Gitmo vs. Bagram? Thank God for Obama double-standard.
Helen Thomas to Robert Gibbs: "Why is the president blocking habeus corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law. And these prisoners have been..."
Robert Gibbs: "You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law"
Why shouldn't the Bagram detainees have the same rights that Gitmo detainees are now provided under Boumediene v. Bush?
I guess Obama figured out that Bush was right. I'm glad that there's such a difference between the past Obama rhetoric and the new Obama reality. As it pertains to Bagram, the Adminsitration is saying that giving detainees such rights as habeus corpus could lead to protracted litigation, disclosure of intelligence secrets and harm to American security.
The US needs the flexibility to detain people we know to be dangerous. Thankfully Obama is realizing this as it pertains to Bagram.
Robert Gibbs: "You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law"
Why shouldn't the Bagram detainees have the same rights that Gitmo detainees are now provided under Boumediene v. Bush?
I guess Obama figured out that Bush was right. I'm glad that there's such a difference between the past Obama rhetoric and the new Obama reality. As it pertains to Bagram, the Adminsitration is saying that giving detainees such rights as habeus corpus could lead to protracted litigation, disclosure of intelligence secrets and harm to American security.
The US needs the flexibility to detain people we know to be dangerous. Thankfully Obama is realizing this as it pertains to Bagram.
Advertisement
Why didn't you offer a link to the Press briefing where Helen Thomas asked the question. Better yet, why didn't you copy/paste Gibbs' real answer, instead of his cute first response?
Attempting to grayscale the differences between Guantanamo Bay and Bagram? Bagram is a detention facility in an active theatre of war. The recent memorandum decision by Judge John D. Bates, regarding Bagram, applied very narrowly to prisoners who were captured outside of Afghanistan, and are not Afghan citizens. I agreed with the decision, but upon reading the DOJ appeal, realised that it is lightly flawed, as it would apply to POWs who were picked up just over the border in Pakistan, and that is not proper. The memorandum needs to be amended to reflect this. Persons captured in the course of American troops operating in the Afghanistan theatre are POWs, and as long as they are detained under the Geneva Convention Regarding the Treatment of POWs, ARE NOT entitled to habeas corpus appeals.
Quit conflating, desperately attempting to paint Obama as Bush.
April 21, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how the location of the facility makes any difference (an "active theater of war") nor where they are picked up or what their nationality is. It could be in Saudi Arabia and I don't see how that makes any difference as to the rights of the prisoners.
I don't think the Administration raised any of your points. They are objecting to the decision because it's not flexible enough.
And I put in the "initial" response because it shows how glib Mr. Gibbs can be. Plus his "real" answer didn't say much more. It was a bunch of rhetoric, no substance.
April 22, 2009 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
PseudoCyAnts beat me to the issue of cutting off the quote, which is cheap as well as desperate.
In fact, it sucks. No wonder you have to consistently recommend your own blogs.
April 21, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
trucknutz!!!
Also.
Or buttsects!!!
Possibly both.
And also.
April 21, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
sleazy trucknutz!! and
buttsecks!!
Double also. Definitely both.
April 21, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez. You awake?
April 21, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not cheap or desperate. The full response from the Mr. Gibbs did not shed any additional light into why Bagram is different than Gitmo.
April 22, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Argument cheat.
April 21, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also.
April 21, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wot I was thinking.
Also.
April 21, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are few things as clear in our constitution as the words regarding habeas corpus because there are few principles the founders felt so unanimously about:
It's as true now as it was during the Bush years; we are in neither a case of rebellion nor of invasion. Finding reasons why anyone subject to US governmental compulsion cannot force the government to comply with its own Constitution - the supreme law of the land - is grounds for impeachment on failure to protect and defend that same Constitution.
April 21, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geneva Convention Regarding The Reatment of POWs controls, as long as detainees are being held according to its terms.
US Constitution; Article VI; Clause 2:
The Supreme Law of the Land.
April 22, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to add the obvious. What Bush did was try to assert that NEITHER the Constitution nor Geneva Convention applied to detainees.
Obama isn't perfect, but he sure as hell isn't Bush.
April 22, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it is saying the the US Constitution, including any treaties we make, will supersede state constitutions and laws. It doesn't necessarily say international treaties will supersede the US Constitution, which clearly allows for suspension of certain rights in the interest of public safety.
I would say at best this argument is a wash, because a case could be made that this situation is a public safety issue and the founders might have agreed. They were very quick to compromise ideals for political expediency, as many lamented in their later years when the weight of governing was no longer on their shoulders. We have a long history of ignoring the Constitution when deemed appropriate under both parties and for uncountable reasons.
What I would like to see is a set of governing guidelines that didn't contradict themselves or leave legalistic loopholes that many American presidents have driven trucks through over the last 230 years. It is long past time to take Thomas Jefferson's advice and do a page one rewrite on all of our governing documents.
April 22, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Federal Farmer, no. 4"", October 12, 1787
"The Bricker Amendment: A Cure Worse Than The Disease?", TIme Magazine, July 13, 1953
April 22, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, that was an interesting article from Time. I had read the Farmer in class a while back.
April 22, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the Geneva Conventions are very clear about who is afforded protection under its terms. As I understand it, only military members in the uniform of a sovereign nation are considered as force of arms. Is that correct?
What status do all other people have under Geneva?
You see what I'm getting at? AFAIK, Geneva only applies to a very select class of people. Everybody else should come under the protection of the Constitution wrt habeas corpus.
April 22, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who gets treated as a POW is covered in The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; Part 1; Article 4. Read Article 4(A1), and tell me what you think.
Additionally, Article 5; paragraph 2, is of important relevance considering that many persons were detained as unlawful combatants on Presidential order only:
There is no way that a presidential edict can be construed as a "competent tribunal", which means that any combatant in a theater of war, who was determined to be an unlawful combatant without first receiving a competent tribunal process to make the determination is being held in violation of the Geneva Convention Relative to POWs.
April 23, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So from a cursory reading of your link, there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions that says Habeas shall not apply to POWs. Do I read that correctly?
And certainly the conditions under which Habeas can be suspended under our Constitution do not exist.
Then as the Constitution and any correctly approved treaties are the Supreme Law of the US, Habeas should apply to all detainees, whether they are prisoners of war or not. Is that correct? Or am I missing something?
April 23, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Convention recognizes the right of a a State actor to protect itself from a "prejudicial" bestowing of rights by this convention.
Additionally, it recognizes all bad actors are not only possibly not adherents to the convention, but in fact, other players of a nefarious type to the adherent state akin to spies/saboteurs which may be held incommunicado as per the convention. However, due process is determined by the security needs of the State in the "speedy trial aspect, but definitley in a prescribed timeframe after cessation of hostilities/occupation.
It should be noted prisoner/detainee handling and disposition is a carefully measured process of our military organization.
The following is a more complete citation of the referenced article:
Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
June 21, 2009 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interpretative and too narrow a context evidenced.
June 21, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink