Obama To Appeal Ruling That U.S. Can't Retain Suspects Without Judicial Oversight
By Susie Madrak Sunday Apr 12, 2009 6:00pmI can't wait for the usual comments about how this means the opposite of how it appears, Obama's extended super brilliant chess game, etc.:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.
In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.
Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.
“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.
Login or Register to post comments.
Either Cunning or Abusive
i am a president obama supporter. having said that i really want to hear coherent/explaination for this. i wonder if there's too much to reveal........too many consequences?
"too much to reveal" Isn't that what Bush/Cheney said?
LOL
Restore Habeus Corpus or resign.
It's simple, it's basic, it's fundamental to a nation of laws.
Do it now. Stop being such a dope about this. This is one of the things YOU MUST DO in your first year. If you don't, the other three years won't matter too much...
The other things?
1. Nationalise the banking industry
2. disband the federal reserve
3. renounce empire and reduce America's international presence by half.
4. Have the Bush Junta arrested for war crimes
5. prepare the nation for the collapse of trade in oil, per the Export Land Model. This will induce a radical downshifting of American society, and if you don't prepare them, they will walk into it blind and that will be the end of American Democracy.
Hence: the importance of restoring constitutional rights, esp. habeus corpus.
Grow a spine and do it now before its too late.
..who's going to make that happen. Corporatists/CFR True Believers aren't the kind of people who would do that.
If we as a people really wanted that, we would have elected Kucinich instead of allowing the corporte media to determine who the viable candidates would be.
Kucinich in a Perfect world would have been Great.
Unfortunately we had to Vote for Obama and Company.
Don't Give up Kucinich we need a Real Progressive in the
White House.
Objects in rear view mirror are not really there.
Please look forward.
Susie, I love your comment about Obama's super brilliant chess game. I can think of a few who have described his motivations on certain issues as being a clever cloak for intentions that are actually in line with progressive causes.
restore habeas corpus. (and i, too, support obama--but we must support the law both national and international.)
whoever has it, never wants to give it up
I can't remember who or what program (may have been Washington Week) but they basically said that Obama is differentiating between cases based on Bush's claims of national security, and cases in which Obama claims national security (none so far). The difference is even though Obama disagrees with the application of the law in Bush's cases, if he doesn't support them he risks losing the executive power those cases represent. The real test (so this person said) would be if/when Obama ever makes his own claims of national security.
*sensible, as in rational and coherent.
and is blatantly unconstitutional (as well as outright criminal), maybe Obama should be putting the needs of the country before his own desire for power toys. How exactly is Obama different than Dick Cheney on this subject?
...Until congress grows a spine, its legal.
there's this little thing called the Geneva Convention.
...Unless Congress calls the prez on it, and the SCOTUS backs them up, whatever the prez does is effectively legal. That is the lesson of the Bush admin (probably of other admins too if I knew history).
Can you cite where the Geneva Convention applies?
I mean: which convention, which section, paragraph, etc?
I've read them fairly carefully and honestly don't see a section that applies to what the Bush admin calls "enemy combatants" - persons who are neither civilians nor uniformed troops captured in time of war.
Don't get me wrong. I don't approve at all with Bush administration bahavior, but I have yet to find a section of the Geneva Conventions that would apply to a suspected Al Qaida cell member (if such a person exists .. granted) captured outside the US.
On the other hand I agree that Habeas Corpus is a basic human right; it predates both the US Constitution and the Genevea Conventions and ultimately it MUST be respected.
Bush called them "illegal combatants" and then said that they don't have any rights because they are neither "combatants" nor "civilians" (for which the Geneva Conventions grants clear rights).
And this statement by itself is already a violations of the Geneva Conventions, because it fabricates a third category of people in order to circumvent the Geneva Convention!
Fact is that according to the G.C. only two groups of people exists, each with specific rights: Combatants and civilians.
You can _call_ them Martians. Interesting that there is always a "pharisee" who will be enchanted with a new word.
Another vote for the fault of Congress to reign in our new Emperors. Obama's just following in the traditions Dubya laid down as so many of us feared.
Citation please!
Not your opinion .. an actual quotation from the Geneva Conventions.
And what you say is patently wrong. The Geneva Conventions also recognize Medical Personnel.
is claiming national security in a motion to dismiss the warrant less wiretapping lawsuits. And is also claiming 'Sovereign Immunity" which if it is upheld will make it so you cannot sue the Gov for illegal wiretaps.
...Those cases began under the bush admin and are about actions taken by the bush admin I still don't think its right though. The difference though is they are not cases where people are suing to uncover Obama admin actions. Small consolation I know.
he already has,, last week. Its discouraging that we are getting something like this dumped on us weekly now. I didnt vote for Obama and am so far delighted with my decision.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/0...
The Obama folk want till July to figure out what to do with the detainees. Tina Foster doesn't want to wait. It's lose lose for Obama. If they release some very bad actors they will be pilloried. If they don't go to trial soon, or just continue to hold them without due process they will be crucified. I imagine sorting out the evidence such as it is, and much of it was obtained illegally and/or was destroyed, is very difficult. I say give them till July, but that's it, fish or cut bait. Trial or release, no extension.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/washington/...
Well worth reading the entire article for background.
Agreed. I'll wait for Obama's "comprehensive review of detainee policies .. due to be completed in July."
Incidentally, the article makes clear that of the 600 detainees held at Bagram fewer than a dozen fall in the category in question - non-Afghans captured somewhere other than Afghanistan and transported to Bagram.
The Geneva Conventions clearly apply to combatants captured in Afghanistan - they must go before a judicial hearing shortly after capture. But what to do with persons detained by Bush era rendition?
i like this comment from digby:
"If the administration continues to validate this idea that the United States is so "exceptional" that it's exempt from human rights treaties, the Geneva Conventions, and it's own constitution it will be impossible to ever recapture even the (mostly unrealized) ideal of a country of laws and not men."
ref: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/pragma...
So Obama wants to continue the Bush/Cheney policy of negating Habeas Corpus. Well, let's do away with Brown v. Board of Education and the Emancipation Proclaimation while we are at it.
It seems that the media has missed, too, that Obama wants to maintain the right to illegally wiretap American citizens and eliminate the citizens' right to sue the government.
He's off his rocker!
I've discontinued all donations to Barack Obama and stopped my subscription to mybarackobama.com
I wrote to the White House last week:
"You're still our guy. But it doesn't make it any less unconstitutional because our guy is the one doing it."
I'll be back on board when he stops this Cheney/Bush crap.
Obama bashing article, what a lovely surprise?!
Glenn Greenwald has been railing against this nonsense for a bit now. If you are looking for a more in depth article with literally loads and loads of info head over to Salon.
I do not know what the heck is going on over at the Department of Justice, but clearly some house cleaning needs to be done. The Obama administration has literally tripped over themselves reversing secrecy aspects of the prior administration and it is entirely out of character for Obama to support this appeal. Personally, I think we have some players in the shadows that are pulling the strings.
Glenn, and the ACLU have this one in their sights, not to mention several foreign governments. The road back to a country that actually follows the letters of the law is bound to have a few bumps. Consider this a big bump!
BTW I honestly think the reason people are fighting this so hard is because a LOT of people are going to be legally liable for their criminal actions under the Bush Administration. You heard it here first, hundreds are complicit in the illegal detainment and torture of enemy combatants. I think that is what is holding this up. You know once that damn busts all hell is going to break loose.
Personally, I am still crossing my fingers that Cheney will be marched to the gallows before I leave this earth.
Madrak is soooo predictable.
Where's her little wag dogs?
so down on Susie. Sounds like you're making the same point she is. What am I missing?
in a twist ever since Hillary bowed out to Candidate Obama. I supported Hillary, but O won fair and square. I helped with the vote to put him in office.
This is what Susie does best. She picks her wedge issues and puts them out to see who will bite.
I wish she would be given the boot for people who don't have such a narrow view of the world.
Get over it, Susie. Hillary lost and so did your blog.
ah-yup sure seems that every single frigging anti-social, immoral, tin horn dictator policy that the Bush administration had that made the US despised among civilized nations Obama suddenly feels are great policy.
is a job known as emperor.
"This was leaked by un-named sources" and I want to know now! So many people in harms way the world over and we want the facts of the case now! You cannot make the past go away, you can only correct the future with a reasoned response.
Blowback is an amazing thing, even more so, with the facts! How far do you look forward?
"Curiosity killed the cat"
But satisfaction brought him back.
reincarnation?
I thought it was my front tire?
considering the source.
*
I just did. I told them, I can not, in good conscience, give money to support them, when they don't feel that my constitutional rights, or human rights are a priority. I think we should ALL do this. PLEASE CALL!!! Make it an issue he can't ignore.
I can't wait for this guy to start acting like the President I voted for.
I realize he isn't the person who created this problem, but he told me he was the person who could resolve this and many other problems. This country is seriously broken due to the 8 years of mismanagement, neglect, corporate cronyism and total disregard for our laws and constitution.
I don’t want dangerous terrorists let free, but you prove in a court of law they are who you say they are, or you have to let them walk free. That’s our system, and I’m not willing to compromise it any longer for any terrorist.
"Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, 'Vote for me. I'm an agent of change.' In 2004, I said, I'm not interested in change -- I want to continue as President.' Every candidate has got to say 'change.' That's what the American people expect." -- George Bush, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2008
People were warning long before the 2008 election that whomever was president would not want to get rid of the powers Bush had amassed. I'm not all that shocked at this.
He's doing it to finalize the boundaries of his own personal executive power via the court system, so he can make the right decisions in the end.
Obama has jumped the shark on this one.
Supporting Bush's "state secrets" policies?
There's no valid excuse for it. It's reprehensible and wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
But if Obama stops appealing, then a future president will be able to undue what Bush and Obama are appealing and would always be subject to the whims of the President. This really requires the Congress and or the courts to regain the lost balance of power between the different branches of government.
I bend to no person regarding the right to the writ of habeas corpus. It is virtually impossible to lawfully abrogate it. However, there is a distinction which the administration may legitimately invoke when comparing Gitmo with Bagram. At Gitmo, all of the prisoners were brought from various places around the world and placed in in our enclave in Cuba. They were regarded as unlawful combatants principally because of their alleged connections to Al Qaeda and placed in our military prison, created especially for them. Worst of the worst and all that. Many are indeed Afghan.
But those in Bagram, so far as we can tell, are not unlawful combatants, simply combatants -- hardly any different than POW's. They generally are not regarded as criminal in the sense those at Gitmo are.
Habeas corpus is designed to call the government to explain why an incarcerated person is being held. POWs (OK, near-as) in their own country already know why. They were fighting a war. American habeas rights do not apply because they are being held until the war (near as) ends. Not true of the Gitmo prisoners since they are more than POWs; they are not in their home country, but in the US, and they are charged with criminality. Habeas applies.
Generally speaking American habeas only applies within our sovereign territory. Gitmo is within it, due to the lease; Bagram is not, since the agreement is different. In any event, Bagram is in a 'war' zone.
And, let's not forget, habeas is only a petition to have the court hear the government's explanation for the incarceration. It does not mean the court will set the prisoner free.
Since the Bagram prisoners are neither under our sovereign control nor within our borders, but are located within a war zone outside the US, a legitimate argument can and, IMO, should be made that US habeas does not apply to them.
(I am not addressing whether it is morally right to hold prisoners in Bagram, only whether an American administration should ever concede that an American constitutional right can be invoked by non-domestic enemy prisoners in a foreign war zone. And yes, I question the validity of the AUMF as a declaration of war.)
The prisoners at issue in this decision were kidnapped by the US and brought to Bagram.
Everytime George ignored the law, everytime Barack ignores the law they teach the world and the US that we all can ignore the law...eventually it is going to happen...people call that a Revolution...
On the Senate Floor, September 2006:
Maybe it's different when they're rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Bagram instead.
From the Greenwald piece.
if you've noticed Suzie but there's a bit of a war going on over there. If by chance you actually catch some of the people shooting at you what exactly are you supposed to do with them, supply them with a court appointed attorney and release them on bail pending trial? They deserve the same consideration as any other prisoners of war and those are usually detained until such time as an end to hostilities is negotiated. Whether or not you agree that the insurgency in Afghanistan should be fought at all you simply can't treat it as if it were a bit of trouble outside a political convention. This isn't a super brilliant chess game merely a fairly obvious move.
... were not combatants on the Afghan battlefield. The US brought them there.
this is all just a bunch of crap! thier was no reason for invadeing iraq!!!!!!!!!!thier was no reason for invadeing afganistan! america stands before the world as warmongers and has no buisness being in either countrys ,
now you guys think he is the Messiah. You want all the miracles to happen all at once. It's not like he isn't doing anything.
"Not true of the Gitmo prisoners since they are more than POWs; they are not in their home country, but in the US, and they are charged with criminality. Habeas applies."
I thought the problem was that they were incarcerated yet weren't charged with anything? Their crimes were implied.
I don't know that one's country of incarceration has anything to do with one's POW status. We had German soldiers held in the U.S. during WWII and I don't think anyone would argue that they were not, in fact, genuine POWs.
The Democrats are having to face the fact, now, that many of the actions of the previous administration that they excoriated for political gain, may have actually been the best solutions to complex problems not really factored into establishing accords such as the Geneva Conventions. Oh, the times they aren't a changin'.
I don't think that can be said to be categorically true. I am unaware of any source for that assertion. So if you can link to one, it would be helpful to the discussion.
Karen Greenberg at Common Dreams accepts that the proof of the assertion is (perhaps as yet) unsupported. But she does say:
"Setting aside the frustrations of the past seven years, I naively tried a basic Google search to see just what was instantly available, only to discover that the answer was essentially nothing.
It turns out that we can say very little with precision or confidence about that prison facility or even the exact number of prisoners there. News sources had often reported approximately 500-600 prisoners in custody at Bagram, but an accurate count is not available. A federal judge recently asked for "the number of detainees held at Bagram Air Base; the number of Bagram detainees who were captured outside Afghanistan; and the number of Bagram detainees who are Afghan citizens," but the information the Obama administration offered the court in response remains classified and redacted from the public record.
We don't even know the exact size of the prison or much about the conditions there, although they have been described as more spartan and far cruder than Guantanamo's in its worst days. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited the prison, but it remains unclear whether they were able to inspect all of it. A confidential Red Cross report from 2008 supposedly highlighted overcrowding, the use of extreme isolation as a punishment technique, and various violations of the Geneva Convention." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/06-4
But you don't address the President's legitimate concern over an unwarrranted concession that US habeas rights can/should be extended to foreign individuals in a foreign nation. That's the issue any administration would be against. It's not a Bush or an Obama issue; it's an American constitutional one.
I don't feel that is totally accurate. Perhaps any modern administration. But the founding fathers I believe would disagree, they felt that the rights of the people applied to all people no matter where they live. Their rights may be being infringed upon, but they still have those rights. The constitution does not grant us any rights, it simply enumerates some of them.
So anybody who visits the US, or US overseas territory, or some US base, automatically has inalienable rights. So when Abdul is kidnapped by the CIA and taken to a US mil base, Abdul is assumed to have every human and civil right any US citizen has. This was the fundamental BoR rule Bushco broke.
They knew they were on dangerous legal grounds, from the moving of prisoners to 3rd countries for torture sessions. This was an admission they knew they were breaking the laws.
Its a logical follow on thing from 18thC diplomatic laws and traditions, applied to the average citizen and anybody else.
"the usual comments about how this means the opposite of how it appears, Obama's extended super brilliant chess game, etc.:"
I don't wander the comments often enough to confirm or dispute the veracity of "the usual comments." But the sentence quoted above prompted me to register an account so I could contribute to a C&L thread for the first time.
100 days.
This is not an arbitrary figure. This is an accepted amount of time to appraise an American President. Hyperbole in either direction is anathema to intelligent engagement in the political system.
The Executive Branch is doing what the Executive Branch is meant to do. Protect its own authority. We have three branches to this government. The judicial branch would collapse if attorneys would only defend individuals they believed in. Branches of government must protect their own authority as assiduously as a public defender argues on behalf of their client whatever their crime.
The system provides the checks and balances so long as every element within the system earnestly pursues and protects its responsibilities. It is not in the lap of the Executive Branch to investigate the previous executive. Nor is it their responsibility to set down authority a previous administration attained.
It is as silly to refuse the following argument as it is to endorse it-
Obama's Administration is demonstrating the desperate need to redistribute* the proper authority to the responsible branches of our government by vigorously protecting the powers that Bush bequeathed him.
My point is 100 days people. He is your President like it or not. Support this man for 100 days and let me know what you think. I have my doubts about what we will learn, and I have my hopes. But we should avoid sweeping unsupported generalizations in times as trying as the ones we are all facing now.
It is my belief that we will be stronger if we do our best to face these times together.
BBD
LA, CA
*don't forget that "redistribution" is secret liberal code for socialism.
I suppose that a 100 day benefit of the doubt is not much to ask. However, I believe that it is a far more effective argument to the complaint that the Obama administration has not done enough (e.g. bankruptcy reform, a more aggressive stimulus, corporate and financial regulation/prosecution, etc.). While I confess more than frustration at his refusal, thus far, to seriously address these goals, I think that the fact that he has been in power less than a hundred days is a legitimate response.
But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether the US has the power to kidnap people on foreign soil, transport them to Afghanistan, and hold them without cause. I do not say without charge because part of what the prisoners in this case are asking is to be informed of why they are being imprisoned. The Obama administration has taken the position that they don't have to give any explanation and are free to continue this practice.
The denial of habeas corpus is something that Obama himself was vehemently against until he decided that it was ok. I can see no reason why that would change after 100 days. It isn't as if he hasn't had enough time to think about it. He lectured in constitutional law and is well aware of this protection against tyranny which dates back to Magna Carta.
I must also take issue with this statement:
Yes. It is. Specifically, it is the job of The Justice Department. The behavior we're talking about is criminal -- under our laws and under international conventions, which, when entered into by the US, become part of our laws. This was not power that the Bush Administration "attained." These were crimes. And it is the responsibility of the Justice Department to prosecute them, not defend them and/or cover them up.
Like you I have my doubts about what this President will be able to achieve. However, like you I also have my hopes. But that doesn't mean I can remain silent when such behavior is advocated in the name of my country -- regardless of how much I may admire the man in charge.
HACK
Moving captives across international borders.
A rather big no no. From this basic wrong a lot of other wrongs were made easier, torture, secret killings and disposal of bodies.
Families left not knowing where their kin were for years.
is that it creates an enormous incentive for anyone fighting us in Afghanistan to do so from Pakistan, since the ruling applies to anyone captured anywhere outside of Afghanistan. If captured anywhere near the border the prisoner will also claim to have been in Pakistan to get a hearing. As the volume of real and/or alleged Pakistan captures escalates (which this ruling nearly guarantees to happen) this will create more and more friction between the US and Pakistan. In case you haven't been paying attention, this would be an extremely bad thing.
Declaring Pakistan a war zone to bring it into the fold of the legally permitted standard military capture and treatment zone would also be a diplomatic disaster.
I don't know what the answer is, but the issue goes beyond much of the simplistic dialogue being bantered about and it should be viewed within the complex environment in which it exists.
What business does NATO have in being there and annoying the locals !
Isn't the main mission to build a pipeline to transport Iraqi oil?
We may have expanded to installing a corrupt, puppet government to build and secure the pipeline for the US, but the transfer of public wealth to private corporations is still a forefront concern.
It appears that the administration is not looking for a general declaration of the end of habeus corpus like the yammering copy and paste artists taking cues from the right wing echo chamber would have you believe. They are simply trying to contain one specific issue that represents a legitimate and dangerous situation.
"The government’s latest motion hints at a possible compromise to be pursued before the appeals court: considering Pakistan to be part of the Afghan theater of war. That would allow prisoners detained in Pakistan to be held at Bagram without recourse but still permit those whisked there from around the world to bring challenges to their detention."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/211...
Chicken Little Susie strikes again.
That you can keep POWs until the end of the conflict? Because, you can, that is IF they're POWs.
...ought to be ashamed of himself.
I was hoping that my days of being ashamed of my citizenship were over. No such luck.
Same as the Old Boss. Who the Hell did i Vote for in Nov?
Hey Obama Quit Calling yourself a Progressive there is nothing
Progressive about these kind of Policies.
Back when he was running? He said these people had to be treated under the Geneva Conventions, as POWs. There is a requirement that cases be reviewed, but if they are reviewed and found to be POWs, they don't have to be released until the end of the conflict. Period.
Didn't any of you know that? The early release without prejudice is for those who are reviewed and not found to be POWs.
This is a bit embarrassing... and if Prz Obama continues down this road, he'll lose a lot of support from many of his MOST Loyal!
I don't consider myself an Obama supporter per se, though I did vote for him over Launchpad McSame and Caribou Barbie. I'm still to pissed off about his FISA vote last year to consider myself a supporter. But I am pleased with -most- of the stuff he's done. This issue and FISA are two that really stick in my craw. I also am registered as a Democrat because I wanted to be able to help pick the strongest Dem to go against the Republican machine, but I don't consider myself a Democrat. I'm a progressive, largely left-center leaning Independent.
Anyways I was thinking, and came to the conclusion that there is one thing we could be overlooking, though granted it is a bit Machiavellian for a Democrat to pull. Perhaps Obama is contesting this, so that it goes all the way up to the Supreme court and forces them to make a ruling.
Because a President can say "We don't torture and we don't arrest people indefinitely" until he's blue in the face. But unless it's been decided on by the SCOTUS it's not final and the next President can come along and make his own damned rules. (Not that this whole government isn't one big kluuge festival anyway).
By contesting this, he could get it before the SCOTUS and force them to decide one way or another whether or not this kinda shit is allowed. Once that decision is made (and hopefully they side with the Constitution rather than the President), it can be used as a big ol' legal precedent to slap successive Presidents upside the head with. Whereas the rules and executive orders of a previous President can be gone with the stroke of a pen.
This does seem a bit like playing chess and thinking a half dozen moves ahead to defeat your opponent. While I could see the Republicans using a tactic like this, I can't see Democrats as having enough stones to pull it. This would be the kind of thing I would do if I were President, just to prevent these sorts of abuses later. Of course, by now I would have released a warehouse full of documents on Bush's torture program and ordered my AG to bring Bush to the court in manacles by now. But that's just me.
Anyways, something to consider.
Login or Register to post comments.