However, as the Washington Post reported on Saturday, the administration nevertheless "maintained a broad right to detain those who provide 'substantial' assistance to al-Qaeda and its associates around the globe."
Furthermore, the Justice Department is quoted as saying, "The particular facts and circumstances justifying detention will vary from case to case."
I hope this isn't going to be more of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along style of "justice" that the Bush administration practiced for more than seven years.
My friend and fellow journalist Bill Fisher collected the reactions of several human rights activists and Constitutional law experts. Here is a sampling:
[The Center for Constitutional Rights] called the government's position "a case of old wine in new bottles," adding, "It is still unlawful to hold people indefinitely without charge. The men who have been held for more than seven years by our government must be charged or released."and
[Human Rights Watch] said, "The Obama administration's take on detainees is essentially the Bush standard with a new name. The Obama administration's newly issued position on Guantanamo detainees is a disappointment. Rather than rejecting the Bush administration's ill-conceived notion of a 'war on terror,' the Obama administration's position on detainees has merely tinkered with its form."This is a huge disappointment.
I was encouraged when one of Obama's first presidential actions was to order the closure of Gitmo by January 2010. In the meantime, however, it appears that detainees' rights will continue to be violated in our name.
This is not change I can believe in.
>> Read Bill Fisher's full article: Legal Scholars, Rights Groups Condemn Obama's New Detainee Policies
You may want to check out attorney H.Candace Gordon's view of the matter. She has been representing two Gitmo detainees on a pro bono basis:
ReplyDeletehttp://gtmoblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-definition.html
An excerpt:
"The nuances between this definition and Bush's may not seem clear to the untrained eye but they are important. Under Bush the definition was purposely vague so as to justify holding anyone they wanted to hold. The language is getting tighter and although not perfect most of the men currently held at Guantanamo should be released under this definition because now actual proof of substantial and direct support will be required."
I think that what it means also is that in the future --hopefully-- there will be no huge "sweeps" of persons into custody without hearings on whether there is actually evidence against them.