Obama Should Be Consistent

Published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
(Germany) on 15 April 2009
by Reinhard Müller (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Ron Argentati. Edited by Patricia Simoni.
It’s obviously not an easy task for President Obama to shake off the legacy he inherited from George W. Bush. His administration has filed suit against a judicial order stating that prisoners held at the Bagram military installation in Afghanistan are entitled to a review of their incarceration by the American court system. The Department of Justice fears that the ruling could compromise military operations. In the case of prisoners of war, the civilian court system wouldn’t have jurisdiction in any event.

But the prisoners held at Bagram weren’t captured in Afghanistan; they were just brought there for interrogation. They are, like the prisoners held at Guantanamo (which Obama intends to close), prisoners of the global and unlimited war on terror. The usual rules of war may be difficult to apply to this conflict, but that shouldn’t be used to justify the systematic violation of basic liberties. Obama needs to be consistent.



In Bagram
Von Reinhard Müller
15 April 2009


So einfach ist es offenbar für den amerikanischen Präsidenten Obama nicht, das Erbe der Bush-Ära abzuschütteln. Seine Regierung hat sich jetzt gegen eine gerichtliche Entscheidung gewandt, nach der Gefangene auf dem amerikanischen Militärstützpunkt Bagram in Afghanistan eine Überprüfung ihrer Haft durch amerikanische Gerichte verlangen können. Das Justizministerium fürchtet, militärische Operationen könnten dadurch gefährdet werden. Handelte es sich um Kriegsgefangene, wären ordentliche Gerichte ohnehin nicht zuständig.

Doch wurden die in Bagram Inhaftierten gar nicht in Afghanistan aufgegriffen, sondern nur zu Verhören dorthin gebracht. Sie sind somit, wie die Insassen in Guantánamo (dieses Lager will Obama schließen), Gefangene im weltweiten und unbegrenzten „Krieg gegen den Terrorismus“. Dieser Konflikt lässt sich zwar mit den überkommenen Kriegsregeln nur schwer bewältigen. Er kann aber die systematische Verletzung grundlegender Freiheitsrechte nicht rechtfertigen. Obama sollte konsequent sein.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Venezuela: Trump’s ‘Ego-Politics’: Why Does the US Prioritize Venezuela in Latin America?

Luxembourg: The Middle East Is Getting Away from Trump: No Solutions in Sight for Conflicts in the Region

Mexico: The ‘Radical Right’ and Trumpist Neo-McCarthyism

Germany: How Golfer Donald Trump Got Stuck in the Soccer Scene

China: The ‘Shield of the Americas’ Cannot Protect Latin America

Topics

Germany: How Golfer Donald Trump Got Stuck in the Soccer Scene

China: The ‘Shield of the Americas’ Cannot Protect Latin America

Mexico: A Pat on the Back and a Kick in the Shins: The Relationship with the US

Mexico: The ‘Radical Right’ and Trumpist Neo-McCarthyism

Poland: 2 Mistakes That Sank Trump. Democrats Could Soon Regain the Majority, Even the Senate*

Saudi Arabia: What Next for Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan?

South Africa: Data Centers Take a Beating in the US: Any Lessons for South Africa?

Venezuela: Trump’s ‘Ego-Politics’: Why Does the US Prioritize Venezuela in Latin America?

Related Articles

Guatemala: The Return of Nationalism

Germany: Trump’s Fatal Signal to Putin*

Austria: Trump Punishes Merz but Also Weakens His Own Country

South Korea: Trump’s Move To Cut Troops in Germany Must Not Affect Korean Peninsula

Poland: Polish PM Donald Tusk Questions US Loyalty in Financial Times, Targeting Both Parties

Previous article
Next article