Obama administration seeks to deny habeas-corpus for Afghan detainees
Like the three most important considerations in real estate, whether or not the Obama administration fights for terrorism suspects’ habeas-corpus rights has everything to do with location, location, location:
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.
Somebody really owes George W. Bush an apology.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Obama Foreign Polity Starts To Show Results « Vets On The Watch
- Werner Patels - A Dose of Common Sense
- Obama’s War on “Dangerous Suspects” is Starting to Look Like Terror War « Peace and Freedom Promises
- Afghanistan: Obama’s War on “Dangerous Suspects” is Starting to Look Like Terror War « Peace and Freedom Global Future
- Obama Follows Bush Policy On Habeas-Corpus « Unclemeat
- The Irascible Chef » That Guy
- Afghanistan & Opium: US Marine Killed During Operation ‘Strike of the Sword’ « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Gitmo
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
The mills of the gods grind slowly. But they grind exceedingly fine.
This Administration is looking more and more like Bush III without the tax cuts.
… chirping crickets …
… chirping crickets …
When I wrote that I kept hearing Ben Stein saying “Anyone…? Anyone…? Bueller…?”
The thing is, and I think most people will agree, that facilities like Gitmo are in fact necessary in today’s world – sure, without any of the waterboarding and such – because there are too many people (term loosely applied) out there who pose such tremendous risk and danger to our well-being that they can’t possibly be allowed to run around freely. Terrorists must be kept under lock and key (since we’re too “civilized” to simply finish them off), and no matter how much certain people’s (again, loosely applied) hearts may bleed for terrorists, it doesn’t change the fact that we must isolate them from the rest of the world.
I believe Obama is beginning to understand the realities of the presidential office now that he’s been in that chair in the Oval Office. It’s always easy for others to criticize a sitting president when they have never walked in his shoes, but once they assume the highest office in the land, things suddenly don’t look so black and white anymore – most of it is different shades of gray.
Not to worry, the left will see D’ohbamas views as states-man like…
sarc/
Talk about missed signals. I would like to relish in this clear cut case of following the Constitution and its basic principles preventing the rights of AMERICAN CITIZENS to be trampled upon by an oppressive government. I would like to believe that this is a clear cut signal that our Constitution will be used to protect our rights and not some facade of rights that some people feel we should be giving to those who have (sometimes violently) ignored our laws and would seek to do us harm. Unfortunately, even as hopeful as this may appear, I still bear many doubts. Now if he would place the National Guard on the borders and offer us some means of protection from invading hordes of illegal aliens, do away with any appeals for shamnesty for those who have already shown an utter contempt for our laws, allow free enterprise and the capitalist markets to run the economic sector, I would have even more hope … but even then, I must begrudgingly admit that I would still have doubts as to his ultimate goals.
Bush III? As a Conservative, I was very hopeful when Bush was elected but I must say I felt unnerved by many of his policies and lack of oversight on an increasingly unpopular congress. The president’s job is to preside and the congress’ job is to legislate. Given the nature of the congress we have, throw in the judicial branch trying to obligate us to international law and blatantly contradicting our constitution and I really just do not have much hope.
However, given the day that is being celebrated today (And I do not mean the celebration of Esther, goddess of fertility being memorialized with eggs and rabbits but the celebration of the Resurrection of the Christ) I do have some hope, but it is certainly not for this administration.
/verbose mode
No doubt we’ll see a full-page ad in the NYT from moveon?
While Obama goes around the world blaming everything on Bush, he does not have the honor to admit that many of Bush’s policies were correct and he is keeping them. What a weasel. There are many words for this, but the main one is he is not a man. A real man does not behave in this manner.
A bunch of ignorant, undisciplined children got together and decided to play the game “President”.
I seriously doubt that it was one of the new kids who dug his heels in and made the stand. It must be one of the G.W.B. holdovers that now has to wear the unfortunate moniker of The Obama administration.
But dont you all see it is different. Bush did it just because he is a meanspirited bully, on the other hand Obama is doing it because he really cares about keeping us safe! /sarc
I REALLY gotta see how the the Messiahs minions react to this.
Okay folks, here’s your laugh ‘o the night. I just went to DU. I used their search function and it came up with 1,940 thread for “habeas-corpus,+Obama”. The very first one concerned this new development. It was started about 2:00 p.m……and it only has 8 DUmmie comments. LOL! They are avoiding this story like the plague. I looked at some of the others going back to 06 and they were all praising him for his promise to restore habeas-corpus. Watch, they will begin to turn on him big time….it is coming just as sure as the sunrise.
I’ve totally no problem with waterboarding bastards sworn to chop your family’s heads off – at the least. Any kind of “torture” that just leaves you with only a damp face and laughing and ready for a Coors in front the TV (and which college jocks are doing for kicks) ain’t any “torture”.
James Greenidge
Queens, NY
Maybe I missed something over time, or, perhaps, it’s too early in the morning yet, and coffee hasn’t hit the blood stream, but when did a district judge get authority to rule about a military base in a foreign country in a warzone? Has it reached the point that when a soldier takes a prisoner he has to read him his rights and get an attorney for him? Seems to be going that way. Personally, I can see the military in Afganistan repeating what Jackson once said, “He has made his ruling, now let him try to enforce it.”
Please move from the old universe to the new alternate universe where International law applies to us, and our laws only apply overseas. Please do not think about this, there isn’t enough aspirin in the world…
Oddly, they hated him for all the stuff he did right…
Personally, I use Tylenol. But you’re probably right. I won’t think about that. I have 2 daughters with birthdays to be celebrated today (for 4/12 and 4/13). I may apply for a bail-out, before the day is over.
and the checks in the mail….
or…. you want it when?
That will be a cold day in….
yeah right, when h.. freezes over….
Does this dress make me look fat?
……….
It’s been a few more hours since I last checked. The libtards have added one whole comment to the previously mentioned thread on this issue. But I did count a good many threads with many many comments about the new “First Pup”. They know what’s important. LOL!
Excellent.
I think you are very close to the truth Simcoe. These people do not wish to serve, they wish to rule. They lust for power, as one would expect political hacks to do. The reality that we have “real” enemies may never sink into their thick skulls because the urge for self-enrichment has so overwhelmed them.
May God help us all.
yes bogtrotter, they are all jacked up cuz teddy the swimmer gave them a water dog.
aj …
Teddy is a swimmer rather than a golfer because he never learned to drive over water …
Hay ease up…its not personal…just political, which means that it is not only OK it is mandatory to lie….no harm done…. It seems that the republican politicians has happily accepted this little rule of the liberals and join with them in “casting out” the truth seekers…..so the question is are we the shining city on the hill, or were we the shinning city on the hill.
Graysonret,
I am in Baghdad as I am typing this (just got in from up North on my way home for the tea Party in either Seattle or Olympia WA). I mentioned this story to a couple of Senior Non-Com’s here at the chow hall and they died laughing. They said up until this point they were half expecting Obama to start assigning Lawyers to the missions to act as a “political officer”. They went on to say that it looks like GWB is getting the 3am phone calls on what to do instead of Hillary.
Excellent. And thank you for your service!
ajmontana said:
“yes bogtrotter, they are all jacked up cuz teddy the swimmer gave them a water dog.”
LOL! Ah yes….the humor & irony that will not be mentioned by any late night comic anywhere.
If the same vocal liberals over the past six years are interested in maintaining any credibility on this subject…then when do President Obama’s impeachment proceedings begin?
Does anyone know how/why exactly Constitutional protections extend to foreign combatants? I don’t mean this in a snarky way, it’s a genuine query.
As I understand, habeus corpus is a Constitutional protection for American citizens. How does this protection extend to foreign combatants in a foreign land, whether it be Afghanistan or Gitmo? What cases, what legal principles, allow for the Constitution to be used anywhere for anyone? How are our enemies allowed to challenge their detention in US courts?
Any help would be appreciated. I’ve wondered about this for years, but have never gotten a response other than various talking points. Thanks.
Glad to help Matty, Constitutional protections apply to terrorists everywhere – not as you mistakenly believe – American citizens. We here in America – at least those of us here legally – are subject to the International Law du jour. Yes, that’s a French phrase meaning “whatever some Euroweenie wants you to do today”.
This is an inane comparison to Guantanamo. Habeas undoubtedly applies to territories under US control. The underpinning rationale behind Boumediene was that Guantanamo was for all intents and purposes, a territory under control of the United States, despite what the Bush administration said. Afghanistan is decidedly NOT such a territory.
Chap,
That’s what I had thought, that the designation of Gitmo as US “territory” was the big factor.
But what about Afghanistan? What statutes, precedents, etc allows them access to US courts?
Well, that seems to be the point, doesn’t it? The Administration is saying DON’T have recourse to American courts if they are in Afghanistan. Which is entirely consistent with Boumediene and other jurisprudence on habeas.
The high-lighted blurb in the post says the Administration is fighting the ruling of a district court. I’m wondering how the case got to the district court in the first place.
I guess I’m trying to understand if there is case law which the district court judge used to give standing to the detainees. I didn’t note an explanation in the linked article.
Thanks for your responses, Chap.
matty,
One would not be surprised that a District Court judge could be wrong and or rogue.
One could certainly argue that any detainee, anywhere, SHOULD have right of habeus. But that is not consistent with our jurisprudence. The SC in Boumedine had to establish wrt Guantanamo that, if it walks and talks like a duck (if it is treated for all intents and purposes as a US territory), it is a duck (territory) for purposes of granting habeus.
I was convinced. I do not think it is entirely unreasonable to be unconvinced. But in any case, Afghanistan is a much much harder case to make.
Chap,
I think I’m getting it now. It sounds like a case of determining how established law works in relation to new situations, which would explain why Boumediene was such a big deal, i.e. there was no previous precedent, so the Boumediene decision established one, correct?
Thanks again for your help. I’ll do some more digging on my own.
Kinda. It wasn’t that there was no previous precedent. It was acknowledged that habeas applies in US territories. It really was a matter of whether or not Gitmo was a “territory”.
To say that Afghanistan is a territory is really a stretch too far by most any standard.
Gotcha.
One last query, could Bagram Air Base be considered a “territory” in the same way Gitmo is?
Isn’t Bagram also US real estate?
It must be tough to wake up in the White House every morning and discover you too are really a racist old white guy
Ever realized that military personnel have their full constitutional rights stripped from them upon enlistment (go with it) and are subjected to the UCMJ and “double jeopardy” (e.g. get in trouble in town and then you get in trouble all over again on base for being AWOL AND for whatever you originally got in trouble for)
Interesting take.