I had posted this on the previous thread. The appeal text is available, and a longer statement from Tina Foster:

Following on, the statement of Tina Monshipour Foster, together with the link to the filing by the Obama administration for appeal is here:

http://www.ijnetwork.org/content/view/140/1/

from the appeal:

This Court should also stay proceedings pending appeal. The Solicitor General has authorized respondents to seek an expedited appeal of the April 2, 2009 Order in the D.C. Circuit if this Court grants the motion to certify. Also, the President has established, by Executive Order, a deliberative process to address questions concerning Executive detention authority and options. The Task Force will be reviewing the processes currently in place at Bagram and elsewhere, and will make recommendations to the President regarding those processes. If this Court were to proceed with these cases during the pendency of the appeal, the Court would impose serious practical burdens on, and potential harm to, the Government and its efforts to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. Although in this Court’s view the burdens of litigating thesehabeas petitions are not insurmountable, there is no dispute that Bagram Airfield is in a theater of war where the Nation’s troops are in harm’s way. Responding to these petitions – and to the potentially large number of other petitions filed by Bagram detainees who may now allege that they are similarly situated – would divert the military’s attention and resources at a critical time for operations in Afghanistan, potentially requiring accommodation and protection of counsel and onerous discovery. This Court should permit the Government to seek expedited review of that decision in the Court of Appeals before imposing these significant and irreparable burdens and risking the attendant injury to the public interest.

Apparently, until the President conducts his review and uses his executive orders, any relief from imprisonment is regarded as some kind of hinderance of his war powers. With respect to prisoners in Afghanistan, this president, and his Solicitor General Elena Kagan, believes he has been promoted from Commander in Chief to Dictator and must make a pronouncement before anyone else can assertain that they have any rights at all. Judge Bates should have thrown out the MCA ban on Geneva while he had the chance.

The long para in the middle of my above post is a quote from the appeal.

That would appear to be quite an oxymoron these days. Is there any honesty left anywhere in Washington?

Obama's hypocrisy on this point is so infuriating. Thank you for including his speech on the Senate floor about habeas rights. It's especially important to throw back into his face his own words about the detention of innocent people. He knew in 2006 that some prisoners were innocent. Do his actions now flow from a belief that he and his forces are infallible and only the "bad guys" are detained now? Even that explanation doesn't work, because many of the prisoners we are dealing with now were already in our prisons when he made that statement.

As gandhi suggested in the previous thread where he brought this up, it's time to label Obama a war criminal. There is no way around that conclusion.

The other lot would not have left so quietly if they had feared that they might either be prosecuted or that their legacy would not have been secure and continue to develop under the new management.

And to constantly reassure them that their path will still be trodden and all their skeletons remain locked in cupboards, the new Kenyan Chief Operating Manager wears a tell tale flag pin.

It will therefore perforce have to be from abroad that the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune will descend upon citadel America accompanied by the loudly sounding Jericho trumpets of the burgeoning Truth Movement.

Glenn writes,

... in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that the denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees was unconstitutional and that all Guantanamo detainees have the right to a full hearing in which they can contest their accusations against them.

In the wake of the Boumediene ruling, the U.S. Government wanted to preserve the power to abduct people from around the world and bring them to American prisons without having to provide them any due process. So, instead of bringing them to our Guantanamo prison camp (where, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, they were entitled to habeas hearings), the Bush administration would instead simply send them to our prison camp in Bagram, Afghanistan, and then argue that because they were flown to Bagram rather than Guantanamo, they had no rights of any kind and Boudemiene didn't apply to them.

I can follow that. I get confused by this,

Last month, a federal judge emphatically rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boudemiene applies every bit as much to Guantanamo as it does to Bagram.

Were Guantanamo and Bagram inadvertently reversed in that sentence? Or, am I missing something?

I think this is the payoff conservatives get by constantly pounding on the meme that they are the iron-jaw party of the military dedicated to defending the shores, opposed to the Democrats who are rainbows and unicorn party of government handouts.

Worse than being a Democrat Obama never served, and as a result he seems to be in a position to be helpless to tell the military what to do (unless it is what they wanted to do already). Turf skirmishes notwithstanding, the intelligence community seems to have attached itself to the Pentagon's position. Clinton had the same problem and that's how you ended with the namby-pamby DADT policy which was really Powell's idea but Clinton will always be hated for it.

The way I read it is that right now the Pentagon and Langley are calling their own shots, and Obama and his DoJ have to tap dance to their tune. I doubt they were ever loyal even to the Bush/Cheney insanity team, which served their purposes and helped them build the leverage they have now. It is going to take a lot more ideological force than Obama could muster (assuming he is so inclined, which is far from certain) to pry them loose from the privileges they have gained and believe should be theirs. I'm not even sure an Act of Congress will do it at this point.