Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Barack Obama, Torture, and Habeas Corpus: Unsurprised but Shocked Nonetheless

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Leveller Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 11:19 AM
Original message
Barack Obama, Torture, and Habeas Corpus: Unsurprised but Shocked Nonetheless
In one of its most horrifying acts, the Obama administration filed a telling brief in federal court last February. In two sentences, this brief declared that the Obama Department of Justice essentially embraced the Bush administration's position on and against habeas corpus. After the Supreme Court ruled last June in Boudemiene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees possess the right to a hearing to contest the charges against them, the Bush administration simply started sending so-called enemy combatants from around the world to the American prison camp in Bagram Air Force base in occupied Afghanistan.

<snip>

In its February brief, the Obama justice department defended this Orwellian policy, arguing that such prisoners can be locked up without any constitutional rights for an indefinite period of time just as long as they are incarcerated in Bagram instead of Guantanamo (see Glen Greenwald, "Obama and Habeas Corpus: Then and Now," Salon, April 11, 2009, at www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index... ).

<snip>

Revealingly enough, when he went to Langley last week to reassure CIA staffers of his safety to their interests, Obama said that his decision to release the torture memos was the "most agonizing" call of his presidency so far. I heard that line on the evening news and turned off my television.

Wow. The was his "most agonizing" decision so far - reluctantly agreeing under legal compulsion (!) to release documents showing a previous administration's human right crimes? Not his decision to launch missiles and expand illegal wars certain to kill children and cause other civilian casualties in Pakistan. Not his decision to hand out yet more hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street parasites while poverty rises across the nation and the world. Not his decision to increase the war and military budget while destitution expands at home and abroad. Pretty revealing.

<snip>

P.S. 6PM Tue. April 21: Ok so I got home after sending this essay off earlier in the day and put on the ABC evening news and the first story is that Obama has relented somewhat and appears to be bowing to pressure for him to perhaps let Eric Holder maybe possibly investigate John Yoo and Bybee et al., But this twist does not surprise me either; Obama is a crafty politician --- very tricky ---- and has apparently heard that his nauseating position on torture non-prosecutions was just too much for even many elite liberals to take. I heard Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights (I hope I have that organization's name right) just absolutely destroy Obama's "let's look forward, not backward" statement on the PBS Evening News yesterday night. Whether investigations will really happen and go anywhere remains to be seen. I'm skeptical since so many key Democrats signed off on Bush torture practices. And of course to be really serious you'd have to go after Cheney and Bush II. But pushing back from the grassroots and even the grasstops (i.e. Ratner et al.) is important and good...more of it is required; much more.

http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/3841
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1.  . .take a wrong turn in Albquerque?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Is there a question in there???
Is this kidding??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. the zmaggers and their cousins are
as determined to destroy barack obama as an wingnut at humanevents. And why? because they see him as a fixture of a system they want to destroy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. I don't understand Obama's decision to deny habeas corpus to our detainees at Bagram
or anywhere else for that matter. What is he thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. A little more information here....
we can hope that the administration is waiting for the detainee review to be completed in July, but still wonder where any new prisoners from the escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be located.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/washington/03bagram.h...

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: April 2, 2009

"...The importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has increased under the Obama administration, which prohibited the Central Intelligence Agency from using its secret prisons for long-term detention and ordered the military prison at Guantnamo closed within a year. The administration had sought to preserve Bagram as a haven where it could detain terrorism suspects beyond the reach of American courts, telling Judge Bates in February that it agreed with the Bush administrations view that courts had no jurisdiction over detainees there.

Judge Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001, was not persuaded. He said transferring captured terrorism suspects to the prison inside Afghanistan and claiming they were beyond the jurisdiction of American courts resurrects the same specter of limitless executive power the Supreme Court sought to guard against in its 2008 ruling that Guantnamo prisoners have a right to habeas corpus...


...After taking office, Mr. Obama ordered a review of the evidence against each of the roughly 240 prisoners at Guantnamo as a first step toward closing the prison within a year.

He did not extend the steps he was taking to resolve the fate of the Guantnamo prisoners to those held at Bagram, although a comprehensive review of detainee policies is due to be completed in July. Ms. Foster said that the Bagram case may force the administration to speed up its decisions."



Obama administration to appeal Bagram detainees habeas ruling
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/04/obama-adm...

"...In seeking a stay of the proceedings during the appellate review process, the DOJ motion concluded:

...any potential for harm to petitioners in continued detention during appellate proceedings does not outweigh the need for a stay. First, the Government intends to seek expedited appellate review of the jurisdictional ruling in the April 2, 2009 Order. Second, the President has established, by Executive Order, a deliberative process to address questions concerning Executive detention authority and options. See Executive Order 13,493: Review of Detention Policy Options, 74 Fed. Reg. 4901 (Jan. 22, 2009). That Executive Order commands the creation of a Special Interagency Task Force to conduct a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counter-terrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Id. (e). The Task Force is scheduled to provide preliminary reports to the President and a final report by July of this year. Id. In particular, the Task Force will be reviewing the processes currently in place at Bagram and elsewhere, and will make recommendations to the President regarding those processes.

In sum, the extensive harms to the Government and the public interest involved in further proceedings envisioned by the Court in these cases, and the likelihood of respondents success on the merits of appeal, strongly warrant a stay pending appeal."


Obama sticks to Bush detainee policy

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/11/Obama-sticks-to-...

"...In appealing a decision by U.S. District Judge John Bates, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd told the newspaper that because the administration is still reviewing its detainee policies, "we concluded that it was necessary to appeal this ruling," but he did not rule out a change of heart once the review is complete....

In its appeal, the Justice Department said the consequences of granting the Bagram detainees immediate access to U.S. courts would be severe. The department warned that if foreigners imprisoned at Bagram could legally challenge their incarcerations, the U.S. military wouldn't be able to hold captured Pakistani militants there for "security or centralized intelligence gathering" without having to defend the transfers in court, the Post reported."


Above previously posted here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Also Greenwald has commented on the case here...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagra...


"...Many of them have nothing to do with Afghanistan and were captured far, far away from that country -- abducted from their homes and workplaces -- and then flown to Bagram to be imprisoned. Indeed, the Bagram detainees in the particular case in which the Obama DOJ filed its brief were Yemenis and Tunisians captured outside of Afghanistan (in Thailand or the UAE, for instance) and then flown to Bagram and locked away there as much as six years without any charges..."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thank you for that information -- It's helpful
On the one hand, it's good to know that this will be reviewed by July.

On the other hand, it is still disappointing to me -- and scary. It seems to me that allowing habeas corpus should be a no-brainer. After all, it's been a fixure of our civilization since 1215. And even our conservative Supreme Court has ruled on this. What harm could it possibly do to us to resurrect our Constitution to allow detainees to challenge their detention in a court of law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I agree that it is disappointing, one possible reason for not allowing
a challenge is this sentence from the NY Times article.

:shrug:

"...The administration had sought to preserve Bagram as a haven where it could detain terrorism suspects beyond the reach of American courts, telling Judge Bates in February that it agreed with the Bush administrations view that courts had no jurisdiction over detainees there..."


This from February...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/washington/22bagram.h...

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: February 21, 2009

"...Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor, said it was too early to tell what the Obama administration would end up doing with the detainees at Bagram. He said some observers believed that the Obama team would end up making a major change in policy but simply needed more time to come up with it, while others believed that the administration had decided to err on the side of doing things more like the Bush administration did, as opposed to really rethinking and reorienting everything about the detention policies it inherited because it had too many other problems to deal with.

It may take some time before we see exactly what is going on whether this is just a transitory policy or whether this is really their policy: No to Guantnamo, but we can just create Guantnamo in some other place, Mr. Balkin said..."






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Is it "Obama's Decision"


...or is it the job of DoJ lawyers to defend their clients?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-23-09 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I'm pretty certain that it was Obama's decision
Edited on Thu Apr-23-09 07:16 AM by Time for change
DOJ lawyers are not obligated to argue against habeas corpus or any other essential rights granted in our Constitution.

Anyhow, what clients would they be protecting by saying that detainees aren't allowed to appeal their detention -- that they can just be thrown into prison indefinitely for no specified reason?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
6. This article is COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY! Alert!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. this article has an obvious agenda
and it has little to do with truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. So have you.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. yep. my agenda is simple
as far as DU goes. I'm here to express my political pov and to support liberal and progressive democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. What do you think is untrue about the article?
Do you disagree that Obama has denied habeas corpus to detainees at Bagram? Does that not concern you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's the language of propaganda. That doesn't mean it's not
true, but it's clear that the language is intended to portray Obama in the most negative act possible. It's not an analysis. It's not reporting.

Yes it concerns me, but I look at what Obama's done and is doing through a wider lens and see a different picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. How so?
Please deconstruct the article to prove your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Yes, Cali.
Please show us where the article contains false information.

Other than your amusing emotional tirade about "language", I can't find anything of value in your protest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC