With regard to Bagram, Obama's in a bind. <br><br>There's no clear dividing line between Bagram Airfield and other battlefield detention sites -- detention sites that are clearly subject to America's treaty obligations w/r/t the laws of war, rather than the United States Constitution. Conceding that Bagram Airfield is not a battlefield detention site would have implications for all battlefield detention of POWs.<br>
<br>There is, however, a clear dividing line between Guantanamo and battlefield detention sites; a dividing line that the Bush Administration clearly elided in order to produce a pretext for indefinite detention of battlefield detainees<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In my opinion, it's wrong to torture prisoners AND it's wrong to hold<br>
them indefinitely. If I'm understanding this correctly, Obama just<br>
failed us all here.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
Glenn Schwaller wrote:<br>
> I'm not certain that having beaten or not beaten people is really<br>
> relevant. Had the detainees at Guantanamo not been beaten or<br>
> tortured, it would then have been perfectly OK to hold them<br>
> indefinitely? I was under the assumption (and this could be part of<br>
> the problem) that creating prisons outside of the law, holding<br>
> prisoners without charges, repeatedly interrogating them with no<br>
> attorneys present, in short - denying them basic rights, was a key<br>
> issue behind the arguments to close Guantanamo. I think a little<br>
> clarification to your statement is needed Sunil.<br>
><br>
> GS<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Sunil Ramalingam<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Disgusting. If we hadn't beaten people to death there this might<br>
> be different. But we have, and people have been held there before<br>
> being moved to Guantanimo and elsewhere.<br>
><br>
> Sunil<br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:04:24 -0800<br>
</div>> From: <a href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">vpschwaller@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">vpschwaller@gmail.com</a>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> Subject: [Vision2020] The more things change the more they stay<br>
> the same<br>
><br>
><br>
> By NEDRA PICKLER and MATT APUZZO<br>
><br>
> WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration, siding with the Bush<br>
> White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have<br>
> no constitutional rights.<br>
> In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it<br>
> agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to<br>
> challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.<br>
> "The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different<br>
> path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour<br>
> Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the<br>
> Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."<br>
> The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects<br>
> held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to<br>
> challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air<br>
> Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are<br>
> grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.<br>
> Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay,<br>
> four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge<br>
> their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court<br>
> filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without<br>
> charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to<br>
> contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on<br>
> their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal<br>
> system.<br>
> The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are<br>
> "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to<br>
> the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the<br>
> Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into<br>
> consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those<br>
> involved in their capture and interrogation.<br>
> After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave<br>
> the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to<br>
> stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean<br>
> Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.<br>
> "They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons<br>
> outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the<br>
> American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.<br>
> The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from<br>
> Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the<br>
> prisoners there are being held as part of a military action. The<br>
> government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan<br>
> war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their<br>
> legal cases, could threaten security.<br>
> The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the<br>
> courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United<br>
> States in conflicts worldwide to do the same.<br>
> It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a<br>
> Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it.<br>
> Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of<br>
> every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the<br>
> state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have<br>
> lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.<br>
> The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter<br>
> cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold<br>
> dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally<br>
> helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations<br>
> that tortured them.<br>
> Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.<br>
><br>
> =======================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
</div></div>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>
> =======================================================<br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">><br>
> =======================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> =======================================================<br>
<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>