PDA

View Full Version : Detainee Policy: Change?



Gerry Clinchy
04-11-2009, 09:36 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11bagram.html?th&emc=th


WASHINGTON The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) 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.

(emphasis added) Uh ... I thought that this administration did not agree with such detainment?

Hew
04-11-2009, 03:50 PM
C'mon Gerry, you've got to apply lefty logic:

Terrorists without "rights" <snort, wheeze, chuckle> in A-Stan = Good
Terrorists without "rights" <snort, wheeze, chuckle> in Gitmo = Bad

Terrorists being flown to Gitmo for questioning/detainment = Bad
Terrorists being rendered to other countries so they can question and detain them without any US oversight (hear no evil, see no evil) = Good

cotts135
04-12-2009, 06:38 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11bagram.html?th&emc=th



(emphasis added) Uh ... I thought that this administration did not agree with such detainment?

Yeah your absolutely right. Candidate Obama was very much against this policy when Bush was President as evidence by this statement issued the same day as the the Supreme Court's Boudemiene ruling and also during the height of the Presidential campaign.

"Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy."

Unfortunately we now have people on the left who previously were adamantly opposed to this policy now defending Obama using the same excuses that the people on the right used to defend Bush when he was President and in favor of this policy. Was it not right when Bush advanced this policy and now it is ok when Obama does it? Of course it is not. This just highlights to me the absurdity of picking people and party over principle.

YardleyLabs
04-12-2009, 06:43 AM
Expediency always attracts those in power regardless of ideology. That's why it's important to have an independent judiciary. Hopefully the administration will lose its appeal and come to its senses. I like the judge's ruling.

Gerry Clinchy
04-12-2009, 07:13 AM
"Expediency" is probably a good word to use with regard to candidates, in general.

My sense is that Obama did not have a full grasp of the situation as a candidate. With more information in his present position, he has a different perspective.

I do believe that the rights of the detainees would depend on defining their status. The rules applying to non-uniformed enemy combatants in war, is different from a civilian terrorist. Typically a POW can be detained indefinitely (until hostilities end or release is negotiated), while a civilian criminal gets due process.

The difficulty here is that al Qaeda is not recognized as a "state". So how does one define a war with a non-state? Are these detainees "military" or are they "civilian"?

The principle of due process is a no-brainer. The status of these detainees being "military" v. "civilian" seems to be a more complex question.

It would appear prior to the election Obama used to view these detainees as "civilians", but now views them as "military". The question is: what made him change his mind on this? Since he is a lawyer, one would have expected that he had thought this through sooner.

Terry Britton
04-12-2009, 01:31 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11bagram.html?th&emc=th



(emphasis added) Uh ... I thought that this administration did not agree with such detainment?

It depends which group. We rounded up some Chinese rebels with no country to go to in the Afganistan mess. This is the group that Obama wants released on USA soil with future rights to citizenship. The rest of them are pure terrorists that should be given the chance to swim for freedom from the middle of the Atlantic if we actually ever do release them.

We should have never picked up the Chinese rebels that crossed the Afgan - Chinese border at the wrong time.

Hew
04-13-2009, 08:26 AM
My sense is that Obama did not have a full grasp of the situation as a candidate. With more information in his present position, he has a different perspective.
Exactly. His perspective changed dramatically the day he took his oath of office and the buck began to stop on his desk (which was pretty much a first for the guy).

Gerry Clinchy
05-02-2009, 06:52 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

This saga continues:


“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”



Administration officials said Friday that some detainees would be prosecuted in federal courts and noted that Mr. Obama had always left open the possibility of using military commissions.

Still, during the presidential campaign Mr. Obama criticized the commissions, saying that “by any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,” and declaring that as president he would “reject the Military Commissions Act.”


It is not clear how many of the remaining 241 detainees are likely to be prosecuted.


In recent days, senior administration officials have hinted publicly that commissions were far from dead, yet offered no specifics and their comments drew little attention. In Congressional testimony on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/robert_m_gates/index.html?inline=nyt-per) said, “The commissions are still very much on the table.”
In a news conference this week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/eric_h_holder_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per) emphasized that if the administration did use military commissions, the rules must give detainees “a maximum amount of due process.”

But, speaking of detainees whom American officials have accused of involvement in major terrorist plots, Mr. Holder added, “It may be difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a normal federal court.”

Jerry D Herring
05-02-2009, 07:44 PM
[quote=Gerry Clinchy;428946]"Expediency" is probably a good word to use with regard to candidates, in general.

My sense is that Obama did not have a full grasp of the situation as a candidate. With more information in his present position, he has a different perspective.



what you just said just tells me why i didnt vote for Barrack Osama.