War On Terror: The administration says the detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot challenge their detentions and have no constitutional rights. Wouldn't that be a perfect place to send the Gitmo jihadist
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that Guantanamo detainees had the legal right to challenge their detentions in American courts, four detainees held at Bagram thought they had a get out of jail free card. Following that ruling, petitions were filed on their behalf in a U.S. district court. Apparently, in handling prisoners of war captured in the war on terror, the first law of real estate applies. The rights of detainees depend on location, location, location.

It is now the official opinion of the Obama administration that the detainees at Bagram have none while those at Gitmo, such as those who attacked the Navy destroyer Cole in a Yemeni harbor in 2000, have the same rights as any U.S. citizen. Yes, we are confused too. In response to an inquiry by the judge regarding the habeas corpus rights of prisoners held in Afghanistan, acting Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz made a terse reply in papers filed before the court: "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previous articulated position." The Obama administration position is that Bagram, where 600 jihadists are being held, differs from Gitmo in that it is in an active war zone and that Gitmo is technically U.S. territory, where the U.S. Constitution holds sway. We'd argue that in the global war on terror, the entire United States, its possessions and its military bases are in a war zone and that this distinction is nonsense.The Bush administration argued Guantanamo was constitutionally outside the U.S. The Supreme Court, after some legal gymnastics, concluded otherwise. The military tribunal system was designed to overcome such hairsplitting, but the Obama administration seems to think that is not a proper forum for even the likes of Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri. Charges against the Cole attack architect were dismissed so he could be retried later in a civilian court.Retired Navy Capt. Kirk Lippold, who was the Cole's captain at the time of the attack, said in a statement, "It appears the Obama administration, without consideration for its immediate impact or long-term effects, will use a legal maneuver to prevent these detainees from being held accountable for their heinous acts."

It's hard to square these contradictory positions on Gitmo and Bagram unless we consider that closing Gitmo was essentially a political decision, the fulfillment of a campaign promise and a sop to the American left that had nothing to do with America's security.This double standard comes in the wake of an 85-page report prepared by Adm. Patrick Walsh, the Navy's second in command, for President Obama following his Jan. 22 executive order to close the Guantanamo facility within a year. The report found the camp to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3, which requires the humane treatment of prisoners taken in unconventional armed conflicts. This includes the force-feeding of prisoners and being forced to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Guantanamo was selected not because it is the American equivalent of Abu Ghraib, but because of its physical separation from the continental U.S. and its citizens. Bagram would serve this purpose even better. As the Obama administration decides where to send the Gitmo detainees once the facility is closed, we hear Bagram is just lovely this time of year.