Judge: U.S. Can Hold Detainees Indefinitely with no charges filed

[OutHouse]

more change we can count on? looks like nothing at all. but hey thats just me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...etainees-indefinitely/

A federal judge says the United States can continue to hold some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without any charges.

U.S. District Judge John Bates' opinion issued Tuesday night limited the Obama administration's definition of who can be held. But he said Congress in the days after Sept. 11, 2001 gave the president the authority to hold anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the terrorist attacks.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Until the Patriot Act is repealed, this can happen to anyone. Welcome to the USA post Constitutional Law. I'm sure it won't take long before someone is in here defending this with the usual "OMG, Terrorrrrrr!!!!!!"

 

[Lemon law]

The NaughtyGeek says it all with, "Until the Patriot Act is repealed, this can happen to anyone."

Yet, we must remember this is a mere district Judge and hardly the last word. As such its subject to appeal, Judge Bates also notes it may not apply to those simply not proved to be enemy combatants, and I have to take some optimism that at long last, the courts are getting involved.

All GWB&co basically did for almost seven years was to keep licking the can down the road, keeping the issue out of the courts, and now the collective we are finally going to have to confront the problems as various provisions of the patriot act also sunset.

And in the appeals process, its certain that various public interests groups, both domestic and foreign, can also get involved, and maybe its high time to revise the Geneva conventions to better define what rights so called " enemy combatants" have.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's just amazing to me that we've come to the point in this country where constiutional law is trumped by fear of possible terrorist activities.

 

[Craig234]

And now the mandatory sarcasm about 'change' is done even about *judges'* actions. Darn that Obama, not changing the judges' decisions with his election.

 

[DealMonkey]

Citrix? So ... uh .... Obama now controls all judges and their decisions? Is that what you're telling us? Do you have LOLCHANGE! stamped on your brain or something?

 

[LTC8K6]

Obama will likely say something about this ruling. Give him time.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Patriot Act was enacted by Congress of course, not Bush, and Congress can change it anytime it wants to.

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: Craig234
And now the mandatory sarcasm about 'change' is done even about *judges'* actions. Darn that Obama, not changing the judges' decisions with his election.

Did you read the article? The opinion actually curtailed Presidential authority more than the Obama Administration advocated:

Earlier this year, Bates ordered the Obama administration to give its definition of whom the United States can continue to hold at Guantanamo. The administration responded with a definition that was largely similar to the Bush administration's, drawing criticism from human rights advocates. In his opinion, Bates said he agreed with the Obama administration that "the president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The Patriot Act was enacted by Congress of course, not Bush, and Congress can change it anytime it wants to.

That's what I thought too.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The Patriot Act was enacted by Congress of course, not Bush, and Congress can change it anytime it wants to.

You misrepresent the history. The administrations frequently draft and push bills through Congress, and they did with the Patrot Act. It was a Bush measure congress approved.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The Patriot Act was enacted by Congress of course, not Bush, and Congress can change it anytime it wants to.

You misrepresent the history. The administrations frequently draft and push bills through Congress, and they did with the Patrot Act. It was a Bush measure congress approved.

And your Congress can repeal it anytime they want.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Citrix
more change we can count on? looks like nothing at all. but hey thats just me.

Did you miss that lecture in high school US history about separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches of our government?

It's never too late to get your G.E.D.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Until the Patriot Act is repealed, this can happen to anyone. Welcome to the USA post Constitutional Law. I'm sure it won't take long before someone is in here defending this with the usual "OMG, Terrorrrrrr!!!!!!"

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The NaughtyGeek says it all with, "Until the Patriot Act is repealed, this can happen to anyone."
-snip-

No guys, this isn't about the Patriot Act.

It's about the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force passed on 9/14/01 in the days following 911).

AUMF

IMO, this is about a judge, not Obama so criticism directed at him is unfair here. The suit was filed by detainess, not Obama trying to justifice indefinite detention etc. I.e., I don't see where he had much to do with it. This looks to me to be a story about a judge's legal interpretation, not an Obama policy stance.

I wish everyone would drop the politization of this issue - the election is over. Right now the Dems can't seem to agree on what to do, so give them a little time - they haven't been in office/control for very long. There is room for criticism - how to reconcile campaign rhetoric with reality once in power, or the rush to declare the closing of GITMO without having a concensus on what to do with the detainees etc. But that's another matter IMO.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern
No guys, this isn't about the Patriot Act.

It's about the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force passed on 9/14/01 in the days following 911).

AUMF

IMO, this is about a judge, not Obama so criticism directed at him is unfair here. The suit was filed by detainess, not Obama trying to justifice indefinite detention etc. I.e., I don't see where he had much to do with it. This looks to me to be a story about a judge's legal interpretation, not an Obama policy stance.

Earlier this year, Bates ordered the Obama administration to give its definition of whom the United States can continue to hold at Guantanamo. The administration responded with a definition that was largely similar to the Bush administration's, drawing criticism from human rights advocates.

In his opinion, Bates said he agreed with the Obama administration that "the president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

Sounds like Obama had the opportunity to state who he felt he had the power to detain indefinitely and his answer was not "no one".

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Until the Patriot Act is repealed, this can happen to anyone. Welcome to the USA post Constitutional Law. I'm sure it won't take long before someone is in here defending this with the usual "OMG, Terrorrrrrr!!!!!!"

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The NaughtyGeek says it all with, "Until the Patriot Act is repealed, this can happen to anyone."
-snip-

No guys, this isn't about the Patriot Act.

It's about the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force passed on 9/14/01 in the days following 911).

AUMF

IMO, this is about a judge, not Obama so criticism directed at him is unfair here. The suit was filed by detainess, not Obama trying to justifice indefinite detention etc. I.e., I don't see where he had much to do with it. This looks to me to be a story about a judge's legal interpretation, not an Obama policy stance.

I wish everyone would drop the politization of this issue - the election is over. Right now the Dems can't seem to agree on what to do, so give them a little time - they haven't been in office/control for very long. There is room for criticism - how to reconcile campaign rhetoric with reality once in power, or the rush to declare the closing of GITMO without having a concensus on what to do with the detainees etc. But that's another matter IMO.

Fern

You are correct in that this decision is in regards to the AUMF. However, what one says on the campaign to get elected must be what happens when elected with the only exception being when grave a serious changes in the circumstances have occurred.

Otherwise, one can say that the person running for election is simply and bluntly - a liar. And that is true for anyone, I single out no one.

 

[LTC8K6]

The administrations frequently draft and push bills through Congress, and they did with the Patrot Act.

So why isn't it gone? The Dems have been in charge of congress for a while now. The bill to repeal the horrible Act could have been on Obama's desk a while ago.

There certainly could have been a strong effort underway to end the terrible Act long before Obama was elected.

I don't recall any such effort.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Citrix
more change we can count on? looks like nothing at all. but hey thats just me.

Did you miss that lecture in high school US history about separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches of our government?

It's never too late to get your G.E.D.

na i have me BA so me good. may be u suld go kiss barries pee pee

 

[Woofmeister]

You all can read the decision here.

The Obama administration took the position that it could hold indefinitely any person who committed a belligerent act, members of the Taliban, al Qaeda and "associated forces" as well as individuals who "substantially supported those organizations" or "directly supported hostilities."

The Court upheld the Obama administration on all categories of indefinite detention except for those who fell into the "substantially supported" or "directly supported hostilities" categories:

As Hamdi foretold, drawing the "permissible bounds" of the government's detention authority can only truly occur as courts consider the unique facts of each individual case as they are presented. 542 U.S. at 522 n.1. However, the foregoing analysis and interpretation of the government's authority to detain sets forth some guidance for the parties in that process. After careful consideration, the Court is satisfied that the government's detention authority is generally consistent with the authority conferred upon the President by the AUMF and the core law of war principles that govern non-international armed conflicts. In those instances where the government's framework has exceeded that which is permitted by the law of war -- specifically with respect to the concept of "support" -- the Court rejects such bases for detention. Therefore, the Court concludes that under the AUMF the President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who are or were part of Taliban or al Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed (i.e., directly participated in) a -22- belligerent act in aid of such enemy armed forces.

There is no way you can construe this as anything other than an unambiguous assertion by the Obama Administration of the right to hold all categories of individuals described above indefinitely.

A position with which I happen to agree and which is expressly permitted by the AUMF and is fully consistent with the laws of war. It doesn't matter who's President, that power is there and it ought to be lawfully exercised in the context of al Qaeda and its supporters.

Let me know when the Obama Administration starts locking up journalists and dissidents and I promise to be suitably outraged.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
And now the mandatory sarcasm about 'change' is done even about *judges'* actions. Darn that Obama, not changing the judges' decisions with his election.

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Did you miss that lecture in high school US history about separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches of our government?

It's never too late to get your G.E.D.

You really are that dim, arent you?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

The administrations frequently draft and push bills through Congress, and they did with the Patrot Act.

So why isn't it gone? The Dems have been in charge of congress for a while now. The bill to repeal the horrible Act could have been on Obama's desk a while ago.

There certainly could have been a strong effort underway to end the terrible Act long before Obama was elected.

I don't recall any such effort.

Why would the government reduce its own size and power? An entity does not check and balance itself.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

The administrations frequently draft and push bills through Congress, and they did with the Patrot Act.

So why isn't it gone? The Dems have been in charge of congress for a while now. The bill to repeal the horrible Act could have been on Obama's desk a while ago.

There certainly could have been a strong effort underway to end the terrible Act long before Obama was elected.

I don't recall any such effort.

That is a fair question. The Democrats could repeal the parts of the Patriot Act they want to, and have chosen not to.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

The administrations frequently draft and push bills through Congress, and they did with the Patrot Act.

So why isn't it gone? The Dems have been in charge of congress for a while now. The bill to repeal the horrible Act could have been on Obama's desk a while ago.

There certainly could have been a strong effort underway to end the terrible Act long before Obama was elected.

I don't recall any such effort.

That is a fair question. The Democrats could repeal the parts of the Patriot Act they want to, and have chosen not to.

Obama has decided to follow in Bush's footsteps. His criteria for holding prisoners is substantially the same as GWB.

As I suspected before the election we would see that the same policies are good or bad depending on if the leader making them belongs to a given party. You should be excoriating Obama as vociferously as you did Bush, but your zeal seems to be lacking.

If there is outrage about one, there needs to be the same about the other. Obama is Bush II in this regard.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

The administrations frequently draft and push bills through Congress, and they did with the Patrot Act.

So why isn't it gone? The Dems have been in charge of congress for a while now. The bill to repeal the horrible Act could have been on Obama's desk a while ago.

There certainly could have been a strong effort underway to end the terrible Act long before Obama was elected.

I don't recall any such effort.

That is a fair question. The Democrats could repeal the parts of the Patriot Act they want to, and have chosen not to.

Obama has decided to follow in Bush's footsteps. His criteria for holding prisoners is substantially the same as GWB.

As I suspected before the election we would see that the same policies are good or bad depending on if the leader making them belongs to a given party. You should be excoriating Obama as vociferously as you did Bush, but your zeal seems to be lacking.

If there is outrage about one, there needs to be the same about the other. Obama is Bush II in this regard.

Point well made.