Welcome to PatsFans.com

No Guantánamo! Yes Bagram?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by atomdomb, Apr 14, 2009.

  1. atomdomb

    atomdomb Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    Whoops! Barack is making the loons sad again. I thought Rachel Maddow was going to cry last night.

    Obama moves to block court access for detainees in Afghanistan

    On Friday, the Obama administration announced it would appeal a federal district court ruling that would have granted three prisoners held in Afghanistan at the Bagram Air Base the right to sue for their release in US courts. The Justice Department also made a court filing requesting that District Judge John D. Bates halt the current habeas corpus cases of the men, pending the appeal.

    In its filing, the Obama administration argued that because Bagram is “in a theater of war where the nation’s troops are in harm’s way,” prisoners held there have no habeas corpus rights.

    Aside from the absence of a congressional declaration of war against Afghanistan, the strategists of the “war on terror” claim that hostilities have no foreseeable end, meaning that this war’s prisoners may be held indefinitely. Moreover, while claiming that prisoners at Bagram have no right to US courts because they are jailed in a theater of war, Washington insists that their incarceration is not governed by the international laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.

    “Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations,” her statement declared, “by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies ... President Obama today becomes complicit in the unjust and illegal detention of our clients.”

    Obama continues to wiretap, bomb Pakistan and now this. For the liberals it sadly looks like he will make an attempt to protect us from those that would do us harm. Ahhh, poor Rachel, I loved when she played tape of Barack defending Habeas Corpus, then he sh!t in her coffee with Bagram.:steamed:
     
  2. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    I have a problem with this as long as they aren't granted POW status.
     
  3. atomdomb

    atomdomb Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    This is the paragraph for you then.

    Aside from the absence of a congressional declaration of war against Afghanistan, the strategists of the “war on terror” claim that hostilities have no foreseeable end, meaning that this war’s prisoners may be held indefinitely. Moreover, while claiming that prisoners at Bagram have no right to US courts because they are jailed in a theater of war, Washington insists that their incarceration is not governed by the international laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.:(

    They aren't granted sh!t and haven't been granted it for six years. Obama wants those good times to continue.

    Obama’s moves to maintain illegal detention without judicial review at Bagram expose the cynicism and hypocrisy of his much vaunted plan to shut down the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay. As he escalates the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and continues to employ the criminal methods of the Bush administration, including rendition and indefinite detention, Obama wishes to reserve the right to continue to add prisoners to Bagram, the “larger, more secretive military detention facility,” according to the Times. :enranged:
     
  4. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    yeah. If treated with the rights of the geneva convention, I'm cool with locking up PPOWs......


    ughhhh, just read the POW updtae. I'm vomiting on my keyboard right now.....its tough to type. This shizzz stinks.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  5. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    well then there's another reason why I didn't vote for him. Like RW says, "meet the new people same as the old people."
     
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,266
    Likes Received:
    255
    Ratings:
    +992 / 2 / -9

    After His Highness Prince Barack was briefed on all things that Presidents should know he turned into a neo con but he will do his best to hide it, Barry now knows the "Real Threat" the terrorists pose to America and he is starting to act accordingaly Barry now knows that if he doesn't stand up to Radical Islam he and America are in big trouble because the Muslims are surely planning a "return visit".

    Left Wing Liberal Loons who "Love To Blame The Victim" won't be to happy to see a little bit of George Bush come out of their Beloved Beautiful Barry.

    We may even see Messiah take his new puppy and fly down to Crawford to get a little advice from the Hated Chimp...............

    Is this Maddow a man or a women........:confused:
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  7. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Actually, I take all that back. The conjecture about POW status is an assumption by the writer masked to look like it is fact, when he is posting unsourced opinion.


    "Moreover, while claiming that prisoners at Bagram have no right to US courts because they are jailed in a theater of war, Washington insists that their incarceration is not governed by the international laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war."


    somehow "Washington" is claiming that? who the fukc is "washington"? Obama ran saying they would uphold the law, and th egeneva convention. I have no reason to think for a minute that he will not. Its okay to keep POWs in a war theater, as long a sthey are treated as such.


    ands while we are at it. Most of the people detained in these prisons are coming FROM THE BATTLEFIELD. Nort rounded up at checkpoints in Oregon etc.
     
  8. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I lean towards them being POW's; but I have little objection to them being tried in US courts. The key difference between the current and former administrations is that Obama's appealing a court decision, which is a 100% legitimate court tactic, not telling said court to go pound sand. What's completely different between the two admins is that Obama's is willing to acknowledge the authority of the other branches of government.
     
  9. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,864
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +116 / 10 / -15

    #37 Jersey

    Wow I finally agree with the sock monkey on something.

    It is funny to see the Obamites defend this. You people are so laughable, you are just as weird as the moonies.
     
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,366
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +369 / 10 / -14



    Bingo Harry you are EXATLY CORRECT, the messiah was introduced to the reality of the scummy terrorist and his followers are screaming (maybe whining) heresy!!! :singing:
     
  11. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    The day Obama okays torture, I'm on your side. I'm fully against him. Until that day...

    an opinion piece ain't gunna cut it.

    This reminds me of the BS rendition thing some ultra conservative talking heads were throwing around a few months back. Turned out to be complete cow$h!t.
     
  12. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    who in this thread has defended this?
     
  13. atomdomb

    atomdomb Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    The key here is most. The judges ruling pertained only too the guys that were not taken on the battlefield. This refers to camel humpers taken in countries other than afghanistan. The judge said they should have habeas corpus. Obama says they shouldn't. They are not POWs. They are nothing.
     
  14. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    are we torturing these people? Are they held to an international standard of decency? Those are the real questions.

    I could give a $h!t less about this person's opinion of this. What I DO care about is Obama's stated stance on tourture, and our national policy to NOT DO IT. If he goes back on that he loses with me as a supporter of his.
     
  15. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,864
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +116 / 10 / -15

    #37 Jersey

    PatsFans Obamite #5

    I am sure we will get the exact thoughts from the poster after Craig Kilborn wanna-be has a say on it tonight.
     
  16. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey


    This whole BS SCREAMS of the BS rendition thing from before. Thats all I'm saying. The only thing this message board has to go on is an opinion piece on a ruling in afghanistan. The source the article quotes is "Washington".....

    As long as we are not torturing people, and treating them like humans while they are in our custody. I'm cool.

    The day we start torturing AGAIN, I'm on your side.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  17. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    He said he's not sure if the article is accurate, not that he'd defend it if it were true. Good comprehension skills though.



    Jon Stewart wants to be out of work?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  18. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Here is more on this....from a lawyer at Pitt...


    JURIST - Paper Chase: Obama administration to appeal Bagram detainees <i>habeas</i> ruling


    ...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.




    sounds a little different to me. Sounds like they want to inspect the policies in place already at this 'uber-secret' prison before simply granting these 4 individuals with habeus corpus. They will have a full opinion by July. The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same. We might wanna check up on that ruling...we might wanna hold it up, and check it out before just letting that one go.



    Whats so wrong with being fully informed, and checking $h!t out before making rash decisions on Bush policies?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  19. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,608
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    But it goes on to say:
    It goes on to describe much more detail,especially regarding the length of stay,no representation,etc and ends with this very chilling statement:

    Andy Worthington: Guantnamo's Dark Mirror
     
  20. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    how is this wrong?

    sounds to me like they are looking into an issue involving prisoners rights in a war zone. Its a legal debate. Instead of just torturing them like we used to do.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>