we can hope that the administration is waiting for the detainee review to be completed in July, but still wonder where any new prisoners from the escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be located.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/washington/03bagram.htmlBy CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: April 2, 2009
"...The importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has increased under the Obama administration, which prohibited the Central Intelligence Agency from using its secret prisons for long-term detention and ordered the military prison at Guantánamo closed within a year. The administration had sought to preserve Bagram as a haven where it could detain terrorism suspects beyond the reach of American courts, telling Judge Bates in February that it agreed with the Bush administration’s view that courts had no jurisdiction over detainees there.
Judge Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001, was not persuaded. He said transferring captured terrorism suspects to the prison inside Afghanistan and claiming they were beyond the jurisdiction of American courts “resurrects the same specter of limitless executive power the Supreme Court sought to guard against” in its 2008 ruling that Guantánamo prisoners have a right to habeas corpus...
...After taking office, Mr. Obama ordered a review of the evidence against each of the roughly 240 prisoners at Guantánamo as a first step toward closing the prison within a year.
He did not extend the steps he was taking to resolve the fate of the Guantánamo prisoners to those held at Bagram, although a comprehensive review of detainee policies is due to be completed in July. Ms. Foster said that the Bagram case may force the administration to speed up its decisions."
Obama administration to appeal Bagram detainees habeas ruling
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/04/obama-administration-to-appeal-bagram.php"...In seeking a stay of the proceedings during the appellate review process, the DOJ motion concluded:
...any potential for harm to petitioners in continued detention during appellate proceedings does not outweigh the need for a stay. First, the Government intends to seek expedited appellate review of the jurisdictional ruling in the April 2, 2009 Order. Second, the President has established, by Executive Order, a deliberative process to address questions concerning Executive detention authority and options. See Executive Order 13,493: Review of Detention Policy Options, 74 Fed. Reg. 4901 (Jan. 22, 2009). That Executive Order commands the creation of a Special Interagency Task Force to “conduct a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counter-terrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.” Id. ¶ (e). The Task Force is scheduled to provide preliminary reports to the President and a final report by July of this year. Id. In particular, the Task Force will be reviewing the processes currently in place at Bagram and elsewhere, and will make recommendations to the President regarding those processes.
In sum, the extensive harms to the Government and the public interest involved in further proceedings envisioned by the Court in these cases, and the likelihood of respondents’ success on the merits of appeal, strongly warrant a stay pending appeal."
Obama sticks to Bush detainee policy
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/11/Obama-sticks-to-Bush-detainee-policy/UPI-16001239474561"...In appealing a decision by U.S. District Judge John Bates, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd told the newspaper that because the administration is still reviewing its detainee policies, "we concluded that it was necessary to appeal this ruling," but he did not rule out a change of heart once the review is complete....
In its appeal, the Justice Department said the consequences of granting the Bagram detainees immediate access to U.S. courts would be severe. The department warned that if foreigners imprisoned at Bagram could legally challenge their incarcerations, the U.S. military wouldn't be able to hold captured Pakistani militants there for "security or centralized intelligence gathering" without having to defend the transfers in court, the Post reported."
Above previously posted here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=296546&mesg_id=296546Also Greenwald has commented on the case here...http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html"...Many of them have nothing to do with Afghanistan and were captured far, far away from that country -- abducted from their homes and workplaces -- and then flown to Bagram to be imprisoned.
Indeed, the Bagram detainees in the particular case in which the Obama DOJ filed its brief were Yemenis and Tunisians captured outside of Afghanistan (in Thailand or the UAE, for instance) and then flown to Bagram and locked away there as much as six years without any charges..."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(49 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
