It may be the weekend, but there’s quite a bit going on in the news today. Here’s a round up of some of the headlines:
Qualifying as rightwing-nutjob of the week, Alan Keyes is back… he’s still pushing the idea that Obama isn’t a U.S. citizen. Keyes is “crazier than ever.”
And speaking of wingnuts, the anti-stimulus crowd is attempting to create a “Tea Party” movement, based on Rick Santelli’s rant, in protest of the stimulus package. Unbelievable, isn’t it. The Santelli followers from Wall Street got their bailout, they don’t the rest of America should get one too.
Oops… It’s time to amp up the “wingnut welfare” program, there’s too many Bushies out of work, since George W headed back to Texas.
Sadly, and I do mean sadly, the Obama administration has decided to back Bush policies on “prisoners being held in Afghanistan by the U.S. military.” Joan Walsh jumped on this one last night when the news broke: “Bagram prisoners have no rights?”
President Obama is getting ready to unveil his new budget plan. Any clues as to what’s in it? More taxes for the wealthy. Obama’s “ambitious” paln should raise more hackles on the wingnuts while garnering approval from some of his base. The new budget seeks to “cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on business and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Senator John Kerry has been over in the Middle East looking to renew diplomacy in that region, “but without any illusions, without any naivete, without any misplaced belief that just by talking, things will automatically happen,” he said.
Finally, Senator Ted Kennedy’s birthday is Sunday, he’ll turn 77 (sign the card). In a brief interview with the NY Times, Kennedy said “I don’t really plan to go away soon,” so can we “hold the eulogies,” please.
It is truly saddening and sickening that President Obama would continue any of the US Constitution shredding and Signed Ratified Treaty negating criminal activity of the Torturer in Chief. One can only hope he comes to his senses and regects this dangerus and illegal activity.
Everyone should call his comment line at the WH. The # is 202-456-1111. They are open M-F from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time. He needs to talk to his legal staff about this.
I’m really upset with him because one of the things he said before the GE was that this would not be allowed to happen.
But my husband who is a retired AF pilot said we really don’t know all the circumstances, and to wait and see first. But I told him I calling anyway and voicing my opinion.
The detention center at Bagram was built into the cavernous shell of an aircraft-repair shop that was built in the 1960′s and later used by the Soviet forces that occupied Afghanistan during the 1980’s. In 2002 and 2003, most prisoners were held in crude pens fashioned from coils of razor wire piled in stacks reaching above their heads. They were often shackled to the metal gates at the front of those pens as punishment for offenses like talking or spitting at guards.
Read More…
In December 2002, two Afghan detainees at the B.C.P. were killed within a week of each other. Although the United States military command at Bagram initially reported that they died of “natural causes,” a subsequent Army investigation indicated that the two deaths followed several days in which the men were punished by being shackled to the ceilings of isolation cells to keep them from sleeping, and repeated beatings by guards. After a prolonged investigation, the cases were finally prosecuted in 2005 and 2006. Investigators recommended criminal charges against 27 military police and intelligence personnel. Of those, 14 soldiers and one officer were prosecuted. Five soldiers pleaded guilty to assault and other crimes, and a sixth soldier was convicted at trial. The longest sentence any of them received was five months in a military prison.
The detention center was later renamed the Bagram Theatre Internment Facility. Military officials and human rights groups have reported that the treatment of prisoners there have improved since 2003, when the military command restricted the use of extended sleep-deprivation and so-called stress positions. But crude conditions still obtain and the number of detainees held there has risen steadily, sometimes to more than 650. In mid-2007, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the only outisde group allowed into the detention center, formally complained to the Defense Department about what it described as the harsh treatment of other military prisoners at Bagram. The Red Cross said that those detainees were held incommunicado for weeks or months at a time in a separate area of isolation cells on the base before eventually being moved into the main detention center.
I posted this earlier on another blog:
OK, I voted to get President Obama elected, and I’m not getting what the big fuss about this decision is. For those that are opposed to having any troops deployed in the middle east whatsoever, this objection about Bagram Airfield makes sense. For those who believe that the need to have troops in Afghanistan is necessary for whatever reason…then those captured in military operations are actually Prisoners of War not permanent detainees–in a secret prison– in another country. Take a few minutes to peruse the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Until President Obama violates Geneva convention rules, there are no legs to this argument. President G.W. Bush violated the Geneva Convention rules without question, President Obama hasn’t even begun any significant operations in Afghanistan yet. Now we are looking at the situation like taking P.O.W.’s = illegal detention (what are you supposed to do with P.O.W.’s otherwise?). Put them in court you say? No, not until the battle in that particular country (Afghanistan) is finished. It’s not as though he’s encompassed the War on Terror free-for-all (any country we bag a combatant from gets sent to Camp “Shady St. Elsewhere”). President Bush has taken a necessary element of war and made it into something sinister, I wouldn’t start getting worked up until whatever happens in Afghanistan either confirms or alleviates our fears.
As much as I like Mike Huckabee, I can’t agree with
his latest rant. He spent a *huge* portion of his
show ridiculing how ‘little’ $13 a week is (so I guess
the government should have just kept it – instead
of the stimulus bill handing it out).
I guess it’s all in how you look at it.
Spent on eggs and potatoes, $13 will FEED
TWO people for that entire WEEK !
(and you can throw in containers of salt & pepper)
Unfortunately – Mike preferred to compare it to theatre tickets.
You are right Sandmann. My husband also agrees with you. Just because the Bush admin tortured certainly doesn’t mean that Obama will do the same. And maybe Joan Walsh did get a little carried away. I don’t know. I’ll just wait and see what happens.
Well, Huckabee does like to communicate, and his website allows for it –
so I sent Mikey a demand for an apology – including a grocery list of bread, eggs, milk, and potatoes purchased with only $13.
I’m not holding my breath – but some small part of me says that letter is going to hurt him – and he’ll have to reconcile it.
That $13 a week works out to about 2 hours of work at minimum wage – in a month, this equals an extra day of work. I guess it all depends on which end of the money stick you are holding.
That $13 a week works out to about 2 hours of work at minimum wage AliceP
Two hours of sweat. Thanks Alice. I’ll make sure to include that phrase in future arguments.
By the discription of the murders that have taken place due to ORDERED treatment of detainees I would say that WAR CRIMES have been committed.
The conditions and treatment of prisoners is contrary to the GC which WE signed and ratified AND used as the justification for prosicuting and HANGING people for after the second world war. For some of the acts the torturer in chief autherized like waterboarding I might add. If these individuals ARE prisoners of war then they should be housed and treated according to the GC. If they are treated otherwise the Administration is responsible for aiding and abetting war crimes.
It’s a legal question, and a rather simple one: do prisoners at Bagram have rights under the U.S. Constitution? The answer is, of course they don’t. Comparing to Gitmo is apples and oranges. SCOTUS held that Gitmo prisoners have rights because Gitmo is, for all practical purposes, American soil. Bagram is not. Link to Gitmo opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf
Whether Bagram prisoners have rights under Geneva convention is a separate question. To which the answer is, of course they do. But that’s not the same question as whether Bagram prisoners should have the same access as Gitmo prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. They don’t, and they shouldn’t.
Just more proof that Joan Walsh doesn’t know what she’s talking about.