BAGRAM IS THE NEW GUANTANAMO BAY
May. 24th, 2010 11:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the right of the US govt to arrest abduct people and ship them off to Bagram (like Gitmo, but further away) with no habeas corpus rights of any kind, and thus no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a US federal court.
The reason: unlike Gitmo, where detainees do have at least a right to habeus corpus thanks to a 2008 court ruling, that same ruling doesn’t apply to war zones.
Like Afghanistan, for example.
Here’s what that means, according to Glenn Greenwald:
Which is ironic, considering that, during the 2008 campaign, John McCain was highly in favor of keeping Bagram a legal black hole, and Obama was dead set against it. And now the Obama admin is essentially fighting for the legal right to do what Bush did and what McCain would have continued.
Not that this is yr problem, as long as the govt doesn’t think yr a terrorist. I’m just saying.
But it’s times like this I marvel at how so many people just seem to accept this as though it’s the way things have to be now that 9/11 changed everything. Where’s the Tea Party outrage over excessive govt power when you need it?
Admittedly, the Tea Parties are probably making it tough for the same left-wing contingent who were furious back when it was Bush doing these things from staging protests against Obama’s foreign policy decisions. What if some Tea Party members actually showed up to support you? I mean, how awkward would that be?
On the other hand, imagine the fun of a conservative Obama Socialism protest and a liberal Obama Foreign Policy protest showing up at the same place. Result: two protest groups fighting each other over who hates Obama for the right reasons.
Fox News wouldn’t know who to sponsor.
Will it blend,
This is dF
The reason: unlike Gitmo, where detainees do have at least a right to habeus corpus thanks to a 2008 court ruling, that same ruling doesn’t apply to war zones.
Like Afghanistan, for example.
Here’s what that means, according to Glenn Greenwald:
If you are in Thailand (as one of the petitioners in this case was) and the US abducts you and flies you to Guantanamo, then you have the right to have a federal court determine if there is sufficient evidence to hold you. If, however, President Obama orders that you be taken to from Thailand to Bagram rather than to Guantanamo, then you will have no rights of any kind, and he can order you detained there indefinitely without any right to a habeas review.
Which is ironic, considering that, during the 2008 campaign, John McCain was highly in favor of keeping Bagram a legal black hole, and Obama was dead set against it. And now the Obama admin is essentially fighting for the legal right to do what Bush did and what McCain would have continued.
Not that this is yr problem, as long as the govt doesn’t think yr a terrorist. I’m just saying.
But it’s times like this I marvel at how so many people just seem to accept this as though it’s the way things have to be now that 9/11 changed everything. Where’s the Tea Party outrage over excessive govt power when you need it?
Admittedly, the Tea Parties are probably making it tough for the same left-wing contingent who were furious back when it was Bush doing these things from staging protests against Obama’s foreign policy decisions. What if some Tea Party members actually showed up to support you? I mean, how awkward would that be?
On the other hand, imagine the fun of a conservative Obama Socialism protest and a liberal Obama Foreign Policy protest showing up at the same place. Result: two protest groups fighting each other over who hates Obama for the right reasons.
Fox News wouldn’t know who to sponsor.
Will it blend,
This is dF
