Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely

[natty bumppo 297]

so where's the outrage about obama doing this?

6 seems rather miffed. But the Obamabots will just turn the other way and with a genuflecting bow say, " Gee, isn't Obama great?".

fixored

[GaryC 7]

The WSJ, thanks to Murdoch, has now become part of his Right Wing propaganda machine.

Search for yourself and see if you can find anyone else with an original story on this...

Typical, you don't like the story then dismiss the source. Here is something else to piss you off.

Obama Stays the Course on Bagram

The Justice Department today said it would adhere to the Bush administration's position that detainees imprisoned at a U.S. air base in Afghanistan have no right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts.

Last month, U.S. District Judge John Bates gave the new administration an opportunity to refine its position in cases involving four detainees incarcerated at the Bagram prison, located on a converted Soviet base about 30 miles north of Kabul. They are seeking the same rights as prisoners held at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba -- more than 200 of whom are challenging their detention in habeas proceedings in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz filed the government's response today. Here it is, in full:

"This Court’s Order of January 22, 2009 invited the Government to inform the Court by February 20, 2009, whether it intends to refine its position on whether the Court has jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by detainees held at the United States military base in Bagram, Afghanistan. Having considered the matter, the Government adheres to its previously articulated position."

The approximately 650 prisoners in the hardscrabble Bagram prison are being held there indefinitely and without charge. The prison is closed to journalists and human rights activists, and while it has long been dubbed "the other Guantánamo," Bagram detainees lack the same privileges, such as regular access to lawyers. While the Guantánamo population has dwindled to about 245, Bagram has added more than 100 prisoners since 2005, according to the Defense Department.

President Obama has ordered a task force led by the attorney general and the defense secretary to review overall policy on detainees. A report is due in six months. A Justice Department spokesman declined to speculate on whether the government's position may change following the review.

The Bagram cases, which began filtering into the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2007, built upon the arguments made by lawyers for Guantánamo detainees. The Supreme Court last summer ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantánamo Bay detainees have a constitutional right to challenge their confinement under habeas corpus.

The Court deemed the Bush administration's system for determining whether to continue holding detainees -- akin to a parole board -- was an inadequate substitute for habeas relief. The Court also recognized that the United States exercised de facto sovereignty over the base, placing Guantánamo within its jurisdiction. The Court did not address Bagram, but said in some circumstances noncitizens being held in territories under U.S. control may have limited constitutional rights.

Bagram poses larger hurdles for the detainees' lawyers. The U.S. lease with Afghanistan for the Bagram lands is still in its infancy, compared with the century-long pact between Cuba and the United States governing Guantánamo. The Bush administration argued that the United States claims no similar sovereignty over Bagram, and it balked at the notion that habeas rights could be extended to detainees held "in a theatre of war where the United States is engaged in active hostilities," according to court papers filed in November.

Barbara Olshanksy, of the International Human Rights Clinic, who represents three Bagram detainees, said the prison is far less ephemeral than it's made out to be. In court papers filed last October, she pointed to plans for costly additions to the base, including a central command center and permanent barracks for army personnel. There are also plans for a $60 million expansion that would nearly double the prison's size.

Olshanksy wrote that the government is required to justify the detention of her clients, some of whom have been held for more than six years. She called Bagram a "modern-day Star Chamber" and wrote that it represents the government's attempt to "revive their effort to create a prison beyond judicial scrutiny" after Guantánamo failed.

“The decision by the Obama Administration to adhere to a position that has contributed to making our country a pariah around the world for its flagrant disregard of people’s human rights is deeply disappointing,” said Olshansky, who is also litigation director for the International Justice Network. “We are trying to remain hopeful that the message being conveyed is that the new administration is still working on its position regarding the applicability of the laws of war -- the Geneva Conventions -- and international human rights treaties that apply to everyone in detention there.”

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/02/...on-bagram-.html

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

so where's the outrage about obama doing this?

6 seems rather miffed. But the Obamabots will just turn the other way and say, " Gee, isn't Obama great?".

it's funny how the outrage turns to silence when their presidential pick is doing the same thing as his predecessor.

[natty bumppo 297]

so where's the outrage about obama doing this?

6 seems rather miffed. But the Obamabots will just turn the other way and say, " Gee, isn't Obama great?".

it's funny how the outrage turns to silence when their presidential pick is doing the same thing as his predecessor.

kool-aid ... rots more than teeth

Edited May 15, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Nagishkaw 510]

so where's the outrage about obama doing this?

6 seems rather miffed. But the Obamabots will just turn the other way and say, " Gee, isn't Obama great?".

it's funny how the outrage turns to silence when their presidential pick is doing the same thing as his predecessor.

kool-aid ... rots more than teeth

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The WSJ, thanks to Murdoch, has now become part of his Right Wing propaganda machine.

Search for yourself and see if you can find anyone else with an original story on this...

Typical, you don't like the story then dismiss the source. Here is something else to piss you off.

Obama Stays the Course on Bagram

The Justice Department today said it would adhere to the Bush administration's position that detainees imprisoned at a U.S. air base in Afghanistan have no right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts.

Last month, U.S. District Judge John Bates gave the new administration an opportunity to refine its position in cases involving four detainees incarcerated at the Bagram prison, located on a converted Soviet base about 30 miles north of Kabul. They are seeking the same rights as prisoners held at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba -- more than 200 of whom are challenging their detention in habeas proceedings in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz filed the government's response today. Here it is, in full:

"This Court's Order of January 22, 2009 invited the Government to inform the Court by February 20, 2009, whether it intends to refine its position on whether the Court has jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by detainees held at the United States military base in Bagram, Afghanistan. Having considered the matter, the Government adheres to its previously articulated position."

The approximately 650 prisoners in the hardscrabble Bagram prison are being held there indefinitely and without charge. The prison is closed to journalists and human rights activists, and while it has long been dubbed "the other Guantánamo," Bagram detainees lack the same privileges, such as regular access to lawyers. While the Guantánamo population has dwindled to about 245, Bagram has added more than 100 prisoners since 2005, according to the Defense Department.

President Obama has ordered a task force led by the attorney general and the defense secretary to review overall policy on detainees. A report is due in six months. A Justice Department spokesman declined to speculate on whether the government's position may change following the review.

The Bagram cases, which began filtering into the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2007, built upon the arguments made by lawyers for Guantánamo detainees. The Supreme Court last summer ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantánamo Bay detainees have a constitutional right to challenge their confinement under habeas corpus.

The Court deemed the Bush administration's system for determining whether to continue holding detainees -- akin to a parole board -- was an inadequate substitute for habeas relief. The Court also recognized that the United States exercised de facto sovereignty over the base, placing Guantánamo within its jurisdiction. The Court did not address Bagram, but said in some circumstances noncitizens being held in territories under U.S. control may have limited constitutional rights.

Bagram poses larger hurdles for the detainees' lawyers. The U.S. lease with Afghanistan for the Bagram lands is still in its infancy, compared with the century-long pact between Cuba and the United States governing Guantánamo. The Bush administration argued that the United States claims no similar sovereignty over Bagram, and it balked at the notion that habeas rights could be extended to detainees held "in a theatre of war where the United States is engaged in active hostilities," according to court papers filed in November.

Barbara Olshanksy, of the International Human Rights Clinic, who represents three Bagram detainees, said the prison is far less ephemeral than it's made out to be. In court papers filed last October, she pointed to plans for costly additions to the base, including a central command center and permanent barracks for army personnel. There are also plans for a $60 million expansion that would nearly double the prison's size.

Olshanksy wrote that the government is required to justify the detention of her clients, some of whom have been held for more than six years. She called Bagram a "modern-day Star Chamber" and wrote that it represents the government's attempt to "revive their effort to create a prison beyond judicial scrutiny" after Guantánamo failed.

"The decision by the Obama Administration to adhere to a position that has contributed to making our country a pariah around the world for its flagrant disregard of people's human rights is deeply disappointing," said Olshansky, who is also litigation director for the International Justice Network. "We are trying to remain hopeful that the message being conveyed is that the new administration is still working on its position regarding the applicability of the laws of war -- the Geneva Conventions -- and international human rights treaties that apply to everyone in detention there."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/02/...on-bagram-.html

This is troubling but I'll wait and see what the President has to say about it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well if nothing else this disproves "the most liberal ever..." ####### that people were wittering on about.

If anything Obama seems to be aligning his foreign policy platform towards that of George Bush Sr.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well if nothing else this disproves "the most liberal ever..." ####### that people were wittering on about.

If anything Obama seems to be aligning his foreign policy platform towards that of George Bush Sr.

I don't think there's any way to dress this up. It could be that the Obama Administration has not looked into Bagram prison in Afghanistan to decide what to do and in the meantime, they are essentially staying the course. But, based on all the Obama has said, it would be a complete departure to do what the WSJ implies he is going to do.

It's worth noting that the new Administration still doesn't have all cabinet positions filled because Republicans in Congress are stalling the confirmation hearings. There is a deliberate attempt to keep the new Adminstration from fully functioning...which is sad because it's nothing but partisan politics.

[natty bumppo 297]

Well if nothing else this disproves "the most liberal ever..." ####### that people were wittering on about.

If anything Obama seems to be aligning his foreign policy platform towards that of George Bush Sr.

I don't think there's any way to dress this up. It could be that the Obama Administration has not looked into Bagram prison in Afghanistan to decide what to do and in the meantime, they are essentially staying the course. But, based on all the Obama has said, it would be a complete departure to do what the WSJ implies he is going to do.

It's worth noting that the new Administration still doesn't have all cabinet positions filled because Republicans in Congress are stalling the confirmation hearings. There is a deliberate attempt to keep the new Adminstration from fully functioning...which is sad because it's nothing but partisan politics.

cause the nominees keep having ethical problems ... maybe?

[GaryC 7]

Well if nothing else this disproves "the most liberal ever..." ####### that people were wittering on about.

If anything Obama seems to be aligning his foreign policy platform towards that of George Bush Sr.

I don't think there's any way to dress this up. It could be that the Obama Administration has not looked into Bagram prison in Afghanistan to decide what to do and in the meantime, they are essentially staying the course. But, based on all the Obama has said, it would be a complete departure to do what the WSJ implies he is going to do.

It's worth noting that the new Administration still doesn't have all cabinet positions filled because Republicans in Congress are stalling the confirmation hearings. There is a deliberate attempt to keep the new Adminstration from fully functioning...which is sad because it's nothing but partisan politics.

The president did say what it wanted to do about Bagram. He said:

"This Court's Order of January 22, 2009 invited the Government to inform the Court by February 20, 2009, whether it intends to refine its position on whether the Court has jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by detainees held at the United States military base in Bagram, Afghanistan. Having considered the matter, the Government adheres to its previously articulated position."

Unless your saying that he wasn't consulted on this and someone else is pulling the strings.

As for the WSJ story, unless you're saying they made it all up I think it also speaks for itself. The fact that you're having trouble finding it in other outlets only shows how most media outlets are covering for Obama. If these two stories were splashed all over the large broadcast outlets the president would have a real problem.

[GaryC 7]

Well if nothing else this disproves "the most liberal ever..." ####### that people were wittering on about.

If anything Obama seems to be aligning his foreign policy platform towards that of George Bush Sr.

I don't think there's any way to dress this up. It could be that the Obama Administration has not looked into Bagram prison in Afghanistan to decide what to do and in the meantime, they are essentially staying the course. But, based on all the Obama has said, it would be a complete departure to do what the WSJ implies he is going to do.

It's worth noting that the new Administration still doesn't have all cabinet positions filled because Republicans in Congress are stalling the confirmation hearings. There is a deliberate attempt to keep the new Adminstration from fully functioning...which is sad because it's nothing but partisan politics.

cause the nominees keep having ethical problems ... maybe?

Nah, the president said he was going to run an ethical administration. It's all part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's something from the AP that sheds more light on this...

Obama to revive terror tribunals, with more rights

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will restart Bush-era military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, reviving a fiercely disputed trial system he once denounced but with new legal protections for terror suspects, U.S. officials said Thursday.

Obama suspended the tribunals within hours of taking office in January, ordering a review but stopping short of abandoning President George W. Bush's strategy of prosecuting suspected terrorists.

The military trials will remain frozen for another four months as the administration adjusts the legal system that is expected to try fewer than 20 of the 241 detainees currently at the U.S. naval detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Thirteen detainees — including five charged with helping orchestrate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — are already in the tribunal system.

The changes to the system were to be announced Friday. Two senior administration officials outlined several of the rules changes, which will be carried out by executive authority, to the Associated Press on Thursday night. They include:

• Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.

• A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding.

• Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.

• Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.

The White House may seek additional changes to the military commissions law over the next 120 days, but it was not immediately clear Thursday what they could include. The two senior administration officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama had not yet announced the changes.

The tribunal system — set up after the military began sweeping detainees off the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001 — has been under repeated challenges from human rights and legal organizations because it denied defendants many of the rights they would be granted in a civilian courtroom.

In a statement late Thursday, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., called Obama's decision to revamp and restart the tribunals a step toward strengthening U.S. detention policies that have been derided worldwide.

"I continue to believe it is in our own national security interests to separate ourselves from the past problems of Guantanamo," Graham said. "I agree with the president and our military commanders that now is the time to start over and strengthen our detention policies. I applaud the president's actions today."

Yet the move by the new Democratic president is certain to face criticism from liberal groups, already stung by his decision Wednesday to try to block the court-ordered release of photos showing U.S. troops abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. That decision marked a reversal of his earlier stand on making the photos public.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/200...als0514-ON.html

....

It's just too bad the WSJ has turned into another of Murdoch's propaganda machines instead of actually reporting the facts.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[GaryC 7]

It's just too bad the WSJ has turned into another of Murdoch's propaganda machines instead of actually reporting the facts.

Your choice Steven. When you don't like the story you attack the source. I guess anyone that doesn't spin things to suit you is a propaganda machine.

Oh, and your story? Same thing as the WSJ but with a spin you like. Fine with me. I seem to remember that the president said he was going to do away with the tribunals all together while he was running. If you are OK with the minor changes and willing to ignore the lies then that is also fine with me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's just too bad the WSJ has turned into another of Murdoch's propaganda machines instead of actually reporting the facts.

Your choice Steven. When you don't like the story you attack the source. I guess anyone that doesn't spin things to suit you is a propaganda machine.

Oh, and your story? Same thing as the WSJ but with a spin you like. Fine with me. I seem to remember that the president said he was going to do away with the tribunals all together while he was running. If you are OK with the minor changes and willing to ignore the lies then that is also fine with me.

The devil is in the details and the AP story focused on those details/facts. Many feared that Murdoch would turn the WSJ into another Fox News and their fears have come true. Just like that memo you posted yesterday. That's pure yellow journalism. It's too bad you can't see it.

[GaryC 7]

It's just too bad the WSJ has turned into another of Murdoch's propaganda machines instead of actually reporting the facts.

Your choice Steven. When you don't like the story you attack the source. I guess anyone that doesn't spin things to suit you is a propaganda machine.

Oh, and your story? Same thing as the WSJ but with a spin you like. Fine with me. I seem to remember that the president said he was going to do away with the tribunals all together while he was running. If you are OK with the minor changes and willing to ignore the lies then that is also fine with me.

The devil is in the details and the AP story focused on those details/facts. Many feared that Murdoch would turn the WSJ into another Fox News and their fears have come true. Just like that memo you posted yesterday. That's pure yellow journalism. It's too bad you can't see it.

:rofl:

You are amazing Steven.

Oh, BTW. The second story is from the legal times. Not the WSJ. I guess they are another yellow journalist.

Edited May 15, 2009 by GaryC