An unlikely agreement

It’s a sad day when Barack Obama agrees with George W. Bush.

President Obama’s first month in office has featured several reversals of Bush policies, such as overturning the global gag rule and shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

So it came as an unpleasant surprise when the Obama administration announced last Friday that it will uphold President Bush’s protocol regarding detainees in Afghanistan.

The situation at Guantanamo Bay was – and still is – a cause for international critique and concern. Suspects have been held there for years without charge, and some have been subjected to harsh interrogation techniques. President Obama’s order for its close was a powerful step toward restoring America’s reputation around the world.

So why should the situation in Afghanistan be any different? The detainees at the Bagram Air Base have been held without charge and without access to legal counsel.

If there have been allegations of torture, they haven’t been nearly as widespread as those at Guantanamo. Still, the denial of habeas corpus is every bit as disturbing.

In the case of Boumediene v. Bush in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo have a constitutional right to habeas corpus.
In light of this decision, I find the Obama administration’s upholding of the Bush policies in Afghanistan to be not only disappointing but also impudent. The situations are similar enough that it seems likely the Supreme Court could make a similar ruling about Bagram. And then wouldn’t Obama look foolish?

Of course, there is one important difference between Guantanamo and Bagram. Guantanamo is an American-leased property, whereas Bagram is within a subject of a military campaign.

CNN writes that President Obama’s administration will “argue that it is against its security interests to release enemy combatants in a war zone.”

Well, no doubt it is, but habeas corpus doesn’t grant the prisoners the right to waltz out of Bagram Air Base because they’re sick of the food.

The question is not whether the detainees should be released, but whether they should have access to courts to challenge their detention.  

If President Obama doesn’t feel like upholding the Constitution, perhaps he might try abiding by the many international statutes that prohibit chargeless detention of prisoners of war. Article Nine of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

The Geneva Conventions ban “the passing of sentences ... without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

International law is pretty darn clear on this issue, and ignoring it makes us look, well, pretty darn uncivilized.