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

Brazil: Xi’s Meetings with Trump and Putin Make China an Obligatory Stop for Diplomacy*

Saudi Arabia: Will Trump Conclude a Deal like Obama’s?

Qatar: Those Who Believe America Will Leave the Region after the War Are Deluded — and Here’s Why

India: Every Country Has ‘Stupid People’: Rubio’s Guide to Diplomatic Evasion and Racial Deflection

Israel: Has Trump Had Enough?

Topics

Egypt: The Middle East after the Trump-Xi Summit

Saudi Arabia: The Meeting of the Giants…And Regional Stability

Kenya: Why US-Israel War on Iran Hits the Kenyan Pocket First

Brazil: Xi’s Meetings with Trump and Putin Make China an Obligatory Stop for Diplomacy*

Luxembourg: When 2 Powers Meet, Does the 3rd Suffer? Xi, Trump and What Their Meeting Means for Europe

Spain: Trump Powerless against Xi

Poland: Donald Trump’s U-Turn Will Finish Off NATO

Kuwait: US Assessment of the War

Related Articles

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

Germany: Europe Must Not Allow Itself To Be Drawn into Trump’s War

Germany: Friedrich Merz Bids Farewell to International Law

Previous article
Next article