The sheer stupidity of closing Gitmo

[Bob98SR5]

My liberal brother and sister in law proclaims, "Well, we need to restore our credibility in the world by closing Gitmo!" Or the ever popular "It's a recruiting tool for terrorists!" Or my favorite "Let's return to the rule of law!"

Someone didn't tell the terrorists that, so why should these b##ches have the same rights as a true combatant, or yes, an American citizen like you and me?

Good lord, no matter what we do, these terrorists will still recruit and attack us. When we release them, they just recycle back into the mix. Remember that scene in Saving Private Ryan where that weasly little p#ssy translator pleads for not killing the big German guy? Yeah, the same guy who kills the two guys in the upstairs attic? Yeah, that's what happens in the real world too:

WASHINGTON — Terrorism suspects who have been held but released from Guantánamo Bay are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

Sixty-one detainees released from the U.S. Navy base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, citing data from December. That's up from 37 as of March, he said.

The new figures come as President-elect Obama prepares to issue an executive order during his first week in office to close the controversial prison.

Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008625146_gitmo14.html?syndication=rss

So when Gitmo is officially closed, when we can no longer torture these bastards and find out what they're up to, we'll see how all this "new respect" and our "restored credibility" gets us. May I remind the supporters of closing down of Gitmo that when we didn't have Gitmo and didnt waterboard these bastards during the Clinton days, they blew up our embassies, bombed the USS Cole, etc. etc. So much for that line of thinking.

[troyboy162]

the man said "change", didnt say it was going to be good change lol

[4runnerchevy]

I am all for closing Gitmo, but take the garbage to the curb first. Go back to the old days and put them in CIA prisons, so they can be tortured and killed, out of the public eye.

[AxleIke]

last I heard, the detainees at Gitmo were not to be released. They are going to be transfered to ADX here in Florence Colorado, which is the only federal supermax prison in the United States. Also supposed to be the most secure prison anywhere in the states.

ADX also houses other terrorists: Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolf, Richard Ried, and then some.

[Bob98SR5]

I am all for closing Gitmo, but take the garbage to the curb first. Go back to the old days and put them in CIA prisons, so they can be tortured and killed, out of the public eye.


that's off the table too. they cannot be sent to places like eastern europe for interrogation.

ike, yes to what you wrote. the problem I have is that why do these b###s get the same rights as an american citizen? and to be tried under the same civilian laws? so the liberal thinking is that "oh, we treat them decently and the world will respect us more. and then the end result is that terrorist recruitment will drop, terrorist attacks will drop, etc., etc." so freakin' naive.

[4runnerchevy]

Whats the average cost per day, per prisoner, in a Fed jail. $80 bucks, our tax dollars hard at work.

[slomatt]

Two points we should keep in mind:

1. As pointed out above they are not going to just open the doors to Gitmo and let everybody free, the detainees there will be moved to other facilities.

2. The majority of the detainees have never been tried and convicted of being terrorists or enemies of the US, most have never even had a day in any kind of court. They were all picked up based on a suspicion of their involvement, or because somebody else in their home country claimed they could have been involved, but there is little or no evidence in most cases. Some of the detainees are definitely terrorists who wish to harm the US and they must be prevented from doing so, no question there. But we need to keep in mind that some of the people there are innocent and we can't just treat them all as convicted terrorists.

- Matt

[Cheese]

I won't argue about the peril of detention without due process, that is beyond the scope of this question.

I won't argue about the current detainees being back into terrorist circles either.

The question, to me, is this. When we play games, there are rules. Both sides obey the rules, so both sides are playing the game together/with eachother. It becomes a test of comparative skill. Right now, war or terrorism, or whatever this is, IS NOT A GAME! I see the point of some of the rules, but this is not for fun and both sides are not observing the same limits. To me, this is beyond rules, beyond what the common man should know/understand/be aware of.

There is a quote something like, "millions sleep peacefully at night because powerful men are prepared to do terrible things on their behalf." I respect and admire those men, I recognize their role and I believe some of the issues with this problem are mis-statement of the question.

On a side note, I do not like the two party system, voted for Obama and part of me is scared.

[troyboy162]

a little side tracked but ill put in some first hand knowledge of how things work over there and why catering to complaints(aka not locking up people in gitmo) may be a bit helpful no matter how silly/false those complaints are.

there is nothing to live for over there. if your uncle is locked up by some foreign country, hating that country will be the most direction your life will ever have. also it is a culture that understand ak-47s are far more reliable then diplomacy. it is only the extreme potency of our military that allows us (Americans) to believe otherwise.

my personal opinion is make terrorism the most dangerous and least glamorous job option for these people. how to do that is a extremely complex. long term occupation is key and also the root of the problem at the same time. closing gitmo will probably do nothing good except change the terrorist top ten list of why to suicide bomb. sadly if someone was to glass that whole area of the world, id curse them for the innocent, and then thank them for allowing the world to move on towards unity.

[CJM]

the man said "change", didnt say it was going to be good change lol


Indeed.

Well, we reap what we sow now friends..

[waskillywabbit]

I have no problem with them closing Gitmo and releasing all those terrorists...



...as long as they take them all out in body bags. :flipoff:

:guitar:

[Bob98SR5]

Two points we should keep in mind:

1. As pointed out above they are not going to just open the doors to Gitmo and let everybody free, the detainees there will be moved to other facilities.

2. The majority of the detainees have never been tried and convicted of being terrorists or enemies of the US, most have never even had a day in any kind of court. They were all picked up based on a suspicion of their involvement, or because somebody else in their home country claimed they could have been involved, but there is little or no evidence in most cases. Some of the detainees are definitely terrorists who wish to harm the US and they must be prevented from doing so, no question there. But we need to keep in mind that some of the people there are innocent and we can't just treat them all as convicted terrorists.

- Matt


Matt,

Good points to chew on, though I am quite sure these people were picked up and sent there for good cause. It is quite feasible as in our current judicial/penal system that there are truly innocents and that "due process" as we understand it, is not being afforded to these prisoners. By introducing them into our legal system is my issue. They don't deserve it.

If we were to trust Wikipedia and the recent announcement from the Pentagon, the return to kill us again ratio to released from gitmo ration is 14.5 percent. That's pretty bad in my book. From Wikipedia:

Since 7 October 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantnamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 420 detainees remain.[11] More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them.

61 / 420 = 14.5% (61 from my first posted story, 270 from above).

[Dramarama]

Life without Gitmo

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of
the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba.

Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was
heard loud and clear here in Washington.

You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like
yourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining
Program, to be called the 'Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers'
program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided
to place one terrorist under your personal care.

Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for
transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be
cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your
letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some
assistant caretakers.

We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care
for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in
your letter.

Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your
sensitivity to what you described as his 'attitudinal problem' will help
him overcome these character flaws.

Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural
differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home
schooling.

Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat
and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail
clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills
at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of
explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to
keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except
sexually), since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This
is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to
show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new
dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire.

I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the Burka --
over time.

Just remember that it is all part of 'respecting his culture and his
religious beliefs' -- wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you
keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. You take good care of
Ahmed - and remember, we'll be watching.

Good luck!

[DHC6twinotter]

:lol: If only...

[fustercluck]

I remember in the after months of 9/11, the shock we felt upon learning how our pillars of national and civic security had been castrated by laws designed to obstruct. We learned that not only had the dots not been connected, but to our disbelief, the dots were concealed from one agency by the other by law. The dots could not be connected and 3000 americans paid for it in the most horrific ways.

Those legislators who were either treasonous or miopic enough to have constructed such obstacles were never exposed and never made to pay for such irresponsibility and misguided priorities. When the light of scrutiny was shone upon the squalor of a festering legislative body resolute in their designs to champion the guilty, they scrambled for the shadows at the hem of govt like the cucarachas they are.

Now we see the incremental restoration of those legal and policy obstacles. Sadly most of us will not notice, some of us will not recognoize it and some of us won't care. The rest of us who sound the clarion trumpet of warning will again be categorized as mildly insane.

Elections have consequences.

[slomatt]

Matt,

Good points to chew on, though I am quite sure these people were picked up and sent there for good cause. It is quite feasible as in our current judicial/penal system that there are truly innocents and that "due process" as we understand it, is not being afforded to these prisoners. By introducing them into our legal system is my issue. They don't deserve it.

If we were to trust Wikipedia and the recent announcement from the Pentagon, the return to kill us again ratio to released from gitmo ration is 14.5 percent. That's pretty bad in my book. From Wikipedia:

Since 7 October 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantnamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 420 detainees remain.[11] More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them.

61 / 420 = 14.5% (61 from my first posted story, 270 from above).



Bob, thank you for the reply. I really wish we could be sure that all of them had been picked up and jailed for "good cause" because then we wouldn't have any issue. The problem is that some of the people there are extremely dangerous and evil individuals who should never be freed, but there are also people there who deserve their fair day in court. Separating the two is difficult and determining what to do with the guilty and where to send the innocents (since most cannot be returned to their country of origin) is even harder. I do feel we should error on the side of caution, but at the same time we need to let our legal system do its job.

- Matt

[DHC6twinotter]

I was watching the news yesterday, and they said somebody (don't remember who-congressman maybe?) suggested reopening Alcatraz and moving all the Gitmo prisoners there. Nancy Peloski shot down the idea quickly since she didn't want the suspected terrorist held in her district.

What about the rest of us Americans? Some of us don't want them in our districts either. :chair:

[oly884]

I was watching the news yesterday, and they said somebody (don't remember who-congressman maybe?) suggested reopening Alcatraz and moving all the Gitmo prisoners there. Nancy Peloski shot down the idea quickly since she didn't want the suspected terrorist held in her district.

What about the rest of us Americans? Some of us don't want them in our districts either. :chair:


Mrs Pelosi is a terrible human being.

Ok, now that I have that off my chest I'll elaborate my feelings.

It's one thing to say that as a nation that believes in freedom to the fullest extent we should offer these people fair trials. Fine, if you feel that way, great, but YOU have to take the responsibility for your feelings. If Alcatraz is deemed the safest place, then she needs to take responsibility for HER actions.

If we say that as a nation that is fighting to spread freedom against an enemy that plays by no rules and is merciless, and that we need to have the ability to intelligently and systematically detain these individuals and retrieve information from them, then so be it. However with that comes the necessity to not only be open and honest with the citizens, but to apply a moral/ethical view from far more than just a handful of people. If it is deemed that immoral/unethical practices were used, then own up to the consequences.

It comes down to standing by what you believe. Mrs. Pelosi won't because, like I said, she's a terrible person. But if I had the option to torture a terrorist to save 1,000 innocent lives, but it would mean I would face criminal charges, then so be it, I'll take my punishment knowing I saved lives instead of sitting idly by and letting bad things happen because I was concerned for only myself.

[fustercluck]

Before any terrorist is brought within our borders, every adult american and every child whose opinion it is that terrorists be allowed in, should be forced to watch the many beheading videos the terrorists made starting with the Daniel Pearl video. Let them watch it in unison and in public. We'll see how sympathetic they are after that.

[Ric]

Before any terrorist is brought within our borders, every adult american and every child whose opinion it is that terrorists be allowed in, should be forced to watch the many beheading videos the terrorists made starting with the Daniel Pearl video. Let them watch it in unison and in public. We'll see how sympathetic they are after that.

if it was only that easy...

[Bob98SR5]

I was watching the news yesterday, and they said somebody (don't remember who-congressman maybe?) suggested reopening Alcatraz and moving all the Gitmo prisoners there. Nancy Peloski shot down the idea quickly since she didn't want the suspected terrorist held in her district.

What about the rest of us Americans? Some of us don't want them in our districts either. :chair:


That's typical liberal double speak right there. "Oh no, we need to shut down Gitmo, but don't put the prisoners in our town!" Seriously, that would be fitting justice in my book to house the worst of the worst in the SF Bay area including Berkeley. Maybe put one in the care of those bizatches from Code Pink.

[Bob98SR5]

Now if these truly are former Gitmo prisoners, this is what happens when we lose our resolve, cave into political pressure from our so-called Saudi allies, and release Gitmo prisoners. These guys want to kill you now that they are out. For all of you who want to allow our so-called justice system to "fairly" try these guys in court, remember, our judicial system is a f'g joke. I'm sure you all can come up with an egregious example of how our judicial system fails us.

Enjoy your new credibility in the world, folks. Here's some of the guys who want to bring that to you:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ef_1233072449

[scottiac]

Perhaps, just for thought, it isn't Gitmo the place that became the problem, but Gitmo the practice. It's location wasn't a problem for anyone. The questionable decisions on due process as defined by any publicly known American standard was the problem.

Now I don't research things closely, so y'all may call me an idiot (wouldn't be the first time), but the Gitmo "guests" didn't get military or civilian or international legal rights. At least pick ONE to adhere to.

If you make an exception to due process for accused (keyword there) terrorists, then shouldn't we make the exceptions for accused murderers, child molesters, etc, etc? Where does the line get drawn? If you don't like the "f'd up" civilian due process, at least adhere to military due process. Or hell, create one especially for "amorphous enemies of the state that we don't recognize as being in a state of war", but make it a *process*, and one that we can be proud of and retain our identify as Americans.

To clarify, I don't think Gitmo needed to be closed because it was an off-shore prison, but because the practices there caused it to become a government-level embarrassment to the USA. For my money, all prisons should be built on an island with 300 miles of open water around them.

I don't think the Gitmo prisoners should be released, they should be tried. If they are found not guilty, by whatever reasonable standard, they must be released. If not, then lock 'em up in knowing that they've had reasonable due practice.

But keeping them as guests for six plus years without resolution doesn't meet my definition of reasonable due process.

[fustercluck]

Scottiac, I understand the concern, but it presumes a few things. Firstly, it bestows on foreign combatants constitutional protection. I am not aware of any provision for such consideration in the constitution nor has there been an historic precedent establishing such. The murderers and rapist you mention have constitutional rights guaranteed by virtue of their birthright were they citizens of the US or caught in the U.S. The questionableness (I think I made that word up...) comes from political opposition applying a new standard to war practices for political gain by turning ignorant public opinion agaist the Bush admin.

In this case, even the Geveva Convention standards do not apply since these folks were not part of a State military force in uniform. They have no protection as a result. So there can be no legal expectation of such.

The only other protection possible is that of moral human rights. These folks were caught in the act of providing physical and/or material support of terroristic activities. Being that terrorism is mainly focused on the murder and/or maiming of the innocent for socio-political gain, it is therefore immoral and deserves no presumption of more than basic human rights; food, shelter, clothing.

Diligent legal processes, presumption of innocence, due process of law are luxuries we bestow on folks found under constitutional protection. Watch what they did to Daniel Pearl and tell me they have not devolved out of humanity. Now after having watched that, imagine that in Daniel's place is your child innocent and helpless. Still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt? This is not fantasy. They have hissed their desire to do that to us and our children and demonstrated the will and ability to do it.

Examine for a moment what the Roosevelt admin. did to the German spies found on our soil during WWII. They were here for sabotage and information; not to slit our chilren's throats on camera to broadcast proudly later...their hands still sticky with coagulating blood.

What did Lincoln do to those who even spoke about secessesion from the union during the civil war? What was his policy relative to habeas corpus? (Not that it really applies here)?

I think Pres Bush has been slandered and villified so that the weak willed and weak minded would lose their resolve to support him and the political oppostiton could benefit while the nation's interests and security hangs in the balance. You watch, Obama will move them to satisfy the seathing and frothy Left, but if he understands the nature of those prisoners and has self interest foremost, he will change nothing but geography.

The Left was willing to trade our interests, our lives, our security for political power. I defecate in their general direction.

[slomatt]

"These folks were caught in the act of providing physical and/or material support of terroristic activities."

That's the core of the issue right there, the statement above assumes that every single detainee is guilty. If you look into how and where some (not all) of the detainees were picked up it is obvious that some of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many were turned in by bounty hunters or members of warring tribes who were rewarded for each "terrorist" they could find. Our own government is very aware of this fact, of the original 775 detainees they only plan to try about 70 of them and to eventually let the rest go (there are about 270 left in Gitmo). The problem is that there is nowhere to send them after they are released.

I agree with scottiac that there has to be a process to deal with the detainees so we can determine which are dangerous and deal with them as needed. The remaining innocents should be released as soon as is reasonably possible.

- Matt

[fustercluck]

Which of the 270 left were turned in for bounty?

[DHC6twinotter]

I defecate in their general direction.


:rofl: Sounds like something from Monty Python. :rofl:




I think Pres Bush has been slandered and villified so that the weak willed and weak minded would lose their resolve to support him and the political oppostiton could benefit while the nation's interests and security hangs in the balance. You watch, Obama will move them to satisfy the seathing and frothy Left, but if he understands the nature of those prisoners and has self interest foremost, he will change nothing but geography.

Totally Agree! :thumbup:

[slomatt]

Which of the 270 left were turned in for bounty?


I'm not sure what you're asking here, are you looking for individual names? :) As far as I'm aware specifics on each detainee are not available to the general public, so there is no way to know. What we do know is that of the ~270 detainees at Gitmo the government has no plans to try ~200 for any kind of crime and those 200 people will be released at some point. The remaining ~70 will be tried and dealt with as necessary.

- Matt

[Bob98SR5]

Jeez, I guess I am not up on the latest news. In July 08, the Supreme Court voted to grant these scumbags constitional rights:

In a sweeping decision that will have myriad consequences-- foreseen and unforeseen --the Supreme Court found that the right of habeas corpus under the U.S. Constitution applies to terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In a controversial 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy that is already being reported as a major loss for the Administration’s detainee policy, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus; that the Detainee Treatment Act’s (DTA) procedures for reviewing their statuses was not an adequate and effective substitute for the habeas writ; and that section 7 of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) is an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. In other words, the Constitution applies to unlawful enemy combatants at Gitmo, and the one-time Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT’s) didn’t cut it.
According to the majority opinion, the writ may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times of rebellion or invasion. None of the cases cited by either side in this dispute, regarding the writ’s geographic scope at common law, was dispositive.

Source: http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed061308a.cfm

So yes, this is exactly what I fear the most: terrorist a-holes now have an opportunity to use our f'g joke of a judicial system against us. Who wins in court these days? Right. The one with the most money, fame, the right lawyer, the right skin color, the most connected, etc. Interesting point here: the article points out one interesting scenario. Those folks who have no country to go to *could* petition for asylum here in the US. Welcome to your next Jihadist neighbor! From the article:

"Although it is too early to tell, other unintended consequences of this decision might include detainees petitioning the government for asylum once ordered released by a federal judge (because no country wants them), and/or suing the United States for millions of dollars for “unlawful imprisonment.”

Isn't that wonderful. I hope they pick a nice progressive city like Berkeley.

[oly884]

Bob, it's only a matter of time before people become fed up with how things are run before we take matters into our own hands.


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Call me crazy, but people are getting pretty sick and tired of the government running over our rights, endangering OUR lives, and not listening to we the people. How much longer do you think people will be willing to hand over their rights?

[DHC6twinotter]

On a similar note, charges against a USS Cole bombing suspect have been dropped.



The senior military judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay has dropped charges against a suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing.

The legal move by the Hon. Susan J. Crawford upholds President Obama's Guantanamo order to halt court proceedings at the Navy detention center in Cuba.

The military charges against suspected Al Qaeda bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active war crimes case at Guantanamo Bay.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Crawford dismissed the charges against al-Nashiri without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later. He will remain in prison for the time being.

"It was her decision, but it reflects the fact that the president has issued an executive order which mandates that the military commissions be halted, pending the outcome of several reviews of our operations down at Guantanamo," Morrell said Thursday night.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/05/sources-charges-dropped-uss-cole-bombing-suspect/

[Bob98SR5]

After reading the article, can someone explain to me the difference between the reasons for closing Gitmo and why those same reasons were not used to close our other prisons such as this one on Baghram afb? Seems to me, the only difference between Gitmo and our other prisons is that we took a few hundred straight off the battlefield onto our little piece of territory on Cuba. It's political bull#### to assuage the "evils" of Gitmo to his left wing constituency.

Its quite sad to see that as a candidate, Obama railed against Gitmo and probably was NOT privy to the most highest levels of intelligence that Bush did. Now that he's CNC, he is privy to it and I suppose he knows what kind of people are harbored there at Baghram.

Beyond words.

****************

Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners
By NEDRA PICKLER and MATT APUZZO, AP

The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.
In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.
"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."
The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.
Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.
The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.
After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.
The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of a military action.
The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same.
It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.
The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them. Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.