Obama mirrors Bush---Detainees Have NO rights.

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...ees/index.html

Obama administration keeps Bush view on Afghanistan detainees

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration told a federal court late Friday it will maintain the Bush administration's position that battlefield detainees held without charges by the United States in Afghanistan are not entitled to constitutional rights to challenge their detention.

"Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position," said a Justice Department document filed in federal court in Washington.

In a controversial 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court last year ruled that detainees held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay had a right under the constitution to challenge their continued detention. However, the court did not say whether it applied to prisoners in other locations abroad, including Afghanistan.

Five prisoners held at Bagram Air Base, backed by human rights groups, have gone to court to claim the same rights as the men detained in Guantanamo Bay.

The new administration, which was given a month by a federal judge to declare whether the government wants to change its position, has now indicated it will continue to argue that it is against its security interests to release enemy combatants in a war zone.

Barbara Olshansky, lead counsel for three of the detainee petitioners, said that the administration's decision was "deeply disappointing."

"We are trying to remain hopeful that the message being conveyed is that the new administration is still working on its position regarding the applicability of the laws of war -- the Geneva Conventions -- and international human rights treaties that apply to everyone in detention there," she said.

The air base at Bagram, located north of the city of Kabul, houses between 600 and 650 detainees. Most were picked up for suspected ties to terrorism

I applaud Obama for this one.

These pieces of scum don't deserve constitutional rights.

Guilty until proven Innocent.

[DennyMcLain]

Five prisoners held at Bagram Air Base, backed by human rights groups, have gone to court to claim the same rights as the men detained in Guantanamo Bay.

I love these fucking Human Rights Groups. What about the people these dirtbags killed? What about the innocent lives murdered by terrorist cells?

The funny thing about these "organzations" is that they cannot differentiate between "human" and "homosapien".

A "human", in my opinion, carries with him or her ALL traits associated with humankind, both biological and mental. This would include, obviously, physical abilities, but also mental capacities which set humans apart from other species in the animal kingdom.

"Homosapien", by contrast, owns the same physical traits, but lacks the mental capacity to be "human", such as reason, logic, emotion, learning, etc. For instance, a convicted mass murderer has NO human rights, since he has proven himself to cease being that what makes a homosapien "human".

The faster these shit-lickers understand this, the less moronic they'll appear, for they can then pick and choose rather than utilize the umbrella policy which cannot differentiate between prisioner by asscociation and captured suicide bomber.

In regards to the prisioners, detainees can be held without trial indefinitely during a conflict, until the end of said conflict. Guantanamo detainees are war prisioners, but are on American soil. I believe that's what the Supreme Court noted as the difference-maker. It's not about "Human Rights"... it's about the law.

[Hermy]

Let them all go. Who cares. Quit spending money on them.

[Pharaoh]

Are these detainee guys captured enemy soldiers or random fuckers "linked" to terrorism?

If they are captured soliders they should be fucking held prisoner until the war is over - you can't beat the enemy if you are giving him back his defeated troops.

These guys are lucky to be alive. It's a war zone. You have a gun, I have a gun - if you shoot second you're dead.

If they are "linked" to terrorism then the links should have to be proven. You can't just assume that these guys are terrorists simply because they are in that country.

That would be like assuming every chick in a gay bar is a lesbian. All chicks might have lesbo tendencies but if they like cock then they ain't gay.

[Uncle Mxy]

Are these detainee guys captured enemy soldiers or random fuckers "linked" to terrorism?

It's both, unfortunately. Once Gitmo became legally complicated, we started doing renditions from places like Thailand to Bagram in addition to captured battlefield troops, then keeping them there "forever". Unlike Gitmo, which has U.S. forces pretty much exclusively, we allow foreign/U.N. troops into Bagram. Australia's Afghanistan presence was based in Bagram. Our presence their is like what we have with South Korea.

Legally, the U.S. is in the right based on U.S.-written laws. To whatever extent it's a violation of international laws we agree to by treaty, it probably should fall to an international court to decide. Dozens of countries could be shown to be complicit.

My hunch (based off a number of interesting tidbits) is that Obama wants things from Republicans, so isn't airing their dirty laundry. He's gone out of his way to avoid turning things into a distracting Bush witch hunt.

[geerussell]

It's both, unfortunately. Once Gitmo became legally complicated, we started doing renditions from places like Thailand to Bagram in addition to captured battlefield troops, then keeping them there "forever". Unlike Gitmo, which has U.S. forces pretty much exclusively, we allow foreign/U.N. troops into Bagram. Australia's Afghanistan presence was based in Bagram. Our presence their is like what we have with South Korea.

That's where our standing starts to unravel for me. I've seen nothing to convince me that we're doing due diligence for each individual detainee to establish who they are and why we're holding them.

[Uncle Mxy]

It might be the case that the right party to sue for wrongful imprisonment in Afghanistan is Afghanistan.

[Tahoe]

Maybe BO should have waited more than day 2 of his admin to announce Gitmos closing until they did their evaluation of Gitmo.

They did the eval yesterday and said deatainees were receiving Gen Con rights.

To keep things cosistent maybe he should release everyone in Afghanistan too. I don't know...just sayin

[Tahoe]

Also, there were no pics, no video, no reporters allowed for Holders visit.

So much for that open and honest thing he was talking about in the campaign. I mean christ, Bush didn't hold Rummy back from being photographed at Gitmo, etc.

[Uncle Mxy]

Did he actively reject the press coming along? It sounds kinda nebulous:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...d4c_wD96HA3H00

No news reporters accompanied Holder on the flight, and it wasn't clear whether any of his visit there would be open to press coverage.

I don't think reporters accompanying him would've made things more open. They'd still be sitting outside closed doors where shady deals happen, right?