LibertyFirst
04-07-2009, 10:55 PM
1.) Washington Post
The Constitution's Reach
4/7/2009
Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dealt a serious blow to the Obama administration last week when he ruled that certain detainees at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan are entitled to federal court review of their cases...
More at:
http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040603338.html
2.) Before this ruling, the Obama administration ruled that some 600 enemy combatants at Bagram had no constitutional rights.
BBC
'No Us rights' for Bagram inmates
2/21/2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7903005.stm
3.) Charlie Savage (a liberal lion if ever there was one), who went after George Bush several times when he was president, ripped into Obama for embracing pretty much the same anti-terrorism strategies that the Bush administration embraced. He says that Obama wants to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone. As Glenn Greenwald says, it will hard for Obama supporters to dismiss away the observations of Charlie Savage.
Salon.com
Glenn Greenwald
2/18/2009
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/18/savage/
4.) Human rights lawyers have been angry at the steps the Obama administration has taken since Obama was elected president, with Obama wanting to have prisons (Bagram air base) created and run outside of the law. The Obama administration has plans to expand the Bagram air base to hold up to 600 detainees. (Edited In: 1100 detainees actually).
Yep. Take the detainees out of Gitmo, and move them to Bagram.
5.) I like what Ed Morrisey had to say concerning Obama wanting to close Gitmo, but nevertheless adopting a much more cautious approach to the problem of detainees held elsewhere by the U.S. military.
Hot Air
Hope and Change Administration: Detainees have "no constitutional rights"
2/21/2009
Ed Morrisey
... Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position? I'd like to see how they square the circle with Obama now. A few like Glenn Greenwald will rip Obama on principle, but the rest will suddenly discover the reasonableness of detaining terrorists and treating them not like burglars but like enemy combatants who have themselves violated Geneva Conventions through their terrorism. Just as we did in the Bush administration. All statements from Barack Obama come with expiration dates. That's something that the HopeandChangezoids have begun to learn... A lot of them owe Bush - and us - apologies.
More at:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/21/hope-and-change-administration-detainees-have-no-constitutional-rights/
Yes, apologies are indeed due. "Hope and Change"? Riiiight. Puhleeze. Statements from Obama do indeed come with expiration dates. Those who were suckered and voted for Obama are going to see that this judges ruling isn't the end of it. Obama will fight this, and this flip-flopping from Obama will continue throughout his term.
The Constitution's Reach
4/7/2009
Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dealt a serious blow to the Obama administration last week when he ruled that certain detainees at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan are entitled to federal court review of their cases...
More at:
http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040603338.html
2.) Before this ruling, the Obama administration ruled that some 600 enemy combatants at Bagram had no constitutional rights.
BBC
'No Us rights' for Bagram inmates
2/21/2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7903005.stm
3.) Charlie Savage (a liberal lion if ever there was one), who went after George Bush several times when he was president, ripped into Obama for embracing pretty much the same anti-terrorism strategies that the Bush administration embraced. He says that Obama wants to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone. As Glenn Greenwald says, it will hard for Obama supporters to dismiss away the observations of Charlie Savage.
Salon.com
Glenn Greenwald
2/18/2009
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/18/savage/
4.) Human rights lawyers have been angry at the steps the Obama administration has taken since Obama was elected president, with Obama wanting to have prisons (Bagram air base) created and run outside of the law. The Obama administration has plans to expand the Bagram air base to hold up to 600 detainees. (Edited In: 1100 detainees actually).
Yep. Take the detainees out of Gitmo, and move them to Bagram.
5.) I like what Ed Morrisey had to say concerning Obama wanting to close Gitmo, but nevertheless adopting a much more cautious approach to the problem of detainees held elsewhere by the U.S. military.
Hot Air
Hope and Change Administration: Detainees have "no constitutional rights"
2/21/2009
Ed Morrisey
... Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position? I'd like to see how they square the circle with Obama now. A few like Glenn Greenwald will rip Obama on principle, but the rest will suddenly discover the reasonableness of detaining terrorists and treating them not like burglars but like enemy combatants who have themselves violated Geneva Conventions through their terrorism. Just as we did in the Bush administration. All statements from Barack Obama come with expiration dates. That's something that the HopeandChangezoids have begun to learn... A lot of them owe Bush - and us - apologies.
More at:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/21/hope-and-change-administration-detainees-have-no-constitutional-rights/
Yes, apologies are indeed due. "Hope and Change"? Riiiight. Puhleeze. Statements from Obama do indeed come with expiration dates. Those who were suckered and voted for Obama are going to see that this judges ruling isn't the end of it. Obama will fight this, and this flip-flopping from Obama will continue throughout his term.