One of the things I disliked most about the most recent President Bush was his blatant disregard for human rights and the constitution. This was perhaps best embodied by his insistence that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had no rights, including habeas corpus. Now, in a clear and excellent article Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com tells us that President Obama is attempting to replicate the legal blackhole that was Guantanamo at Bagram Air Base in Afganistan. This cannot be allowed to occur.
From Glenn Greewald:
Then-candidate Obama issued a statement lavishly praising that ruling:
"Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach."
http://www.salon.com/...
These moving words were inspiring to me. They led me to believe that we would have a president who got it. A president who valued human life and civil rights. A president who would do right even when it might be unpopular. Thus, it is with great dismay that I see a recurrence of the tactics of the previous administration. President Obama and his DOJ filled an appeal that Guantanamo detainees should not have habeas rights.
http://www.scotusblog.com/...
Even more troubling is the appearance that the administration is engaging in a shell game, closing some bases while opening others. Indeed, Eric Schmitt at the New York Times in discussing prisoners held at Bagram reports that:
The prisoners — two Yemenis and a Tunisian — say that they were captured outside Afghanistan and taken to Bagram, and that they have been held for more than six years without trials. Arguing that they were not enemy combatants, the detainees want a civilian judge to review the evidence against them and order their release, under the constitutional right of habeas corpus.
The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, has rejected this argument. Officials say the importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has risen under the Obama administration, which barred the Central Intelligence Agency from using its secret prisons for long-term detention and ordered the military prison at Guantánamo closed within a year.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
It seems the argument is that: since the administration is no longer allowed to keep secret prisoners at known CIA black prisons and Guantanamo Bay it needs a new place to use where it can avoid giving prisoners any rights. I rejected that argument under Bush and I reject it under Obama. It's nonsense and it's dangerous.
This is my first post on Daily Kos. I hope the material is appropriate to this site.