Obama backs Bush

C

Canceled2

Banned
Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

Fri Feb 20, 7:48 PM EST
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.
 
Goes hand-in-hand with this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/us/21gitmo.html?_r=1

February 21, 2009
Guantánamo Meets Geneva Rules, Pentagon Study Finds

By WILLIAM GLABERSON
A Pentagon report requested by President Obama on the conditions at the Guantánamo Bay detention center concluded that the prison complies with the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions. But it makes recommendations for improvements including increasing human contact for the prisoners, according to two government officials who have read parts of it.

The review, requested by Mr. Obama on his second day in office, is to be delivered to the White House next week.

The president’s request, made as part of a plan to close the prison within a year, was widely seen as an effort to defuse accusations that there were widespread abuses at Guantánamo, and that many detainees were suffering severe psychological effects after years of isolation.

The report, by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, describes steps that could be taken to allow detainees to speak to one another more often and to engage in group activities, the government officials said. For years, critics have said that many detainees spend as many as 23 hours a day within the confines of cement cells and often were allowed to exercise alone in fenced-off outdoor pens.

The report is being presented to a White House that some government officials have described as caught off-guard by the extreme emotions and political crosscurrents provoked by its plan to close the Guantánamo prison. Some critics said the report’s conclusions could intensify the debate about the prison, and put the Obama White House for the first time in the position of defending it...
Click to expand...
 
Constitutional rights only apply to American persons. It's the Geneva Conventions that would protect prisoners of war in Afghanistan.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Constitutional rights only apply to American persons. It's the Geneva Conventions that would protect prisoners of war in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

From above:

A Pentagon report requested by President Obama on the conditions at the Guantánamo Bay detention center concluded that the prison complies with the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions. But it makes recommendations for improvements including increasing human contact for the prisoners, according to two government officials who have read parts of it.
Click to expand...
 
Watermark said:
Hope you Republicans are happy with your new president.
Click to expand...

I am not happy, although I am marginally happier than under Dubya. At least Obama is slightly more honest about what he stands for. Also, with exception to the horrific porkulus package, Obama has expressed his intention to govern from the center.
 
Tabasco said:
I am not happy, although I am marginally happier than under Dubya. At least Obama is slightly more honest about what he stands for. Also, with exception to the horrific porkulus package, Obama has expressed his intention to govern from the center.
Click to expand...

With regards to this thread, how so?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Constitutional rights only apply to American persons. It's the Geneva Conventions that would protect prisoners of war in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

fucked in the head, you are. nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does it specify 'americans'. any individual under the jurisdiction of the territorial states gets constitutional protection.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
fucked in the head, you are. nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does it specify 'americans'. any individual under the jurisdiction of the territorial states gets constitutional protection.
Click to expand...


And therein lies the rub. . . Where's Bagram again?

Not that I agree with the Obama administration on this one. I don't. Either they are prisoners of war or they aren't. Fuck that enemy combatant bullshit.

But comparing prisoners in Afghanistan where there is actually a war going on and which is not sovereign territory of the United States to taking prisoners away from places like Bagram to Gitmo, de facto US territory, where there is no war going on for the purpose of skirting international law is, well, nonsense.
 
Dungheap said:
And therein lies the rub. . . Where's Bagram again?

Not that I agree with the Obama administration on this one. I don't. Either they are prisoners of war or they aren't. Fuck that enemy combatant bullshit.

But comparing prisoners in Afghanistan where there is actually a war going on and which is not sovereign territory of the United States to taking prisoners away from places like Bagram to Gitmo, de facto US territory, where there is no war going on for the purpose of skirting international law is, well, nonsense.
Click to expand...

In a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Roosevelt’s right to detain the eight men and try them by military commission in the landmark Ex parte Quirin case. The Court explicitly noted the difference between “lawful” and “unlawful” combatants: “Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.” The Nazi agents, in the Court’s view, were plainly “unlawful” combatants, as they came secretly “without uniform...for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property.”

The Court also took care to address the issue of Haupt’s American citizenship. “Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy...[and] enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents” and subject to military jurisdiction.

The Quirin decision should be required reading for those who think the Bush administration has abandoned constitutional precedent by designating captured terrorist Jose Padilla an “enemy combatant” and holding him without trial. Indeed, the administration has relied heavily on Quirin as the basis of its argument in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, a watershed case now before the Supreme Court.
 
Dungheap said:
What happened in the Padilla case? Hamdan? Boumidiene?
Click to expand...

What happened to them was that a much fractured SCOTUS ruling convoluted what to do with persons who were heretofore provided with the most fitting definition before the law. This does not however make the decisions the Bush administration made with regards to enemy combatants illegal. He acted within the law. Obama now finds himself hamstrung by his own and his party’s rhetoric that forced this fractured decision. It is my opinion that he is already wishing the SC had ruled differently thereby freeing him to blame Bush as if his own hands were tied. He now has the onerous task of figuring out what to do with Gitmo detainee’s...of course he has given himself a year to do so.
 
Oh dear, now this. Links at site:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_15-2009_02_21.shtml#1235229051

Obama Administration Still Defends State Secrets: Via How Appealing comes this interesting story:
The Obama administration filed an emergency request with a federal appeals court Friday to stop a judge in San Francisco from allowing lawyers challenging the government's wiretapping program to see a classified surveillance document.

The document is the central evidence in the last remaining lawsuit over the legality of former President George W. Bush's 2001 order for the National Security Administration to intercept phone calls and e-mails between Americans and suspected terrorists in other nations.

And more from CQ's Legal Beat:

The Justice Department has filed an emergency stay motion at the 9th Circuit, asking it to freeze a district judge's order in a lawsuit challenging the legality of President Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

"Disclosure of the material at issue here would cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security and result in irreparable injury to the United States," Justice Department lawyers wrote in their brief. The Obama administration's stance is all the more striking because the immediate question is whether the plaintiffs in the case can have access to classified material they have already seen.
Click to expand...

And from the "Why not just make W, the 'war czar'?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html?_r=2

February 18, 2009
Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”

These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies....
Click to expand...
 
President Barack Obama on Friday rejected his transportation secretary's suggestion that the administration consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive...

More troops for Afghanistan....

Some Tax cuts.....

Delay that exodus of troops from Iraq....

Exposes Dem. tax evaders...about 6 so far....

Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.

1. Abstinence: Bush expanded community-based abstinence education during his term, including a $28 million budget increase for 2009 in an effort to "Teach both abstinence and contraception to teens." Obama concurred in April when he said: "We want to make sure that, even as we are teaching responsible sexuality and we are teaching abstinence to children, that we are also making sure that they've got enough understanding about contraception."

2. Affirmative action: Bush said of the 2003 University of Michigan affirmative action case: "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed" -- because it depended solely on race. Bush has said other factors, such as socioeconomic status, should be considered, which would include poor white students.

Obama now agrees with that view. "Inside Higher Ed" referred in May to "Obama's suggestion that he may be ready to change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education -- away from race to economic class. ... In his debate in Philadelphia with Hillary Clinton, he said in response to a question, that his own privileged daughters do not deserve affirmative action preferences, and that working-class students of all colors do."

3. Budgets: Obama voted for Bush's budgets, which included 19 spending bills.

4. Capital punishment: Like Bush, Obama supports capital punishment. He spoke out in opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision that denied the death penalty for child rapists. And in his 2006 memoir, Obama said, "I believe there are some crimes -- mass murder, the rape and murder of a child -- so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

5. Education: Obama supports charter schools, as does Bush, and merit pay for teachers, and he voted in favor of supporting the president's 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

6. Economics: Obama told reporters that he agreed with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bush's bailout package, then voted for the $700 billion plan. And despite routinely criticizing "the Bush tax cuts," Obama is now offering tax cuts of his own (although only for the 95 percent of taxpayers earning less than $250,000 a year). What a concept!

7. Energy: In signing the $12.3 billion Energy Policy Act of 2005, Bush said it "promotes dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for America's future." Obama voted for the energy plan and called it a "first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil."

8. Faith-based initiatives/fatherhood: Bush is well known for his commitment to the faith-based community -- with initiatives for the poor and on fatherhood -- and he expanded the ability to allow faith-based providers a seat at the funding table. Obama, who has railed against Bush's efforts, has still found a way to embrace them, saying he would "expand" faith-based initiatives. He used his Father's Day speech to echo the president's Fatherhood Initiative.

9. FISA: Of the Senate bill passage that rewrote intelligence laws to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's wiretapping program, Bush said: "This vital intelligence bill will allow our national security professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists outside the United States, while respecting the liberties of the American people."

Obama, who supported it, after opposing FISA last year, said: "Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people." Almost identical, huh? Are we sure they don't share the same speechwriter? But Obama did take heat for his change of heart, as The Washington Post reported that: "The Illinois senator's reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups." Guess you can't please everyone.

10. Gay marriage: Both Obama and Bush agree that marriage is and should remain between one man and one woman. As far back as 2004, Obama said: "Gays ... should not marry." And in a 2007 Senate debate, he said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states. ... Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

11. Global AIDS: Obama has said the U.S. must "lead the global fight against the AIDS virus." And earlier this year, he encouraged lawmakers to "Use whatever works with AIDS, including teaching abstinence." Obama has given Bush kudos for his efforts to combat global AIDS and the record amount of funding ($15 billion over 5 years) the president has earmarked for the fight. Obama said in September, "I think President Bush -- and many of you here today -- have shown real leadership in the fight against HIV/AIDS."

12. Health care: While they don't share similar views on universal health care coverage, Bush and Obama agree that the problem with health care is "about affordability" and there is a need to address minority health concerns with more coverage and targeting. That is why Bush expanded community health care centers, covering the uninsured and targeting urban areas, to the tune of $1.5 billion for 1,200 centers "coast to coast."

13. Middle-class tax cuts: While he hasn't voted for such cuts, Obama is pushing his biggest economic initiative yet: tax cuts for the middle class. "We've got to help the middle class," Obama said Tuesday. Perhaps unbeknownst to him, Bush has already been there, done that. In signing the 2001 Tax Cut Bill, Bush said: "Tax relief is an achievement for families struggling to enter the middle class. For hard-working lower-income families, we have cut the bottom rate of federal income tax from 15 percent to 10 percent. We doubled the per-child tax credit to $1,000, and made it refundable. ... Tax relief is an achievement for middle-class families squeezed by high energy prices and credit card debt."

14. Minority homeownership: Obama adopted the Congressional Black Caucus principles "to increase minority homeownership" as it is "one of the best wealth-creation vehicles for minority families." These principles were developed as part of Bush's vision to expand minority homeownership to 5.5 million new homeowners by 2010. "Across our nation, every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color or place of birth, should have the opportunity to become a homeowner," Bush said.

Similar comparisons can be drawn for their positions on small businesses and on businesses owned by women and minorities.

15. National security: Obama voted yes on preauthorizing the much ballyhooed Patriot Act, sought by the Bush administration.

16. Offshore drilling: Bush has consistently pushed for drilling offshore, while Obama, who until recently opposed it, now says he's for it. In Nashville, Tennessee, he told an audience: "We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling."

17. Racial profiling: Obama's campaign literature states that he will call for a ban on racial profiling, even though Bush issued a directive that banned racial profiling in 2001. In his order, Bush said to the attorney general: "I hereby direct you to review the use by federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches and other investigative procedures. ... I further direct that you report back to me with your findings and recommendations for the improvement of the just and equal administration of our nation's laws."

18. Religion: It is widely known that Obama is a person of faith. He has said: "I am a proud Christian who believes deeply in Jesus Christ." Bush, who shares the same faith, has been just as much, if not more vocal, about his faith. He once told The Washington Times that he doesn't "see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord."

19. Supreme Court ruling on gun ban: Despite his past endorsements of some gun control measures, Obama's reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutional right of individuals to own handguns mirrors the administration's. Obama now says: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."

20. Welfare reform: An Obama ad this summer said he "passed a law to move people from welfare to work" and "slashed the rolls by 80 percent" (though all states had to as a result of the Clinton administration's mandate). Obama said in 2004: "Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency." In 2003, Bush successfully called on Congress to reauthorize and expand on welfare reform efforts, "to make welfare even more focused on the well being of children and supportive of families."

So really...hows your Messiah lookin' for you Libs ?
 
Oh my! How is RSR going to handle this one. He'll either have to agree with President Obama or go back on everything he has ever said about detainees and their rights.

I can't wait to read his thoughts on this. Here's hoping he doesn't blow a socket before he says he actually agrees with the Obama Administration. :clink:

:cof1: Gonna sit back and wait for this one.

Immie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top