Obama Administration To Appeal Ruling Granting Bagram Detainees Right To Habeas Hearing

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 09:34:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Obama Administration will take an appeal from the district court ruling granting Bagram detainees the right to a habeas hearing. This reaction sums it up:

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

Though these detainees are held in a battlezone, the argument is they were not captured in a battle zone. That argument should be tested in a court of law.

Speaking for me only

< Finally Going to Get Tough On The Banks? | Progressive In Their Time >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Administration To Appeal Ruling Granting Bagram Detainees Right To Habeas Hearing | 7 comments (7 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If I were cynical, I would say (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 09:52:42 AM EST

that this is why they were so quick to agree to close Gitmo. It's so easy to just send the prisoners to south Siberia instead.

Gee, who would ever have thought (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by Anne on Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 10:32:58 AM EST

that we'd have to be blinking our eyes to make sure we were correctly reading "Obama administration," instead of "Bush administration?"

I guess the disconnect between Obama's "words" in the campaign and his actions as president boil down it all being "different" now that he's in office and getting a taste of what real power is, huh?

Really not liking the feeling that gives me in the pit of my stomach, but I'm sure he'll be explaining any moment now why I just don't appreciate the magnitude of his responsibilities - you know, if I knew what he knew, I would understand.

Yesh, sure...

Wow only 6 comments (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by nellre on Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 04:52:32 PM EST

Perhaps Talkleft readers are left speechless?
Myself? I'm pretty angry.

WSWS: The Obama administration and torture (none / 0) (#3)
by Andreas on Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 10:34:07 AM EST

Th WSWS writes today:

On Thursday, Leon Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), issued an internal memo declaring the Obama administration's opposition to the investigation of intelligence personnel who carried out torture under the Bush administration.
The statement, announcing a blanket amnesty for those who have committed grave violations of international and human rights law, came on the heels of a leaked International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) report that detailed, and defined as torture, the CIA's horrifying "enhanced interrogation" methods. (See: Red Cross report details CIA war crimes)
...
Obama's protection of Bush administration officials and his continuation of its basic policies--whatever the change in rhetoric and tone--shows that these illegal and anti-democratic methods are the consensus policies of the US ruling elite.
The liberal and "left" groups that continue to claim that Obama can be pressured into defending democratic rights and enacting social reforms are only serving to cover up Washington's crimes.
It is not only a matter of justice that those who carried out torture be brought to justice. It is also a political necessity. Unless the crimes of the CIA and military are brought to light, the US ruling elite will eventually use these methods against its political opponents at home as well as abroad.

The Obama administration and torture
11 April 2009

"thePrez" is now, and always will be (none / 0) (#4)
by tokin librul on Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 10:59:04 AM EST

the faithful patsy of the elites.

If he were not, he wouldn't be where he is today. He be no closer to "power" than Cynthia McKinney or Dennis Kucenich.

Wow (none / 0) (#5)
by lentinel on Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 11:05:12 AM EST

It is not totally surprising - in fact it is not at all surprising, that Obama is taking this Bushish stance given his right-wing rhetoric during the campaign. It is truly annoying that during the campaign when the reality of Obama would be pointed out, the response would be that he had to say or do what he was doing or saying in order to get elected. Once elected, the mantra went, things would be different. In a pig's eye.

Once Obama went to Connecticut to endorse and campaign for Lieberman, that should have been "game over" for the likes of HuffPo and Kos. It didn't even enter the equation for them - so focused were they on some other not-quite-expressed agenda.

: Don't forget those (none / 0) (#6)
by ChiTownMike on Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 11:17:16 AM EST

visionary progressives in the Iowa caucuses who gave this chameleon a breath of life. So much for their progressive leadership. So much for rationale. So much for their vision. It's hard to see with egg and sh*t all over your face.