Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Bush, Reagan Presidential Files To Be Released | Main | Did Dobson Concede The Culture Wars? »

Apr 11 2009, 12:12 pm

Obama Appeals Bagram Detainee Ruling

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. 

Comments (3)

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.

notavailable

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.