detainees have no constitutional rights.....

[manu1959]

Politics News - Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

uh oh..............

 

[xsited1]

Politics News - Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

uh oh..............

"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 Air Base. "We all expected better."

 

[Annie]

Hmm, kinda goes with this, who would have thought? :

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....

 

[Toome]

The article is a little misleading. The Obama administration's rationale is different than the Bush administration's.

The Bush administration logic was based more on the principle that terrorists are "illegal combatants" that are not subject to due process whether detained in Afghanistan, Cuba or even in the US.

The Obama administration logic is based more on the principle that whether terrorists or uniformed enemy soldiers, applying due process in a combat zone doesn't make sense. Otherwise, we'd have soldiers obtaining search warrants before conducting a raid, advising enemy combatants of their rights to an attorney, etc. For those of us who have touched the elephant, this is a multi-dimensionally stupid idea on so many levels. Combat zones are very unique. The Obama administration's logic holds water.

I can see the consistency of the Obama administration's logic that if a captured enemy is removed from a combat zone and taken to an area under US control, then the civilian principles of law begin to take precedence over those of military law. I see no contradiction here, and this is more consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Geneva Conventions and other international agreements.

 

[manu1959]

The article is a little misleading. The Obama administration's rationale is different than the Bush administration's.

The Bush administration logic was based more on the principle that terrorists are "illegal combatants" that are not subject to due process whether detained in Afghanistan, Cuba or even in the US.

The Obama administration logic is based more on the principle that whether terrorists or uniformed enemy soldiers, applying due process in a combat zone doesn't make sense. Otherwise, we'd have soldiers obtaining search warrants before conducting a raid, advising enemy combatants of their rights to an attorney, etc. For those of us who have touched the elephant, this is a multi-dimensionally stupid idea on so many levels. Combat zones are very unique. The Obama administration's logic holds water.

I can see the consistency of the Obama administration's logic that if a captured enemy is removed from a combat zone and taken to an area under US control, then the civilian principles of law begin to take precedence over those of military law. I see no contradiction here, and this is more consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Geneva Conventions and other international agreements.

of course ..... of course ...... so if he just moves all the folks from gitmo to afganistan it will all be ok with you......