Much Like Bush
Obama seems inclined to have the legal right to detainee non citizens indefinitely.
The Obama administration on Friday dropped the Bush-era term “enemy combatant” to describe its anti-terror prisoners …
… but vigorously defended its broad rights to hold detainees who provided “substantial” support to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
Justice Department lawyers said Obama can continue to hold the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison without criminal charges – much in the way President George W. Bush did.
Obama said during the campaign he would close Guantanamo Bay and has begun a process to shutter the military prison on the island of Cuba within a year. But in the legal filings Friday, his administration defended Obama’s powers to hold prisoners there, preserving that right even as Obama’s team tries to figure out what to do with the 241 men held there.
Critics of Guantanamo Bay prison were quick to say that Obama was backing off his pledge to change the policies of Bush. The Center for Constitutional Rights has released a response calling the DOJ’s decision “old wine in new bottles.”
“While the new government has abandoned the term ‘Enemy Combatant,’ it appears on first reading that whatever they call those they claim the right to detain, they have adopted almost the same standard the Bush administration used to detain people without charge,” said a statement from the group, which represents some of the detainees.
I look forward to my readers who were critical of Bush’s decision to be the same of Obama’s decision to maintain this option.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Boo Obama.
Though given the unsavory position of figuring out what to do with these fellas, I’m sure we’d all probably do the same thing. Nevertheless, it still feels wrong to me.
I want to know what the long-term plan is for these guys (assuming there is one). A major argument against charging these guys is that the evidence presented would put our national security at risk. While this is possible, holding these guys also puts us at risk. I’m sure the friends and families of the detainees are not the biggest fans of America.
So are we just waiting until we win the War on Terror before charging these guys with war crimes? The War on Terror is an amorphous fear mechanism with no visible enemy and no victory conditions, so we need to figure out some sort of legal framework to at least appear to be the benevolent nation we want the world to see.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:32 am
If we were at war, I would find actions like this acceptable. We kind-of are at war. The problem with the global war on terror is that we don’t have any defined way of knowing when it’s going to end, so we can’t define how long we are going to keep these guys locked up without any kind of hearing. As I recall, the military is part of the government, and therefore still shouldn’t be trusted. The fact that bush didn’t come up with a good way to deal with this situation bothers me. Obama seems to be in the same camp though now that he’s in office.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Am I the only person who is not bothered by the indefinite detainment of non-citizens that are not claimed by any other country? Furthermore, presidential representative of opposing political parties who have viewed the evidence have both come to the conclusion that this kind of detainment is acceptable.
It nice to have your ideals and to believe childish things like everyone is good on the insides, but at some point you have to be willing to view indefinite detainment from a view other than ideology. If two very different presidents have access to information that you don’t have and they both come to conclusion that some of these detainees should never be released, may be it’s time to take a more practical position in this argument. Maybe instead of viewing indefinite detainment through the unaccountable Pollyanna eyes of ideological purity you consider the view of those that must protect the citizenry from those that wish to harm citizens. Many of which are currently being detained indefinitely simply to keep them from killing citizens.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
By your logic, these people have no more rights than animals. We can detain them indefinitely without trial or even formal charges. Ok, fine, then we could enslave them, make them work. Or, perhaps their organs should be harvested, to keep citizens alive. It’s not like they have a country to stand up for them. Perhaps we should use them as subjects for experiments. Since they have no rights or country we do not need to stick to normal ethics standards. Or maybe we should just execute them. If they are truly a threat to me, then why are we even keeping them alive? Seems like they might escape one day to nuke New York City.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
BTW Steve, I think it’s really funny that you’re a Pragmatist when it comes to torturing people or locking them up forever without trial, but an Idealist when it comes to the trade and disposition of little green pieces of paper. You’re perfetly willing to reject pragmatic solutions that improve lives but interfere with free markets based on ideological concerns, but you don’t mind torturing people.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Darwin,
I’m open to your characterization being correct but I’m going to need to you to point to some examples.
Michael,
The state should have the freedom to do those things. However, the vast majority of those options I would never endorse and would vote against candidates that would support them.
Just because the state can do those things doesn’t mean it should.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“Just because the state can do those things doesn’t mean it should.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Then you agree with me!