Comments on: CAP Report Calls For Postponement Of Gitmo Closure

By: Hugh

Hugh — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:52:28 +0000

As said in the post, all this has been percolating around for months. This is very standard Obama practice. Bring it up, it gets harsh criticism, it goes away for a while, it gets brought up again, the outrage isn’t as strong, rinse and repeat until it becomes policy. We have seen this on healthcare, Afghanistan, financial reform. I keep wondering when, or even if, progressives are going to stop supporting such an anti-progressive Administration. Talk about Lucy with the football. When will progressives ever learn?

By: sporkovat

sporkovat — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:48:57 +0000

Obama breaking his promise to close Guantanamo?

what is the sound of thousands of Firepups yawning?

who cares if things like this continue under the new administration – once again a Democrat gets to do the spying, bombing, and imprisoning!

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:43:14 +0000

Well, several, if not many, of the prisoners weren’t even picked up on the battlefield. So first, I suspect they’ll lie about that. Second, it’s a ruse for permanent detention out of the supervision of any legal authority. The U.S. occupies Afghanistan with extrajudicial powers. And furthermore, they’re probably classified as illegal combatants, or soon will be, (remember the Geneva Conventions don’t apply because the Taliban weren’t a real govt). So I would advise you not to hold your breath waiting for the innocent to be released, turned over the the (laughingly-referred-to-as) Afghan govt, or even be treated as POWs.

By: TarheelDem

TarheelDem — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:37:12 +0000

Does the use of Bagram for “battlefield detainees” mean that they will be classified legally as POWs instead of “enemy combatants”?

Or that they might be tried in military commissions and released to Afghan government custody? Or just released to go home? It is a practical way to set up the release of the innocent swept up in the fog of war without Congress going nuts.

I suspect that “battlefield detainee” means those who were picked up during the 2001 war that overthrew the Taliban government. That would be a commonsense definition.

The key ambiguity has to do with the notion of “battlefield crime”. What exactly is that, and is there any equivalent definition in the Geneva Accords that identify battlefield crimes (as opposed to routine military action) and the proces by which those crimes are to be handled?

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:35:56 +0000

Talk radio would be a perfect venue.

By: BlueCrow

BlueCrow — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:33:45 +0000

He will no doubt reappear on a hateshow.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:31:11 +0000

I was wondering all along why W didn’t transfer all those guys to Bagram. I guess O really is smarter than W.

By: BlueCrow

BlueCrow — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:30:15 +0000

“U.S. maximum and supermaximum security prisons currently hold hundreds of convicted terrorists ”

Really? Hundreds?
Convicted terrorists? Really? Convicted by whom/what? Where?

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:26:19 +0000

Sorry, OT Lou Dobbs Resigning From CNN?

By: fatster

fatster — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:25:18 +0000

Comedy hour (I wish). Rice and Hadley are forming a consulting firm. Just imagine the possibilities. LINK.