After being in office for only a couple days, President Obama issued an executive order that would close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. At the same time, he issued an executive order setting up a task force to review detainee policy, which would consider the options for apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, or release of detainees. The task force was given 180 days to complete the task.
One month later, it seems the decision on detainee rights is in.
According to Obama's Justice Department, detainees don't have rights. They are prisoners of war ('enemy combatants' if you prefer). Obama has kept the Bush policy in place.
President Barack Obama's administration has sided with predecessor George W. Bush on the rights of detainees at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, saying they cannot challenge their detention in US courts.
In a two-sentence court filing Friday, the US Justice Department said "the government adheres to its previously articulated position" of denying habeas corpus rights to Bagram detainees, backing a similar decision by the Bush administration.
This isn't going over well with left wingers who don't understand why enemy combatants aren't granted the full rights of American citizenship, and can't have their cases heard by Judge Judy.
"The decision by the Obama administration to adhere to a position that has contributed to making our country a pariah around the world for its flagrant disregard of people's human rights is deeply disappointing," said Barbara Olshansky, lead counsel for three of four [Bagram] detainees.
Sane people, on the other hand, realize that releasing enemy combatants while the war is ongoing allows those enemy combatants to engage you on the battlefield again. So, if you actually want to win the war, you don't do things that are directly destructive to the war effort, like freeing enemy forces. For those on the left who might be confused by this, further information can be found in the book War Tactics For Dummies.
In related news, the results of Obama's Pentagon review of conditions at the Guantanamo Bay prison are in. The Pentagon reports the treatment of the Gitmo prisoners meets the legal requirements of the Geneva Convention.
Again, the lefties are unhappy with our new Commander In Chief.
"We do think conditions are in violation of U.S. obligations to treat prisoners humanely, and prisoners are at a physical and mental breaking point," said Pardiss Kebriaei, a staff lawyer at the [Center For Constitutional Rights]. "These are not the conclusions we had hoped for under Obama. It's very disappointing."
I guess they were hoping Obama would order the Pentagon to say we treat the Gitmo detainees like dogs, regardless of the facts.
Now that Obama is ramping up the war in Afghanistan by sending 17,000 more troops there, and has continued striking Pakistan with Predator drones, and is denying rights to enemy combatants, I have to ask the left…
Is Obama a fascist war criminal and terrorist yet ? Is it time to impeach him and try him for war crimes along with Bush ? If not, why not ? I can't wait to hear your response.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
"The Pentagon reports the treatment of the Gitmo prisoners meets the legal requirements of the Geneva Convention."
Like asking the fox inside the henhouse…."Are the chickens comfortable?"
And this oldie and not-so-goodie…
"Sane people, on the other hand, realize that releasing enemy combatants while the war is ongoing allows those enemy combatants to engage you on the battlefield again. So, if you actually want to win the war, you don't do things that are directly destructive to the war effort, like freeing enemy forces."
Who have we declared war on? What country? Where's the "battlefield", and I need specifics here. Where in any of America's history of conflict do we find the description/definition for "enemy combatant?"
Obama's administration is going slowly to undue the obviously criminal rules put in place by the last president. He's closing Gitmo. He's ending torture.
I do not agree with the statement concerning Bagram.
Your post makes it seem like we are at war with the entire world. The entire world is the battlefield and every world citizen, at least, a potential "enemy combatant."
So let's get this straight… Rev doesn't know who we're fighting, the fact that we aren't fighting a specific country, but rather an organization, where the majority of the fighting is taking place or even what "enemy combatant" means!!
But don't worry, he has an opinion on it.
Come on Reverend–Obama should be turned over to the UN and charged with crimes against humanity. He is a criminal!
King says: " Is Obama a fascist war criminal and terrorist yet ? Is it time to impeach him and try him for war crimes along with Bush ? If not, why not ? I can't wait to hear your response."
I loved your questions and was sure that old Rev would be right there with an answer to at least one of those questions. He didn't even attempt to answer any of them but did manage to attack Bush without mentioning his name. I wonder why Rev was so ambitious to answer you and then failed to do so. I think I know and am sure that if I do, you do, too. We have been reading him too long not to know him.
In case the good Rev didn't notice Obama is Commander in Chief, therefore he is supposed to be in charge of the Pentagon. He has also not stopped an illegal war in Pakistan, unless the declaration of war is hidden in the stimulus bill just passed. He is also killing civilians in Afghanistan. When will this madman be stopped??? It appears that the only difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama wants to spend money even faster than Bush. Maybe Obama was "McSame" and McCain was "Change you can believe in".
What we have is a law enforcement problem. We are faced with a small, stateless, extremist-anarchist group hellbent on blowing stuff up and killing Westerners.
There really is no military answer to this law enforcement problem…..even though, at times, the military may be called upon.
Bigfooted military blow-sh*t-up methodology only makes the problem worse, new recruiting made easier.
Holbrooke said last night that he really didn't want to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, either, but the country is right on the edge of totally coming apart.
Let's be clear, however. Obama inherited this large bag of sh*t. He didn't make it. He's been president for just a bit over a month……keeping in mind that W. had us in Afghanistan for 7 full years, at the end of which conditions were worse than ever.
Re-thinking the whole 2001 decision to attack the nation of Afghanistan…..I currently believe that the Taliban should have been left in power…..and the U.S. should have put ALL it's efforts into covert coalition strike force operations to actually kill the, you know, al-Qaeda guys.
But no…..we had to be stupid like the Soviets.
At least Obama knows which country to attack!The one where the terrorists were based and trained by Bin Ladin with the blessing of the Taliban which is back in operation,Bubba! If the guys who attacked us on 9/11 want to hide in mnts.of Pakistan we need to get them there too.It was the decision to pull troops and firepower from one front[the right one:Afghanistan]and opening up a second in Iraq that many of us questioned.Then on top of this blunder they decide in no particular order to; bypass weapons and chemical dumps that were being looted by the populace[the mission morphed into Capturing Saddam at all costs],Then as they proceed to destroy all the infrastructure and kill innocent civilians along the way[remember this all started because 15 Saudi's and 4 others[ NO Iraqi's ]killed 3,000 of ours].Now,what to do with detainees?Well,since it's all about winning hearts and minds,lets abuse them, take pictures and then release some who can spread the good word.When they return the favor by shooting at us,well we will just pay them to stop.While we're paying out US $$$$ lets pay the local newspapers to write favorable stories.This is a great introduction to democracy for the region.They'll never notice this and other subtle inconsistencies like supporting oppressive regimes and overthrowing ones less friendly to our interests.
Bush did what worked and it turned out great with no attacks! Taking it to those A-rabs instead of waiting for them to attack us again was genius! No attacks on U.S. soil in seven plus years! A miracle!
So I guess it is OK to send covert operations into another country in direct violation of international law to capture and kill terrorists, but then you can't use torture to find out what future operations they are planning. If you are going to be violating international law anyway why not go the full nine yards? And Tbomb my point, and da King's, is whay is it OK for Obama to conduct an illegal war and not be a war criminal? Obama obviously can get Congress to agrtee to what he wants, so if he wants to bomb Pakistan why not get a declaration of war? Let's be legal about this.
Well, well. The Obama-ites completely ignored the questions I posed, along with the entire subject of this post about detainee rights. Can't say I'm a bit surprised by that.
The Reverend says we should have left the Taliban in power at the same time he says Obama had no choice but to send 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan to PREVENT THE TALIBAN FROM RETURNING TO POWER. Uniquely Reverend illogic. But what do you expect from a guy who can't figure out we're at war after 7 years of WAR. Two wars, actually. BOTH approved by Congress, as the Constitution requires.
And Rev, as to the sad state of affairs in Afghanistan, what do you think it was like there before under Taliban rule, some kind of picnic ? How quickly you pretend to forget.
Thanks Bubba, for pointing out the one military action that has not been approved by Congress, and therefore would be the only possible illegal one by our constitutional standards – Pakistan.
I don't remember any outcry from the left when Clinton attacked Bosnia and Iraq without the consent of Congress either, for the record. I guess only military actions by Republican presidents are criminal. Military actions by Democratic presidents are acceptable.
The verdict is in and looks like BHO is guilty of war crimes.
He was derided by Hollywood last night for this wasn't he? C'mon, surely Sean Penn and crew are just besides themselves over BHO continuing W's policies.
Grasp for that equivalency…grasp away.
Too many factual errors to even respond to….but I'll make an exception for larry, who said this…
" No attacks on U.S. soil in seven plus years! A miracle!"
First….it is not true…unless the anthrax letters were not an "attack" on American soil.
Second….the first WTC bombing took place in 1993, when Clinton was president. There were no more attacks "on U.S soil" until 2001….8 years.
Was that period of leadership by Clinton also a "miracle?"
And what Tbomb said.
You liberals are still avoiding the main point.
And I'm still not surprised.
Double standard to shield Obama. Hypocrites.
"First….it is not true…unless the anthrax letters were not an "attack" on American soil."
Those were in Sept/Oct. of 2001, no? That sure seems like seven plus years to me!
Bush is genius and with the good Lord's help pulled off another miracle, Reverend!
I do love how you fellows cling to those anthrax attacks, though.
Larry,the Bush version of Homeland Security has failed virtually every test conducted by the GAO from the smuggling of weapons through airport security to trespassing onto nuclear sites,gaining access to food and water facilities,vulnerable power grids and on and on.We did manage to nab some members of an essentially homeless sect-cult whose crime was to act on the ideas of the highly paid felon informant like writing a letter to Al-Qaeda requesting guns and shiny black uniforms and talking about blowing up the Sears Tower.And the same story in New jersey,mentally challenged incompetents yapping about lighting a gas pipeline to blow up the East coast snitched on by another highly paid informant looking at doing serious time …unless. But when the GAO carries a large duffle marked"hazardous waste"into the U.S. from Canada ,acts suspiciously then finally calls the U.S.border patrol and still an your later …nothing.Wimpy II and Rove's stratagy was to ride it out and pray that nothing big would happen on their watch
I just love how the anti-Bushies downplay all the terrorist attacks that were stopped during the Bush years, as if they were some kind of frat-house prank, but then they list off all the things Bush SHOULD have done, the abscence of which resulted in NO terrorist attacks.
Here's a list of 19 terrorist attacks that were stopped since 9/11.
http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
Please point me to any other president who has a better record stopping terrorists than George W. Bush. There isn't even a close second.
And how about those enemy combatants not being granted rights by Obama ?
That was the subject, as much as some are trying to change it.
Maybe taking the fight overseas, locking up enemy combatants and monitoring terrorists' phone use and banking are more important to national security than relying on $10 an hour border workers or disinterested baggage handlers.
Bush figured that out before the rest of us and you can't argue with the results–truly genius!
Why not just get your stats from Rush? The Heritage Foundation?
You didn't disprove any of it.
Granted, you won't get that information on the DailyKos or from Olbermann. Gee, I wonder why ?
My guess about your question, King, would be that they don't worry about factual information unless is suits their agenda to put out some facts. Olbermann would surely still be in sports broadcasting if he relied on facts for his stuff.
Tell me something, wizbangers….
Who in the hell was president when the worst attack on American soil was successfully carried out?
Which freaking president was in office when Richard Clarke practically begged him to be concerned about Bin Laden/al-Qaeda?
Additionally, larry….I noticed you ignored the Clinton "miracle" as defined by your Bush-idolatry standard of 7+ years of "no attacks on our soil". I wonder why you would ignore that? Well….no I don't.
I do agree with King's main theme in his post.
Obama is making a huge mistake by continuing, even a little bit, the enemy combatant malarkey in the Bagram case.
Obama is also wrong about continuing Bush's version of "state secrets." Totally unacceptable.
I expect he hasn't had enough time….because NO ONE knew the extent of the Bush-Cheney-Rove criminality…..to come up with a plan to right the numerous wrongs.
If that is NOT the case…then Obama will be constantly attacked from the left…..and rightfully so.
However, the whining about our attacks in Pakistan is just that….whining. If we have a current enemy….it is al-Qaeda. To defeat that enemy, it is necessary, unlike Bush-Cheney, to fight where the enemy is located instead of where they aren't located.
Rev asks, "Who in the hell was president when the worst attack on American soil was successfully carried out?"
Let's see….that would be….FDR.
Rev asks, "Which freaking president was in office when Richard Clarke practically begged him to be concerned about Bin Laden/al-Qaeda?"
Um….Clinton and Bush. Though to simply be "concerned" about Bin Laden is a bit too vague to be actionable.
Here's one for you. Which president had his administration erect an intelligence 'wall', preventing our different intelligence and law enforcement agencies from sharing information, which in turn prevented them from busting Atta and Moussaoui, which would have exposed the 9/11 plot ?
The difference between the Bush and Clinton eras is this:
Bush apprehended or killed hundreds of terrorists, overthrew terrorist supporting and rogue governments, stopped many terrorist plots in the U.S. and overseas, beefed up Homeland Security, enhanced our intelligence gathering, monitored the finances and communications of international terrorists, etc, etc…
Clinton lobbed a missile into Afghanistan the night before the Lewinsky hearing.
Thanks Rev, for finally addressing the point of my post, even though you fudged by offering excuses for Obama where you don't for Bush.
I'll take your words to mean Obama is an international war criminal and should be prosecuted, consistent with the views of the left about Bush. I don't share those views, but, hey, the left is in charge now, so, let's start the trials !