Obama Administration Affirms Bush Policy on Detainee Rights

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dragoon68, Feb 20, 2009.

  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obama Administration Affirms Bush Policy on Detainee Rights



    Obama seems a bit confused doesn't he? First he orders Gitmo to be closed (he shouldn't have made that dumb move) and makes all the liberals happier than Congressmen with a load of Spendulus pork. Now he essentially says enemy combatants held in Afghanistan have no Constitutional rights and makes all the liberals madder than Congressmen with no fools to pay for their pork.
     
  2. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trial baloons...

    because he doesn't have a clue what to do and is waiting for the next poll to tell him.
     
  3. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    oh good grief, I hope the thinking kicks in soon for him
     
  4. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess this is what happens when you paint yourself into a corner in order to be different without knowing the full scope of what you're getting into.
     
  5. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMO, there has not been much if anything to give Obama credit for since taking office, however in this case I give him credit. It appears to me that once in office and after learning more about the situation he is man enough to change his stance on the issue for the better of the country. It takes courage to do that, especially when he had to know it would be both an unpopular decision with most of his supporters, and mocked by his detractors. I wish Bush would have had a little more of that in him, he always seemed a little too stubborn and inflexible for my taste.
     
    #5 Steven2006, Feb 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2009
  6. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    So far he hasn't admitted anything, he has said nothing about changing his mind about gitmo, or any of the prarices there. Now if he really wants to admit something let him start there. Otherwise, he's saying one thing and doing another, which is dishonest.
     
  7. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not that I trust Foxnews the only "unbiased" news source but it looks like they defined them as "enemy combatants". If that is so then they are POW's and would have no constitutional rights but would be covered by the Geneva Convention.
     
  8. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you were addressing my post, I didn't say anything about admitting. I said it appears as though he is man enough to be willing to change his stance on how to deal with an issue. That is a good thing is it not?
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    Author:
    William Haynes

    December 12, 2002
    Council on Foreign Relations

    MEMORANDUM

    To: Members of the ASIL-CFR Roundtable

    From: William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense

    Subject: Enemy Combatants

    There is no doubt that the attacks of September 11, 2001 constituted acts of war. They possessed the intensity and scale of war. They involved at least one military target, the Pentagon, and they came on the heels of a decade of attacks by al Qaida on U.S. military and civilian targets. Congress on September 18, 2001 authorized the President to use force in response to the attacks. And both the United Nations and NATO recognized that the attacks were “armed attacks” within the meaning of the UN Charter and NATO treaty. Since September 11th (and perhaps before then), we have been at war – both legally and in fact.

    War implicates legal powers and rules that are not available during peacetime. Among other things, the war context gives the President the authority to detain enemy combatants at least until hostilities cease.

    Enemy Combatant

    An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

    “Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

    The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.


    More Here
     

Share This Page

Loading...