Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review

salon ^ | May 21, 2010 | Glenn Greenwald

[george76]

Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court.

Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo.

So congratulations to the United States and Barack Obama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world and then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind...when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:

" As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .

By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . ."

[KevinDavis]

Where is the ACLU?? Hello???

[muawiyah]

Baghram is certainly a step up from Guantanamo (/s).

[etraveler13]

Giving habeas corpus rights to a terrorist, who is not a US citizen, is not against the constitution, nor is it against the geneva convention or the hague accords. As with Bush, these people are enemy combatants, arrested and detained in the act of terrorism and harm to US soldiers or our allies. Obama fought it when it was fashionalbe to do so, but now that he is the CIC, he realizes that to get information that saves lives, and take dangerous people off the battlefield, this is a military necessity. Of course, what is not said in the SALON article is that they do have hearings, but they are Military Hearings. This was designed to keep Enemy Combatants out of Civilian Courts. This rightly is to be handled by the Military IMO.

[Oceander]

[Islaminaction]

If this was Bush doing this, the left would be screaming from the rooftops. Where are they now, too afraid to criticize their God?

[white17x]

Obama said....”As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . .” while speaking about the military commissions act.

Since it (the habeas denial in the Act) only applied to non-citizens, I can see why he might be concerned.

[Steely Tom]

If this was Bush doing this, the left would be screaming from the rooftops. Where are they now, too afraid to criticize their God?

It was all politics then and it's all politics now.

[WOBBLY BOB]

same place they are with Obama’s church & state mix of gorebull warming and leftist churches...quiet as church mice.

[WOBBLY BOB]

Obama’s NSA eavesdropping goes beyond that of Bush... after campaigning on the promise of: “ No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me!”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

headlines read:” NSA Exceeds Legal Limits In Eavesdropping Program” , “ U.S. phone intercepts go beyond legal limits” , and “NSA Found Improperly Spying on Americans”.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123985123667923961.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE53F09820090416

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/justice-dept-nsa-improperly-spied-americans/

[detective]

Gee, the article says Obama is a liar and a hypocrite. What a surprise. I never would have guessed in a million years.

[AK_47_7.62x39]

thank you GEORGE W Obama. There is functionally NO DIFFERENCE between these two in the are of personal privacy and liberties. None. It is good to see conservatives finally waking up to the issue....,even if it is about 10 years late.

[Ancient Drive]

nah... say it ain’t so.. Obamie? nah... /s

[AK_47_7.62x39]

Where is the ACLU?? Hello???

Still hung over from the "head up our @$$" party George W threw the past few years? Just a guess.

[AK_47_7.62x39]

and NO, I am not an O fan. I despise him for the same reasons I despised GW, at least in this area. In other areas he is far worse.

I just think the righteous skirt snatching by dyed in the wool Bush fans is ridiculous in view of the horrid record he had in this area.

[Islaminaction]

Obama sure lies a lot.

[The Comedian]

A tragedy occurred today during an attempted domestic exercise of the Obama Abduction Directive...

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Hoodat]

A federal judge had already ruled that the inmates of Bagram are entitled to the same Constitutional protections granted to the inmated at Guantanamo. The Obama Justice Dept has just won their appeal of that decision. Yet more hypocrisy from the left, and yet another attack against equal protection. Personally, I believe this decision by the DC Court of Appeals renders the earlier decision granting rights to Guantanamo detainees null and void.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I disagree strongly with most of the things Greenwald writes, but at least he’s one of the few journalists on the Left willing to hold Obama to the same standards he held Bush to.

[al baby]

You might want to have that removed