Obama backs Bush policy on Detainees.

[Donald Aquilano]

Here's the link. The hero of the left in this country just flip flopped on another issue. Please try to defend him I'm always up for a good laugh.

http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~r/usat...etainees_N.htm

[Raider]

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped,"

And this comes as a surprise?

[H2FC]

This is great news from the Obama administration! Many of us who voted for and supports Obama have never believed our captive enemies should be granted American constitutional rights.

I fully agree with the following paragraph...."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 an ongoing 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".

[Seraphim]

Speaking of the Constitution, did I miss the small print detailing why Afghanistan isn't allowed to adopt a theocracy?

"You're going to accept a secular democracy God damn it, regardless of whether or not I have to kill you in the process."

Seriously guys, if the US is all about taking down unstable regimes, and nation building, when are we going to finally invade Mexico?

[HarveyJ]

saying detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

Explain to me where Afghanistan is located within the territory of the United States or in what manner Afghanis are US citizens.
He didn't say that they have "no human rights" or that they're not going to get due process... He said "detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights." which presumably implies the American Constitution... Although the Afghan one is based off the US one in a number of ways as of late 2003, so there may be some contention at that point.

[jberryhill]

"You're going to accept a secular democracy God damn it, regardless of whether or not I have to kill you in the process."

That has not been our policy.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, it was not an officially Islamic country.

The Constitution which Bush endorsed declared Iraq to be an Islamic republic.

In other words, Iraq was not an Islamic republic until we made it one - which is as ironically amusing as the right wing religious support of Israel, the only country in the mid-east which has legal abortion.

There is, and was no "Bush policy" on combat captures in a war zone in the first place, so of course there is no change in policy.

The Guantanamo situation involves an odd mix of people who were brought in by locals when the US started offering monetary rewards. Accordingly, some of the people brought in as "terrorists" were a simple result of locals using the reward program to settle old scores. You could essentially kidnap anyone you wanted, bring him to the US forces, say "Oh, yeah, he's a big time terrorist", and collect $10K. The detainees included persons as young as age 14. They were not US combat captures, and each case needs review that I wouldn't expect to be completed in a couple of weeks.

But, as with the relief aid to Gaza, bd is enthralled by his own lack of reading comprehension, and doesn't understand this article is about combat captures in Afghanistan.

[Acro]

As a result of the invasion in Iraq and the 5 years of war, the Christians of Iraq are now under oppression; thousands of people that co-existed with Muslims for centuries are fearing for their lives.

[Gerry]

Evangelism by the sword.