The Obama administration has appealed a ruling from a district court judge that some detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan are entitled to challenge the reasons for their detentions. Last week, Judge Paul D. Bates granted limited habaes corpus rights to three of the four detainees involved in the case, rejecting the government's claim that federal courts had no jurisdiction there. The government claims otherwise, believing that Supreme Court cases haven't yet extended a constitutional (as opposed to statuatory) right to habaes corpus hearings for all detainees, everywhere. If overturned (and not subsequently over-overturned), the Obama administration would be able to capture and detain prisoners at Bagram for the duration of the conflict against Afghanistan --- a legal "black hole" outside the purview of American courts. The decision to appeal the ruling reflects a consensus opinion within the administration that it retains the power to detain battlefield combatans and determine their status; even though the legal authority for detaining the Gitmo detainees was transfered to Congress, the administration still believes it has an inherent right to exercise such power.
« Bush, Reagan Presidential Files To Be Released | Main | Did Dobson Concede The Culture Wars? »
Apr 11 2009, 12:12 pm by Marc Ambinder
Obama Appeals Bagram Detainee Ruling
Comments (3)
| RSS ![]()
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic
technology Pac Rat
The fight to save video games from bit rot
china Cyber Warriors
The battle to protect our infrastructure from hackers
column Prison Porn
"Lockup" is exploitative and debasing
VOICES
Freedom And Marriage 2.10.10 8:28 A.M.
Shoe, Meet the Other Foot, Part II 2.9.10 5:19 P.M.
Question Of The Day: Would Obama Win In 2010? 2.10.10 6:30 A.M.
"Choker Manning" 2.10.10 9:00 A.M.
On the cyber-threat from China 2.10.10 2:40 A.M.
The Middle East Comes to Irvine 2.9.10 4:38 P.M.
Liberal condescension 2.9.10 1:48 P.M.
Recent posts by Marc Ambinder
- Rumor Patrol: Biden and Crist Did Not Meet In Florida
- Even Schumer Is Suffering
- Pentagon To Announce End To Third Party Outings
- The Sevugan v. Conant Budget Super-clash
- Obama's Secret Wiretap Memo
Recent posts by Chris Good
Weekly
Author
- Andy Johnson
- Jodie Allen and Richard Auxier
- Adam Minter
- Andrew Sullivan
- Bob Cohn
- Brian Goldsmith
- Scott Bland and Ronald Brownstein
- Benjamin Lockwood
- Conor Clarke
- Clive Crook
- Chris Geidner
- Chris Good
- Cameron Joseph
- Clement Tan
- Chris VanBuren
- D.B. Grady
- Daniella De Franco
- Daniel Indiviglio
- Derek Thompson
- Gautham Nagesh
- Gautham Nagesh
- James Fallows
- James Bennet
- James Gibney
- Joshua Green
- Jeannette Lee
- Jenny Merkin
- Justin Miller
- James Warren
- Jim Kessler and Anne Kim
- Kerry Golds
- Katharine Rust
- Lisa Camner
- Marc Ambinder
- Matthew Cooper
- Megan Hupp
- Max Fisher
- Mara Gay
- Mackie Jimbo
- Michael Kinsley
- Megan McArdle
- Nicole Allan
- Rachael Brown
- Ross Douthat
- Regina Herzlinger
- Ronald Brownstein
- Reihan Salam
- Shane Harris
- Shauna Miller
- Staff
- Tony Lee
- Will DiNovi
Monthly
Category
- CBS News Politics
- Trippi
- FiveThirtyEight.com
- The Daily Beast
- Drudge Report
- Instapundit
- NJ's Political Stock Exchange
- Law: Executive Watch
- Steve Coll
- Politics: A-NES
- MSNBC's First Read
- Laura Rozen
- ProPublica
- The Fix
- Politico's Smith
- Shadow Government
- Dave Catanese's blog/KY3-TV
- Global Affairs
- Greg Sargent's TPMEC
- The Frontal Cortex
- 3 Quarks Daily
- Neurophilosophy
- Environment: Grist
- Overcoming Bias
- Pollster.com
- Radio Iowa (O. Kay!)
- A Daily Shot (and Chaser)
- The Cable
- Arms Control Wonk
- Nukes Of Hazard
- Mark Halperin's "The Page"
- Huffington Post Politics
- Fred Malek
- Nukes and Spooks
- Bob Bauer
- Hotline On Call
- The Stump
- NHNewslinks.com
- Prof. Dante Scala
- Robert Bluey
- NH2008.com
- Matt Lewis
- Patrick Ruffini
- CT Blog
- CQ's Jeff Stein
- Not Just Markos
- FAS Secrecy Blog
- The Buzz
- Wilshire And Washington
- Political Muscle
- Political Wire
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Garance
- Wired's Danger Room
- Jake Tapper
- Pop Sugar
- Political Punch
- Greg Mankiw
- Captain's Quarters
- Marginal Revolution
- Mind Hacks
- Opinion Journal
- ARDA
- Virginia Postrel
- The Reality-Based Community
- Science Daily
- News @ Nature
- Retrospectacle
- Pharyngula
- The Airline Blog
- Cognitive Daily
- ThinkProgress
- Wonkette
- The Corner
- Clive Davis
- Kevin Drum
- Glenn Greenwald
- Intel Dump
- The Plank
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Debka File
- Angry Asian Man
- AmericaBlog
- The Washington Note
- Obsidian Wings
- NYT's The Caucus
- Michael Barone
- SCOTUS Blog
- How Appealing
- Above The Law
- ACS Blog
- The Washington Independent
- Law Dork
- Ezra Klein
Home | Atlantic FAQ | Masthead | Site Guide | Subscribe | Subscriber Help
Atlantic Store | Educational Program | Jobs/Internships | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Feedback | Advertise
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.






I'm not sure inherent is the right word. When Justice submitted its new definition of what constituted an "enemy combatant" (which, in a herculean attempt at re-branding, actually tried to get rid of that phrase altogether) it was pretty clear that detention authority came from the 2001 AUMF, not innate presidential powers. Not that Congress is actually going to do its constitutionally appointed job an clarify where it stands on the country's detainee policy. But still, the Obama administration at least seems open to the possibility.
And I hate to nitpick, but it's Judge John D. Bates, not Paul.
Sorry, don't think I was totally clear in my last comment. The AUMF bit is important because not all of the Bagram detainees are technically from "the battlefield." In fact, the only ones whom Bates ruled had habeas rights were captured outside Afghanistan before being transferred to Bagram. So logically, the rationale for detaining them would be similar to the Gitmo prisoners.
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.