Background: For information about Bagram Detention Center (Afghanistan), see the New York Times article by Tim Golden (updated 4/2/2009) here. In particular, consider the following paragraphs from that article. Emphasis is mine:
The population at Bagram has increased nearly sixfold over the past four years, driven not just by the deepening conflict in Afghanistan but also by the fact that the Bush administration in September 2004 largely halted the movement of prisoners to Guantánamo, leaving Bagram as the preferred alternative to detain terrorism suspects. Human rights advocates pressed the Bush administration to revamp the review process for releasing or transferring the 630 Bagram detainees, all but about 30 of whom are Afghans.
On January 22, 2009, Judge John D. Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia gave the Obama administration until Feb. 20 to "refine" the government's legal position with respect to four men who are seeking to challenge their detention at Bagram under habeas corpus, a right that the Supreme Court has granted for detainees at Guantánamo. The Obama administration responded by essentially upholding the Bush administration's position.
On April 2, Judge Bates ruled that the three detainees at Bagram are "virtually identical" to detainees at Guantánamo, and so they have the same legal rights that the Supreme Court granted prisoners held there. The 53-page ruling closely tracked the Supreme Court's reasoning that prisoners at Guantánamo have a constitutional right to habeas corpus. The judge asked for additional briefings on the fourth detainee involved in the case.
One question still confronting the Obama administration is whether to go ahead with the construction of a 40-acre detention complex to replace the existing prison at Bagram. More broadly, Mr. Obama's move away from the Bush administration's aggressive detention policies [sic -- ed.] will have to be reconciled with his plans to increase combat operations in Afghanistan, a step that will almost inevitably generate new waves of detainees.
William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal wrote about "Obama's Gitmo" (Main Street in Opinion, page A19, Tues., April 21, 2009), see here. The Baghram Air Base in Afghanistan houses detainees. The Obama Administration, according to McGurn, does not accord those detainees the same habeas corpus rights that the Supreme Court gave to Guantanamo's detainees.
McGurn continues,
Manifestly, Mr. Greenwald believes that "black hole" is simply moving to Bagram. "I wish I could be writing paeans celebrating the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law," he writes. "But these actions -- these contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney -- are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don't want to see it, or that you're so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you'll just believe that even when it seems like he's doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good."
For McGurn, "sensisble war policy" justifies both Guantanamo and Bagram. He does not oppose the existence of Bagram. He opposes Obama's "presidential cynicism."
In looking a little further at Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon. com, I see an interesting post from this very morning (Monday, May 25, 2009), entitled "Backlash grows against Obama's preventive detention proposal. " Obama wants Congressional support for preventive detentions. The following quotes are interesting:
The problem is, the congressional Democrats he’d consult on the issue don’t seem to have any suggestions for Obama on how to detain potentially dangerous people without violating the Constitution.
"I don’t know," said House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, who would be likely to be involved in any discussions between Obama and Congress. . . .
Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts gave Obama “credit for taking the issue on in a straightforward way,” but said only that "I'd be interested to see what he’s proposing" on a constitutional system of preventive detention. "Maybe he’s a smarter man than I," McGovern said, but "I can’t think of a system that fits within the Constitution" . . . .
As I have said earlier today (see the post),
Obama's speech [of May 21, 2009] implies...the subjugation of the executive to the legislative and judicial branches. Not a division of powers, but the replacement of executive power with legislative and judicial power.
Greenwald would strongly disagree in pointing out that Obama is arrogating to his administration authority that Bush claimed and that Obama the candidate rejected. Granted. However, bear in mind that Obama continues to seek congressional approval and authorization.
