Click here to check the ultimate guide to learn how to leverage your PC and internet to make money online.
The Washington Independent
The Washington Independent

Obama Bungles Bagram

The Obama administration could have just let this one go. U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates’ April 2 ruling that three detainees -- two from Yemen, one

Landon Morton
News
Last updated: Jul 31, 2020 | Apr 13, 2009

The Obama administration could have just let this one go.

U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates’ April 2 ruling that three detainees — two from Yemen, one from Tunisia, all held by the U.S. military at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan without charge for more than six years — have a right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts was crafted narrowly on purpose. The Obama administration did not have to appeal it and open itself up to the charge that it was making the same arguments that the Bush administration did — that prisoners in the war on terror can be held indefinitely with no constitutional rights whatsoever.

Yet on Friday, the Obama Justice Department did just that, filing documents with the federal court indicating that it plans to appeal the judge’s ruling, because allowing these three men to challenge their detention would “impose serious practical burdens on, and potential harm to, the Government and its efforts to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.”

Bagram is “in a theater of war where the Nation’s troops are in harm’s way,” wrote Justice Department lawyers, and responding to a possible deluge of future petitions from prisoners at Bagram “would divert the military’s attention and resources at a critical time for operations in Afghanistan, potentially requiring accommodation and protection of counsel and onerous discovery.” This would cause “significant and irreparable burdens” that would risk “injury to the public interest.”

In other words, it would be really inconvenient right now for the U.S. military to have to defend holding prisoners for years without charge or trial, and it has more important things to do, like fight a war on terror.

Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar? Isn’t that the same argument the Bush administration used when it said that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay didn’t have habeas rights? And wasn’t it President Obama who said that he rejects “a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus?” So where did that guy go?

Glenn Greenwald at Salon provides some choice Obama quotes on this that illuminate what sure looks like some kind of ugly hypocrisy going on here.

Then again, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd told The Washington Post Friday that the Obama administration might still change its mind on Bagram, depending on the outcome of its comprehensive review of detainee policy, to be completed in July.

“While that review is pending, we concluded that it was necessary to appeal this ruling,” Boyd said. So maybe Obama is being cautious rather than unprincipled.

Obama may have all sorts of good, logical reasons why he doesn’t want to grant all 600 prisoners at Bagram habeas corpus rights immediately, particularly since those numbers are likely to rise under his new strategy for Afghanistan. But that’s not what Bates’ ruling was about. It applied only to three men captured outside of Afghanistan and brought to Bagram. The government has refused to say publicly how many more prisoners at Bagram are in the same situation.  But it’s  difficult, as Bates found, to distinguish the situation of these prisoners from those who’ve been held for years at Guantanamo Bay.

Obama said repeatedly and unequivocally as a as a senator and as a presidential candidate that he thought Gitmo prisoners deserved the right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court, because the procedures offered to them at Guantanamo were woefully inadequate.

In his ruling, Bates, a conservative Bush appointee, concluded that the procedures at Bagram were significantly worse — specifically, “less sophisticated and more error-prone.”

Why defend those procedures now? It may simply be that Obama has not been paying attention to Bagram. After all, the president is dealing with a failing economy, multi-trillion dollar budgets and, in recent days, a bizarre stand-off with Somali pirates. But ignoring Bagram is already coming back to bite him. We’ve called Bagram “Obama’s Gitmo,” and today the New York Times editorial board is calling it “The Next Guantanamo.” That’s hardly what Obama needs right now.

Friday’s filing seems to have the mark of Eric Holder, his attorney general, who has years’ worth of experience taking some unseemly positions on behalf of major corporations.

But defending the United States of America isn’t the same as defending Chiquita, and Americans elected Obama in part because he promised that in his administration, principles wouldn’t be so easily trumped by expediency.

*This post has been updated to note today’s New York Times editorial.

Landon Morton | Landon is a professional character coach, motivational speaker, and consultant who values commitment, service, and excellence. Landon brings to your company valuable insights gained from his battlefield experience as a decorated combat veteran, enabling you to unleash the untapped potential of your employees. He illustrates how the invaluable talent that each individual brings to your company will positively affect your mission through real-world examples.

Related

Pentagon Shooter Exploited Gun-Show Loophole

John Patrick Bedell, who shot and wounded two police officers near the Pentagon earlier this month, bought at least one of his 9 mm guns at a Nevada gun show,

MA-Sen: 150 Conservative Bloggers Fan Out, Looking for Scandals

BOSTON -- The mysterious Election Journal blog, which first released the infamous 2008 video of two bumbling New Black Panther Party members waving nightsticks

MA-Sen: Brown Wins

BOSTON -- At 9:20, the first rumors of Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate race started to work around the room. A moment later, Doug Flutie

MA-Sen: 66 to 19

BOSTON -- That, via Alex Isenstadt and Josh Kraushaar, is the number that defined the Massachusetts Senate race more than anything else. From the primary

MA-Sen: A Text Message From Scott Brown

BOSTON -- Having signed up for Scott Brown’s text message service for election day, I just got this text: Are you about to have lunch? It’s a great time to

MA-Sen: Out-of-Staters for Brown

BOSTON -- A surprising discovery at yesterday’s People’s Rally in Worcester was just how many people had traveled into the state to assist, in whatever way,

MA-Sen Photos: ‘Paint the Town Red! Croakley’s Dead!’

Below are some photos of yesterday’s People’s Rally in Worcester, the rally that Brown held to counter-program the Obama rally in Boston. The crush of

Menendez, Lautenberg to Continue BP-Lockerbie Investigation

Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, both New Jersey Democrats, will continue to seek details about BP’s alleged involvement in the release last year of

Net Investors Bullish on Palin’s Prospects for Staying on Ticket

Just for fun, the Internet prediction Website Intrade has opened a contract on whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will be withdrawn as McCain’s running mate.

No Experience Necessary

Gov. Sarah Palin’s a middle-class hockey mom, but does that really qualify her to be vice president?

© Copyright 2021 The Washington Independent All Rights Reserved

Terms & Privacy | twi.news@washingtonindependent.com

Click here to check the ultimate guide to learn how to leverage your PC and internet to make money online.