international laws of war. These legal responsibilities apply without question to Afghan civilians and combatants, including Taliban soldiers. It is questionable whether the United States has fully upheld the spirit as well as the letter of the Geneva Conventions (box B2).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1122274

[Political Heretic]

36. Whoever WE detain, should be subject to constitutional protections.

I'm mean, in a perfect world, everyone on the planet should be subject to "constitutional" protections - many of them are not privileges, they are basic rights. But whenever we're involved, if we choose to detain someone against their will, then they should fall under the protections granted by our constitution.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Obviously what you are saying is not the law of the land.....

[Political Heretic]

39. No it isn't. That doesn't make it any less right.

[Clio the Leo]

45. The question is not when or how but where.

All this comes down to is where these people will be tried. Not IF they were will be tried or how they will be treated in the mean time. The Geneva conventions (specifically conventions 3 and 4) in additon to the laws governing NATO will insure that the mistakes made by the Bush admin. in Gitmo will not be duplicated in Bagram.

The question is WHERE to do it and who will oversee it.

But then again Frenchie already said that. :)

[ncteechur]

53. Because they are not US citizens and they are detained in a theater of battle. The Nazi POWs didn't

get US trial. Nuremberg was not a US trial. The Geneva Convention does not guarantee a US trial. However, to provide a US trial for each and every detainee that is held halfway around the world is simply not feasible nor is transporting detainees to the US for trail. Gitmo IS different because those detainees are not held in the theater of battle and were simply moved to Cuba so the Bush administration could argue that it was not on US soil. It is US soil but it is not halfway around the world.

"if we detain one person, they should get a US trial." We have never used that practice because it is unwise and impractical to do so.


I understand and applaud idealism. I don't get all the naivete. You folks who are already yapping about the Obama Administration being like the Bush administration are whacked.

And now the email thing. CREW (who I have great respect for) is suing to recover the emails. If they win, the executive office of THIS president will spend many many hours tracking down the lost emails of the last administration. If I were President Obama, I certainly wouldn't want my folks to spend all their time sweeping up after the last folks. He has his own agenda. There is enough to reverse regarding 2 wars and a bad economy. It is insulting for folks to insist that he become a janitor behind pResident Bush.

[MiniMe]

73. They should be subject to the Geneva Convention

They are detaining Prisoners of War, and they should be protected by the Geneva Convention, not the US courts. They are being detained in Afghanistan, not at Gitmo.

[Two Americas]

85. it is immoral and illegal

it is immoral and illegal to keep people in limbo. They are prisoners of war, or they are accused criminals. The Bush administration created a third category out of thin air for the purpose of evading the law and advancing a horrific immoral and barbaric program.

[MADem]

5. The idea in Afghanistan is to make the Afghan army the public face of law and order over there.

The US and NATO will be playing the "hearts and minds" games behind the scenes, and backing up the Afghans as needed.

I'm betting these enemy combatants will be held in a 'joint' detention facility, with an Afghan warden but plenty of US oversight, before too much longer.

And then, in that case, they can argue that they have an avenue for redress, that incorporates the host country where they are being held.

Team O is buying a little time. They're also probably digging the power a bit. Once you get your hand on the tiller, you don't want to let go.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. You sure do have a lot of "concerns" today, about an administration

that just celebrated it's first month in office. We get it, you don't like the Obama administration, and every cynical post drips with bile. But, get this, whomever you supported in the primaries or in the general didn't win, Obama did. I don't know if you're some disgruntled Repuke only here to stir up shit, or if you're one of the whacky assed far lefter's, but you seem to be working overtime to make it known how much you detest the Obama administration.

It's gonna be a long four years for you.

[LittleBlue]

9. I donated exlusively to Obama throughout the primaries and GE

thank you very much.

If you can't address the topic, and can only address me personally, it reflects poorly on your motives. Frankly, it shows a naked ambition to deflect the issue more in common with FreakRepublic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. I'll bet you know a lot more about "FreakRepublic" than anyone here can...

possibly imagine. You've used that line several times today. Project Much? And your over-the-top melodrama doesn't scare me, shithead.

Black spots? :rofl:

[LittleBlue]

12. Bold. Call me "shithead" despite donating over $400

to Obama. I have several t-shirts of his, and I volunteered for him here in Washington state. Supporting him before most on this site did, back in the days of Hillary and Edwards. Go through my posting history if you don't believe me.

You represent the Tarheel state poorly, and you represent Democrats poorly. Frankly, your response to me is buffoonish.

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. What represents democrats poorly is that you "see black spots" after...

reading an article about something that you've clearly not taken the time to research. You read it, and immediately disseminated it here at DU.

What is so hard for you to understand about Afghanis having no constitutional access to U.S. courts? It's been explained to you, and I think quite well, but still you persist. No, no...I think willful ignorance is what truly represents Democrats poorly.

[LittleBlue]

18. Are you going to accuse the ACLU of "not doing their research"?

You owe me an apology for personally attacking me for no cause. Your accusations in the above post are lies, verified by my posting history.

The shame is yours. Man up to it or continue acting foolish by berating ACLU civil rights lawyers for "not doing their research." lmao

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. Your behavior on this board today has been deplorable. I owe you nothing.

On a Democratic board, you called the Democratic President "a clown". On another thread, you quickly tried to dance away from it, when you got called out, by saying you were referring to Gibbs. You started the namecalling, and you started up again by inferring that Obama=Bush. And the ACLU can stomp it's collective feet as much as they want, but Afghanis are not constitutionally entitled to have their cases heard in U.S. courts. Period.

I'm all for human rights, but perhaps the POTUS is privvy to some intelligence that you, the ACLU, and a couple of other assorted nuts on this thread are not? When was the last presidential intelligence briefing you attended? I thought not. This is just some more made up Larry Johnson, NO QUARTER, bullshit.

[LittleBlue]

30. I called Gibbs a clown, and at least one other person thougth it was obvious.

You're attacking me for no cause with primaries garbage, which is in fact a lie (and you can verify this by my entire posting history throughout the primaries).

Again, continue on the buffoonish offensive you started above, or apologize for attacking me personally with verifiable lies and outright insults. The choice is yours.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. I have no intention of apologizing. I call 'em as I see 'em.

When you go on the attack against good Democrats & start namecalling, don't be surprised when you receive the same treatment, twenty times over.

And, by the way, not many people bought your explanation. You've got some PUMA's, Naderites, and Ron Paul loyalists here who pounce on provocative threads like yours to lend their support. You guys seem to travel in packs, but it's okay. You can continue to slam the President, as it's your right, but just don't boo-hoo when you're called out. Apology...my ass.

[LittleBlue]

33. Wow, human rights activists are now = "Naderites, PUMA's, and Ron Paul loyalists"

What a foolish notion. Either you're drinking, messing with me, or you really are as you seem.

You get my ignore list for that idiocy. Goodbye.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Well, if you can't stand the heat........

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

40. Spoken like a true conservative

but perhaps the POTUS is privvy to some intelligence that you, the ACLU, and a couple of other assorted nuts on this thread are not? When was the last presidential intelligence briefing you attended? I thought not.

The EXACT argument of neo-conservatives, during the bush administration to justify torture, invasion and human rights abuses.

Well done.

There is no "intelligence" that trumps human rights.

[MiniMe]

74. That still doesn't give detainees the right to US courts

It gives them the right to Geneva Conventions. If they aren't treated by the Geneva Conventions, I will agree with you. But not US courts.

[Political Heretic]

81. If WEdetain them, then they should be afforded the rights of our system.

We don't have to detain them if we don't want them to have constitutional protections.

The trouble is, most of the protections our constitution would grant detainees ought to be considered basic human rights.

[Runcible Spoon]

51. Boy, are you getting the initiation today!

I'll take you out for a beer once it's over!

[EFerrari]

24. We know for a fact people have been tortured and killed

in our prisons in Afghanistan and that needs to stop immediately.

The ACLU is right, of course. And while it's only a month into this administration, if they have time to hang on to the torture president's policy, they have time to do this right.

But nice try, attacking the OP over the primaries when the issue is due process, torture and murder.

[FrenchieCat]

35. I'm sure that President Obama will break with the fact that

Bush didn't follow the Geneva Convention....

“I was clear throughout this campaign and have been clear throughout this transition that under my administration, the states does not torture,” Obama said. “We will abide by the Geneva Conventions that we will uphold our highest values and ideals. And that is a clear charge that I've given to Admiral Blair and to Leon Panetta. And I think it is important for us to do that not only because that's who we are, but also, ultimately, it will make us safer and will help in changing hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/09/1738721.aspx

However, that does not mean that Barack Obama will allow non Citizens who have never set foot in the US to stand trial in US courts and to allow that kind of precedence.

I do believe that George Bush should be tried for crimes committed based on orders he gave that went against the Geneva Convention.

Following President Obama's request on Tuesday for the judges in the Military Commission trial system to suspend all proceedings, the Order also directs defense secretary Robert Gates to halt the proceedings pending a four-month review, and requires him to ensure that prisoners are held in conditions that comply with the Geneva Conventions regarding the humane treatment of prisoners, adding, "Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections implemented immediately thereafter."

Executive Orders on Interrogations and Detention Policy Options

The second Order establishes that the questioning of prisoners by any U.S. government agency must follow the interrogation guidelines laid down in the Army Field Manual, which guarantees humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions, and, of course, prohibits the use of torture. Reverting to the "requirements" of the Federal torture statute, the UN Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and other legislation and treaties, the Order states that "in all circumstances" prisoners will be "treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)."

As a result, the Order states, "All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order." The Order also specifically revokes President Bush's Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, which "reaffirm" his "determination," on February 7, 2002, that "members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war," sought to grant himself the right to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions" as he saw fit, and also sought to exclude the CIA from any oversight whatsoever.

It also orders the CIA to "close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates," adding that the agency "shall not operate any such detention facility in the future," and orders all departments and agencies of the government to allow representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to have "timely access" to all prisoners.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-worthington/return-to-the-law-obama-o_b_160270.html

[EFerrari]

52. Leon Panetta supported rendition as a "tool" in his confirmation hearing.

Obama hired Brennan and Blair who both have human rights problems and he kept Gates who on top of everything else, is an Iran Contra criminal.

I'm all for supporting our new president. He's a delight. AND, I'm going to keep following these cases. It does little good for the administration to loudly announce they will close Gitmo and then quietly keep Bagram operating by Bush SOP.

It's clear that Obama is getting resistance from the Bush dead enders both in Justice and in the Pentagon. It would be wrong, imho, to minimize that. But, on the other hand, we can't allow those dead enders to have more influence than we do because they will not stop pushing on him to move in their direction.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. He did not support rendition as an excuse for torture

There are reasons to use rendition other than to torture people. People who work for Saudi or Egyptian intelligence would be better able to interrogate an Arab suspect rather than having an American CIA guy do it because they can relate to his culture, traditions, etc. The CIA may have Arabic speakers but most of them are not likely immigrants from the Middle East.

[EFerrari]

66. In order to believe that, you'd have to believe our government is unable

to hire competent interpreters. And I don't believe that.

/ack

[Hippo_Tron]

67. It's not about interpreting

It's about the fact that proper interrogations require the interrogator to build a relationship with the person being interrogated. That is easier when the person interrogating shares the same culture as the person being interrogated. The government could hire immigrants from the Middle East but we don't let a whole lot of Middle Eastern people immigrate to the United States. Additionally if you have foreign relatives, which most immigrants do, the security clearance process takes years sometimes which would likely discourage them from applying in the first place.

[EFerrari]

68. I'm sorry. I don't buy it. n/t

[liberalsince1968]

42. Nothing is more important than human rights. It's going to be an even longer 4 years for those

denied them by the Obama Administration. When human rights organizations are disturbed by the behavior of the Obama Administration, it worries the hell out of me. NOTHING is more important, or says more about the humanity of a country, than the way it handles human rights.

[SpartanDem]

16. If these

were people truly captured on the battlefield then that makes them POW's. Even German and Japanese POW's weren't given trial they were placed in camps, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and held until end of the war.

[EFerrari]

26. We don't even know who these people are. They're probably the same

bakers, taxi drivers, camera men and goat herders that Rumsfeld stuffed into Gitmo to keep up the farce of the War on Terra.

[LittleBlue]

27. Precisely. Without a trial they could be cold-blooded murderers or TV repair guys

The point that most seem to miss is that we'll never know without proper trials.

That doesn't mean military tribunals (kangaroo courts) or Afghani lynch mobs (tribal kangaroo courts).

[FrenchieCat]

31. What we do know is that they are not American Citizens,

and that the War in Afghanistan is a NATO war.

Those are the facts required to conclude that although there is a case to be made that detainees need to have recourse for justice, granting the US courts as the avenue for their trials sets a precedence that isn't part of the constitution as we currently understand it.

At the same time, I believe that George Bush went against the rules of the Geneva Convention and should be put to trial for this.

[EFerrari]

48. The Obama administration needs to find a venue for these people immediately.

Using NATO and the Coalition of the Blackmailed is patently ridiculous. No one else is clamoring to deal with these souls.

[FrenchieCat]

71. I agree with what you are saying.....

Although the Aghanistan war was not the one in where the Coalition of the Blackmailed were present; that was Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was sanctioned by much of the world.

[Undercurrent]

38. No matter how any of us feel about the war in Afghanistan,

the fact remains that we are engaged in a war there.

We ABSOLUTELY MUST abide by the Geneva conventions in all cases when we have captured people in war. ABSOLUTELY!

Bush did not. We must.

That said, I don't know why the US, or any of the other NATO members who have troops in the war, would remove captured combatants in their charge, take them to their own countries, and put them on trial.

I lived through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and a lot of smaller wars, and neither the US, nor any of our allies took such action. We didn't bring captured German, or Japanese combatants to our country, and put them on trial either.

[liberalsince1968]

41. There IS no explanation. Just apologists for the indefensible. Obama's concern for human rights

seems to be on a par with Bush's. And that is NOT acceptable.

[damonm]

65. Slow down, Kemosabe...

...and check back on the outrage reflex for a minute. Damned hard, I know - we're so used to jumping into outrage when the MoD (Master of Disaster = Bush) so much as blinked. The fact that the reflex was most often correct under the MoD doesn't help matters now.
But consider:
1) the AP article holds ZERO facts in support of this assertion.
2) The authors of the article are known RW spinners.
3) Has the ENTIRE DoJ been cleaned out of MoD appointees? It could easily be one of them behind it, and the Admin gets the blame.

The very notion, at this point, that MoD and Obama share viewpoints on human rights is laughable on its face. Were this the case, there would have been NO order to close Gitmo. There was. So saw back on the outrage reins until we know more.
You MAY be justified - but I'd be willing to bet against it at this point.

[liberalsince1968]

76. Kemosabe?! WTF? Be as patronizing as you want, I will not back down. When Glenn Greenwald and

the ACLU are concerned about Obama's stance - I think that says it all. You cannot accuse them of RW spin. As for the DOJ - if Obama doesn't know what' coming out of there, he should.

[damonm]

79. Fine. It's your blood pressure, not mine.

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. Well, no one can say you didn't try.....

:toast:

[Odin2005]

47. I think they are implying that the detainees will be given POW status.

Which means that they will be detained under the rules of the Geneva Conventions, which Bush tried to circumvent with the "unlawful combatant" nonsense.

[kwenu]

49. I don't know but I DO trust Obama. There may be a reason we don't know about and now he does.

Just my opinion.

[treestar]

55. The article is entirely opinion. The Adminstration appears to have

no chance in this article to explain why it may think this place is different from Guantanamo Bay and why they think these people don't have a case in US courts.

I get a feeling there is a legal distinction here that no one is aware of and that no reporter has any interest in letting us in on, being more interesting in finding Obama wrong.

[EFerrari]

56. The article is not entirely opinion but, Pickler and Apuzzo are 2 right wing spinners. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Prisoners of War can't be tried in US Courts

Because it makes no sense to do so. They aren't being held because they committed any crime, they are being held because they were captured while fighting for the other side. When you are fighting a war and fighters from the other side surrender to you, you detain them until the end of the war so that the other side has fewer troops to fight with. Once the war is over, you release the POW's back to the other side because there is no reason to hold them anymore. POW's are protected under the Geneva Convention.

Some of these people are undoubtedly POW's because Afghanistan is a war zone. However some of them might have been abducted not on the battlefield in which case I think it's possible that they should be entitled to US legal protections. Problem is that supposedly the Bush Administration "lost" the paperwork on many of these people. Or at least that was the case with GITMO.

[Danger Mouse]

69. Why should POW's have constitutional rights? They have rights under the Geneva Convention.

[asphalt.jungle]

70. Canadian courts have also ruled that Afghan detainees have no rights under their Charter of Rights

that's their Bill of Rights. and that was about a year ago. it's not something exclusive to the United States.

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

[FrenchieCat]

72. And it wouldn't make any more sense for the Canadians to do this

then it would the United States.

I'm suspecting that some folks are mixing the Afghanistan War with the Iraq War and are not taking into account that a NATO War includes many countries, while the Iraq War only included the coalition of the not-really-all-that-willing.

[w4rma]

75. Because Obama's cabinet is full of DLC Rubinistas and Clintonites. (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

78. You should participate in the poll!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8216246

[RollWithIt]

80. He has been in office for one month and is sorting through the data....

I think we owe him the time to make up his mind as to what is the best policy on this particular matter. National Security and foreign policy in Afghanistan is VERY serious business. The last major power to fight in Afghanistan was the USSR. We all know what happened to that country.

[Two Americas]

83. this is a real time saver

It used to be that if we wanted hear apologies for imperialistic wars and illegal detention, if we wanted to see organized labor bashed, if we wanted to see trickle down Reaganomics defended and promoted, if we wanted to see helping out the wealthy few lauded, if we wanted to hear people defend "reigning in entitlements," if we wanted to hear authoritarian arguments and calls for tyranny and suppression of dissent, we had to go other sites to get that perspective.

Now we can get the right wing point of view and the left wing point of view all on one site, and usually on every thread!

[mmonk]

84. I will have to inquire if this administration will continue the tool of tyranny

known as "unlawful enemy combatant" status before I make my final judgment but there are some disappointing decisions so far that go back on his promises made.