General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

40. Your source talks about the 2004 protective order--then the 2008 one. And your legal cites are

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 02:39 PM

Jul 2012

before the 2008 protective order was issued. To be clear, I understand that the blogpost you are linking to is recent, but this is about a 2008 protective order.

We’re asking the court to make clear that the current access procedures in the long-standing protective order remain in force for these clients, and that the government is violating the protective order by requiring us to sign the new MOU as a condition of contact with Yasein, whose case the government asserts is “terminated.” The government denied our request to meet with Yasein on our last visit, in May, unless we signed the MOU. We refused and so were kept from meeting with him. We’re putting in a request to meet with Yasein when we visit GTMO in August.

Without a doubt, the attorneys for the detainee and I are talking about the September, 2008 protective order.

Interestingly, the attorney you reference has apparently run the clock on a SCOTUS appeal. Any thoughts on that?

This is a Bush-era protective order. Why can you not admit that?

On edit....perhaps the thing you are not considering is that under Bush, none of the detainee reached this status.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Obama-Gitmo myth [View all] MadHound Jul 2012 OP

Greenwald. LOL... SidDithers Jul 2012 #1

Can you factually refute anything he says? MadHound Jul 2012 #2

Greenwald didn't land the new gig by criticizing Republicans... SidDithers Jul 2012 #3

Again, can you factually refute anything that he said in this piece? MadHound Jul 2012 #4

Dithers likes to pretend that Greenwald is a Ron Paul supporter. Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #6

Well, no Greenwald thread would be complete without your vigorous defense of him...nt SidDithers Jul 2012 #7

I'm still waiting on a factual rebuttal to Greenwald's article MadHound Jul 2012 #8

Don't wait too long, 'cause it ain't comin'... SidDithers Jul 2012 #9

Well thanks for admitting that you can't factually refute the article MadHound Jul 2012 #10

Not that I cant, but that I won't... SidDithers Jul 2012 #11

Why waste ones grey matter on discussion when propagenda is so much easier. Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #12

No Bain, no Citizen's United....last week poor Glenn was reduced to a tantrum about Harold Ford. msanthrope Jul 2012 #20

Have you ever read anything written by this right wing Canadian that consists of Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #15

... SidDithers Jul 2012 #16

Exhibit 'A' n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #18

Tell your girlfriend I was here way before OMC...nt SidDithers Jul 2012 #26

NO, NO, NO! DON'T TELL ME ANYTHING I DON'T WANT TO HEAR </SNARK> N/T markpkessinger Jul 2012 #35

The Guardian is owned by its employees - a model of democracy in action. Octafish Jul 2012 #27

I thought it was owned by The Scott Trust Company...nt SidDithers Jul 2012 #29

Thanks for the correction, siddithers! Sorry, my mistake. Octafish Jul 2012 #30

The point of the article... Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #5

Very disappointing. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #13

Um--according to the documents provided, these are rules stemming from a 2008 Bush-era protective msanthrope Jul 2012 #22

According to the article... these are new rules on top of old rules. Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #31

No...they aren't new rules. They are the rules for a post-habeas detainee, issued in 2008, msanthrope Jul 2012 #33

So, I guess thanks to Obama for enforcing Bush's disgusting rules? Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #34

Did you miss the part where this came from a court? As in the judiciary? msanthrope Jul 2012 #36

I am familiar with the MOU. What you are ignoring is that this is a new MOU which the Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #39

Your source talks about the 2004 protective order--then the 2008 one. And your legal cites are msanthrope Jul 2012 #40

These are new rules implemented under the Obama admin Why can't you admit that Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #42

Thank you for finally agreeing with me! This is about the 9/08 order then? nt msanthrope Jul 2012 #43

No it is not. And I am not agreeing with you. Did you even read the petition? Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #44

"Judge Hogan's Protective Order"--direct quote from YOU, is the 2008 protective order msanthrope Jul 2012 #46

"The MOU would replace the system of access to counsel provided by Judge Hogan�s Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #47

Again...tell me how the new MOU violates that order. msanthrope Jul 2012 #48

Today a judge agreed with the defense Attorney.... Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #49

Kick! Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #14

In the face of political expediency, common decency and justice are left behind. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #17

"Senate Votes 90-6 To Block Funds For Guantanamo Closure." msanthrope Jul 2012 #19

He actually did mention that. Then, accurately points out that Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #21

Where does Greenwald mention the 90-6 vote??? As for inmates getting a 'fair trial,' kindly be msanthrope Jul 2012 #24

Only because Obama wanted to thread the needle and effectively relocate TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #23

Would you kindly cite your legal assertion as to the authority of the President? msanthrope Jul 2012 #25

Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises HiPointDem Jul 2012 #28

"Too difficult to prosecute; too dangerous to release". Nye Bevan Jul 2012 #32

Are you sure you don't fall in that category? Dragonfli Jul 2012 #37

+1 n/t whatchamacallit Jul 2012 #38

This kind of article is very important in an election year. Robb Jul 2012 #41

So you're essentially saying that we should ignore human suffering that the US is causing, MadHound Jul 2012 #45