NationStates Jolt Archive

In this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=584237) the subject was whether or not detainees held at the Bagram air force base in Afghanistan could sue for their release in civilian US court.

Well, the first verdict is in:

U.S. District Judge John Bates [...] said three of four detainees who filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. government can proceed with their bid to win freedom in the court system.

"Bagram detainees who are not Afghan citizens, who were not captured in Afghanistan and who have been held for an unreasonable amount of time -- here over six years -- without adequate process" have the legal right to sue in U.S. court, the judge ruled in a 53-page opinion (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2143-28).
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN02215802)

Judge Bates emphasized that his ruling was “quite narrow.” He said that it did not apply to prisoners captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and that a determination of whether prisoners might challenge their detention in court would depend on a case-by-case analysis of factors like their citizenship and location of capture.

“It is one thing to detain those captured on the surrounding battlefield at a place like Bagram, which respondents correctly maintain is in a theater of war,” the judge wrote. “It is quite another thing to apprehend people in foreign countries — far from any Afghan battlefield — and then bring them to a theater of war, where the Constitution arguably may not reach.”

Moreover, the judge has put off ruling that a fourth prisoner — also captured outside Afghanistan, but holding Afghan citizenship — had a right to challenge his detention. He said any order to release the detainee could lead to frictions with the Afghan government, and asked for additional briefings on that case.
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/washington/03bagram.html?ref=politics)

I haven't read the ruling, but I must say that the quotes above are quite compelling - so at first glance I would say that I agree with this. If they aren't captured on the battlefield, and thus not POWs, they should have a way of challenging their detention. If they can't go through Afghani courts because the US has de facto jurisdiction over the base, it's only correct to allow them to go through the US courts.

I'd wait until this reaches the highest echelons of the judicial system before making any "Wow!" declarations :(

I'd also wager the DOD/DOJ would wade in make teeny but significant changes that may all but nullify the ruling.

I'd wait until this reaches the highest echelons of the judicial system before making any "Wow!" declarations :(

I'd also wager the DOD/DOJ would wade in make teeny but significant changes that may all but nullify the ruling.

Yeah. But it was a good ruling! It's worth a look in and by itself :wink:

Sadly, I did not see this until PM pissed all over it. Gosh, thanks, Mr. Buzz-Kill.

But still, I will say "Wow!" *does a little dance*

Okay, yes, it will likely go nowhere, but there is an additional point to rulings like this -- and the increasing number of rulings like this -- and that is that, FINALLY, we are seeing that the outrageous dictatorial attitudes of the Bush admin and their ilk are NOT the prevailing legal attitude, that not all US authorities are on that disgraceful bandwagon, and that our system does yet have a chance of cleansing and correcting itself. It will happen painfully slowly, but that is how the US system works, and it is good, even though it is often frustrating.

Things like this restore my hope that our abandonment of rights and the rule of law really was only temporary.

Sadly, I did not see this until PM pissed all over it. Gosh, thanks, Mr. Buzz-Kill.
:D I aim to please.

*wishes he had picked "Mr. Buzz-kill" as a login name*

its a good ruling.

it seperates out the "prisoners of war" from those who have been dumped into the prison from other places without any due process. if the doj wants to appeal it has to make the case that its OK to pick people up around the world, toss them into foreign prisons and throw away the key.

I'd wait until this reaches the highest echelons of the judicial system before making any "Wow!" declarations :(

I'd also wager the DOD/DOJ would wade in make teeny but significant changes that may all but nullify the ruling.

Sorry to be off-topic, but that post made me think of the giant red spheres in stage 1 of Gradius V that say "WOW!" when blown up :p

its a good ruling.

it seperates out the "prisoners of war" from those who have been dumped into the prison from other places without any due process. if the doj wants to appeal it has to make the case that its OK to pick people up around the world, toss them into foreign prisons and throw away the key.
Good point. The challenge to this will be interesting to hear. Probably, the DoJ will simply obstruct its progress through the system, or else capitulate in a way that lets them off the hook of making those arguments, the way they did with that guy (gosh, I wish I had a working memory) whose case they moved to a civil court just before his suit against the fed for holding him in the military system came up for hearing.

Good point. The challenge to this will be interesting to hear. Probably, the DoJ will simply obstruct its progress through the system, or else capitulate in a way that lets them off the hook of making those arguments, the way they did with that guy (gosh, I wish I had a working memory) whose case they moved to a civil court just before his suit against the fed for holding him in the military system came up for hearing.
i am wanting to know how the obama administration is going to deal with this. it was disappointing enough when they went along with bush admin legal theories on this case, the one you mentioned and....one other that isnt coming to me right now but was recent.

if they want to put the horrors of bushdom behind us they have to stop all support of his "we dont have to give possible terrorists any due process" policies.

i am wanting to know how the obama administration is going to deal with this. it was disappointing enough when they went along with bush admin legal theories on this case, the one you mentioned and....one other that isnt coming to me right now but was recent.

if they want to put the horrors of bushdom behind us they have to stop all support of his "we dont have to give possible terrorists any due process" policies.
Or if not outright support, Obama is at the least avoiding the issue. I agree that must stop. As my high school civics teacher used to say, constantly, "Silence is consent." Just not doing it anymore is not enough. The nation needs a reckoning on this. Heads must be put up on spikes outside the gates for all to see. In the US, we do that via lawsuits. These suits must be allowed to progress. The day that one yields a decision in favor of a plaintiff against the government and/or individuals from the Bush admin will be a red letter day in American history.

Or if not outright support, Obama is at the least avoiding the issue. I agree that must stop. As my high school civics teacher used to say, constantly, "Silence is consent." Just not doing it anymore is not enough. The nation needs a reckoning on this. Heads must be put up on spikes outside the gates for all to see. In the US, we do that via lawsuits. These suits must be allowed to progress. The day that one yields a decision in favor of a plaintiff against the government and/or individuals from the Bush admin will be a red letter day in American history.
i ..... excused....the current DOJ for going along with the bush postion on these cases because they are new and the old guys had the case all prepared. but appeals are on the new guys for sure. if they continue supporting bad policy.....its a bad thing.

i also think we do need a "truth commission" to bring out what happened in the bush administration and prosecute offenders. i dont think they should get away with their abuses.

i ..... excused....the current DOJ for going along with the bush postion on these cases because they are new and the old guys had the case all prepared. but appeals are on the new guys for sure. if they continue supporting bad policy.....its a bad thing.

i also think we do need a "truth commission" to bring out what happened in the bush administration and prosecute offenders. i dont think they should get away with their abuses.
I would prefer full-fledged criminal investigations by special prosecutors. I would be unsatisfied by a truth commission that did not reserve the power to refer some cases for prosecution. Pat Leahy's idea for a commission included blanket immunity for anyone who cooperates with the commission. I don't like that. But I would settle for any truth commission, even with blanket immunity, rather than never address the issues. I do not want Bush and Cheney's lies enshrined in the history books.

EDIT: As unsatisfying as I find Leahy's suggestion, I suspect it is the most realistic option for getting the truth revealed. I know that he has been a tireless and vocal critic of neocon shenanigans, and I don't believe he is motivated to let people off the hook. But fear of prosecutions in Congress is so strong, that it is likely that pushing for them would hang up progress on this matter forever. When it comes down to it, the truth is the most important thing. Whatever we have to give up to preserve the truth, I suppose it is must be done.

Depending on how truth commission immunity would be structured, having a full and truthful account of what was done, when, by whom, etc, could end up easing the path for civil suits that could eventually be the only punishment these people ever see, and which could create the judicial precedents that would prevent it from happening again.

Pat Leahy is a smart politician. I guess I should trust him on this, even though I don't like it.

EDIT2: As for the Obama admin continuing Bush's policies, I am waiting and seeing. As much as I support Obama, I will have no tolerance for that sort of thing whatsoever.

I hope this is something eventually worth saying WOW about. But I prolly still won't say wow I'll just revel quietly in the fact that there are still a few people in this country with common sense and human decency.

I would prefer full-fledged criminal investigations by special prosecutors. I would be unsatisfied by a truth commission that did not reserve the power to refer some cases for prosecution. Pat Leahy's idea for a commission included blanket immunity for anyone who cooperates with the commission. I don't like that. But I would settle for any truth commission, even with blanket immunity, rather than never address the issues. I do not want Bush and Cheney's lies enshrined in the history books.
yeah id want a truth commission to hand out immunity VERRRRY carefully. like a prosecutor building a case against the mafia.

and i want bush/cheney to be permanently disgraced like nixon (id rather they go to jail but i dont think that is in the cards) instead of getting off like reagan did.

So far so good.