Acquittal: What's the point?
By John Amato Thursday Jul 09, 2009 1:00pmSpencer was at a Senate hearing and this is very disturbing.
Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective. Asked by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) the politically difficult but entirely fair question about whether terrorism detainees acquitted in courts could be released in the United States, Johnson said that “as a matter of legal authority,” the administration’s powers to detain someone under the law of war don’t expire for a detainee after he’s acquitted in court. “If you have authority under the law of war to detain someone” under the Supreme Court’s Hamdi ruling, “that is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side.”
Martinez looked surprised. “So the prosecution is moot?” he asked.
“No, no, not in my judgment,” Johnson said. But the scenario he outlined strongly suggested it is. If an administration review panel “determines this person is a security threat” and “for some reason is not convicted of a lengthy prison sentence, I think we have the authority to continue to detain someone” under “law of war authority” as granted by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, Johnson said. And beyond that source of authority “we have the authority in the first place.” I’m no lawyer, but that sounds a lot like Johnson is claiming inherent presidential authority from the Constitution to detain someone after he’s been acquitted in court if the president believes that person to be a security threat. [Update: I think I'm wrong about that. Johnson is claiming authority from the law-of-war construct for such detentions, and that doesn't stem from any constitutional interpretation of inherent power. Apologies.]
Oh, and Johnson also suggested that the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay might remain open after January 2010, since “you can’t prosecute some significant subset of 220 people before January.” He said the administration will continue to detain some of those Guantanamo detainees, “whether at Guantanamo or somewhere else.”
Glenn Greenwald has much more about the "Unjustice system."
Login or Register to post comments.
weigh in on this.
"With freedom and JUSTICE FOR ALL."
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused* shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
*note it doesn't say citizen!
for the "speedy trial" thing.
I don't like Obama anymore at all, nor do I respect him.
I wish this were not true, but he earned it fair and square.
...meant to say:
"...with freedom and Justice for some."
War being the ultimate crime, "Law of War" sounds like an oxymoron.
Credible Republican is another.
Who are we at war with? Didn't we install friendly govts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The International War on Terror!!
Or as Gore Vidal said, "might as well declare war on dandruff, it's absurd!"
(*) Not a guarantee. Void where prohibited. Terms and restrictions apply. Subject to availability. Some rights sold separately.
Is this related to the law or whatever that says you can detain people until a war is over? Since bush declared a War on Terror and since that war can't and will not ever be over, is that their rationale?
can not declare war. Only Congress can declare war. Obama knows this, the Justice Dept knows this.
Its time the Justice Dept is removed from the Executive Branch's authority. It is obviously corrupt to It's core. And Obama made only a few changes in personnel when he became President. Guess he likes it the way it is.
Is Obama a religious nut? I'm beginning to wonder.
Like that actually matters.
No he is just a very capable and charming agent for the military industrial complex.
even educated people, especially educated people, they laugh and say it no longer exists. It's like they're saying, "Oh, that's sooo '80's. Maybe we should now call it the "corporate military industrial complex" just to bring it up to the standards of the new century.
MIC is under this umbrella
my brother who turned me onto this site but got booted for being a dick, which he is, calls it this...
"military industrial congressional mediatainment big insurance big pharma bankster complex"
whew!
they can stick "neo-liberal" or "neo-conservative" in there, thereby muddying up the waters and losing half the audience.
In other words, I think your brother has it spot on.
But many people want to use terms like "liberal" as a bad word, or "conservative" as a bad word, so they just label whatever they think of as "bad" with the words they don't like.
Even though I was a mere child when DDE became president, I remember his warning about the military complex. This man was a patriot and a true Republican. Not like these ass-holes that claim to be republicans today.
The vast military complex is just that. It extends into every decision that is made by our so called government.
Bribery is their number one tool and Dick Cheney is their number one agent.
no one who was arrested on drug charges can leave prison? But if we must look forward and not backward, then there should be blanket amnesty for all criminals currently in prison, under arrest, and not yet caught, right?
I was only asking a question about the rationale. If I had my way they would all be released and consider the time they have been held as time served.
The real problem with drug arrests and convictions is that we now have for profit prisons. As long as we have for profit prisons and the owners of these prisons are allowed to make campaign contributions, Americans will continue to go to prison until there are no taxpayers left.
What will happen when the whole wide world decides that it is The United States of America and it's military and mercenaries and CIA and it's subsidiaries who are the terrorists?
What then?
Can we be at a never-ending war against ourselves if it is, after all the dust settles (9/11), WE who have caused the most death, misery, destruction, mayhem etc., particularly on all the innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc., and upon our own soldiers who have killed, been killed and have been maimed for "a mistake/lie"?
Not to state the obvious, but just askin'.
When the rest of the world has completely unhinged their currencies and their economic futures from ours (which has already begun), rampant inflation will strike us and we will indeed be at war with ourselves.
can a law of war apply to people detained, that are not declared prisoners of war? More political mumbo jumbo meaning...
"we are the US government, and we'll do what we want, to whomever we want, whenever we want, and we'll have our lawyers make up catchphrases later"
We already have laws on the books that allow a person to be held indefinetly after being convicted of sex offense if the the court determines the person to still be a threat. Also a person judged to be a danger to himself or society can be held indefinetly under mental health laws. This doesn't seem that much different.
because these guys have been tortured, denied legal help, denied the ability to know the charges against them, denied access to 'evidence' and many were turned in by people who hated them, not because there was any 'real' proof.
Is that shit different enough for you?
it is also a Federal issue, not a state issue:
Court to rule on federal sex offenders law
We just claim all the detainees are freakin crazy (you would be too after several torture sessions) and send them to the looney bin (somewhere in Kansas will do). Thanks, ckerst!
Correction: "...after several YEARS of torture sessions."
I'm convinced that's why we "can't" realease these poor slobs; they've all been driven insane by the solitary and the waterboarding and whatever else our Lindy Cubas have thrown (literally) at them.
My name is George Orwell, may I introduce you to my cousin Franz Kafka.
Neo Feudalism is the coming thing.
You will not have the right to remain silent, because you may be tortured to gain evidence, or falsify evidence whichever is expedient. You will not have the right to a speedy trial, you will not have the right to ANY trial, at all.
If you do have a trial it will be a SHOW TRIAL. Even if you are found NOT GUILTY, you will NOT have the right to be released.
---
British journalist Robert Fisk at MIT, from February 5, 2003, just be before the non-declared 'war', Ask All You Like about 9/11, But Just Don't Ask Why? here
The running time is a long 02:44:17 but it is well worth the effort. The speech covers an enormous amount of ground. Many things you will not hear anywhere else, in this country certainly.
The use of DU (depleted Uranium) shells by US and British forces in the first Gulf 'War' and horrific aftermath for the Iraq populace.
The captive use of the English language in describing the Israel versus Palestinian dynamic. At the great expense of the Palistinians and fairness.
Too long a list to even know where to begin.
The work of Fisk is completely marginalized in this country. The Corporate Media does not want to hear what he has to say.
His writing can be found at the UK Independent here
Our society is still feudal in structure.
We still live in a world of OverLords and Serfs.
We've been taught to believe otherwise, but it ain't so!
"This land ain't your land!
This land ain't my land!
This land belongs to the bourgeousie!"
-- Kerry Wendell Thornley
“you can’t prosecute some significant subset of 220 people before January.”
Since you've held them way past time, assholes, prosecution should not be an issue. These people, just for starters have not received a 'speedy trial' as guaranteed everyone in the US or it territories and possessions, under OUR care.
They were too busy playing 'Bad Ass Torturer Assholes' to get these guys to trial in a legal manner.
This country has toatally fucked up the lives of these guys, and to or great and humbling shame, we apparently are not through with fucking with them yet.
Great country this.
world hate us. Judging from the tazing incident yesterday, they are beginning to use the same tactics on US citizens. Nice.
it was clear to me why they did it. We didn't need to do any more bad shit to get the world to hate us more, but we did, because we're the US and that's how we fucking roll...
Or could it possibly be because the person under the whip often knows more about the whip-holder than his constituents do?
...to teach constitutional law -- I'd pass.
will end up at Texas U along with Gonzales.
does that POS place have like a 120% acceptance rate or what? No HS diploma or GED required!
BooshBama Administration?
There are still plenty of Obamaniacs saying give him more time, give him a chance, give him the benefit of the doubt.
I don't get it. The net roots has no problem identifying Democratic Senators who are basically anti-Dem pro-Republicans. And they make no bones about raising funds to replace them. But somehow criticising Obama is still verboeten.
where am I living is this The Soviet Union or China ? where exactly am I at, I was positive I was living in America whose Justice system knows no equal in this world.
God I thought I was totaly ashamed of American government under Bush but hey I was wrong, this admin has leaped beyond anything Bush and his depraved minions could have imagined. I don't know what else to say, my first instinct is to curse America but it's not Americas fault. It is the fault of all the people living here , we truly do not deserve anything that America stands for, we are a pathetic breed of human being that needs to be taught a lesson, if we allow this trend to continue. I am truly disheartened and don't know where to turn for solace. I will be glad when I leave this fucked up country and world for good. I don't believe in suicide, but I am for euthanasia , especially a 20 something Phillipine chick with big tits.
They have stuffed so much sugar, salt, and fat down the gullets of Americans, that most didn't even realize what was going on. Still don't realize it.
Blaming the MIC's manipulation of the justice system on a poor diet seems like a bit of a leap.
Good point.
"savannah43" forgot to mention the TV.
.. and shopping malls ..
.. and credit cards ..
.. throw in a few churches and synagogues ..
What else?
MSM (covered under TV?)
education system
environmental pollutants
etc. etc.
We can blame everything or we could actually follow our constitution, hold people accountable, and lock-up the criminals that got us into this place.
How do you propose to "hold people accountable" when those who are accountable hold all the power? I am serious. How do we do that?
I had hoped that electing Obama was a step in the right direction. Clearly that hasn't helped. Maybe Kucinich has a chance in hell next time?
I agree that we're modern Romans but that doesn't get us anywhere strategy-wise either.
We will be in so deep by 2010, that it will all be over but the crying. All we're doing now is shouting. We're screwed. Time to move.
self-absorbed, non-voting, non-protesting, uninvolved slobs who only contemplate what is for their next snack or meal and what is on TV on the coming night and weekend? Leap over that. You have some good points, but you are missing the details on how we got here. And if you think food isn't important, you're just wrong.
it.
I still missed the part where congress declared war.
Charge them all with sex crimes, let them do their time, and then keep them in jail anyhow.
Some states are already doing it and the SCOTUS will be taking up the issue on a Federal level later this year, since an appeals court ruled it unconstitutional and, sigh, the Obama administration appealed it.
WHICH Constitution was he a scholar of, again?
The USA is totally FUBARed regardless of D's and R's...and everybody in the world knows it. Germany circa 1930 is your role model. Remember 48% of you voted to put Palin a heartbeat from President LOLOLOLOLOL
BTW does anybody remember me saying nothing would change when everybody was all excited here about Obama winning. Well I told you all so and I am telling you again. Can I get some credit for that like the folks who predicted that Iraq was bogus.
that was only 47% goddamnit!
:D
Some things have changed under Obama, and not just his ability to speak in complete and sometimes complex but fully comprehensible sentences.
For instance during Bush relations with Russia were approaching Cold War levels, what with the US cheerleading Georgia v Russia, sponsoring Georgia's membership in NATO, attempting to construct a not-yet-proven "missile defense shield" in Poland and the Czech Republic, etc, etc.
Obama's turned all that around.
But Obama's definitely a corporate dem - more or less what the Republican Party was before the Southern Strategy and the Evangelical Invasion and Reaganomics. So his bailing out the banks and sucking up to the Insurance Company CEOs (instead of sending them to prison) come as no big surprise.
But his attempts to deal with the "enemy combatants" are indeed a big disappointment, just like his refusal to prosecute (or allow? his AG to prosecute) Bush administration war crimes.
That perfectly sums up what I haven't been able to put into words. Many thanks for that.
I think that's why Nixon seems so f*cking normal now - he'd be a Democrat. We're so far out in the cornfield that Goldwater is now a conservative moderate, ffs.
You were right. Just don't gloat too much, okay?
I am giving you some credit....
But isn't it kinda sad being right?
But what I don't get is how Dems can bear to wait ONE SECOND LONGER to restore habeas corpus...oh yeah...some big chess game, right?!?!?!? oh sure...no problem...HA!
Americans are the last to know.
Yes, you called it sir. You weren't the only one. I had my doubts, but I'll be honest and say my cynicism was beaten by my optimism.
If an administration review panel “determines this person is a security threat” and “for some reason is not convicted of a lengthy prison sentence, I think we have the authority to continue to detain someone
administration review panel? putting the executive branch above the judiciary? indefinite detentions?
i would say that is borderline tyranny, but it is so obviously straight-up tyranny. greenwald was right: at least bush was honest about his intention to keep people indefinitely locked-up, and outside of any legal process.
obama, please, smack this justice dept flunky around, show your supporters that you do NOT believe that the president's powers eclipse the constitution and the other branches of govt.
But he obviously DOES believe the president's powers eclipse the constitution and the other branches of government.
These guys were ILLEGALLY DETAINED. Does that mean anything to anyone? They were acquitted of their accused crime! THEY DIDN'T DO IT! If anyone should be banned from the USA it is the WARMONGERS who led this nation into invading Iraq and propping it up on LIES!
Dude worked at Guantanamo, knows what's going on and has the solution: http://www.strike-the-root.com/92/lakemacher/...
Well, ok, a lot of exclamation points here, but what do we do then about enemy combatants?
People who fought for the Taliban in 2001 (and since, in my view) haven't committed a crime. They were simply soldiers in a war and so, if captured, are liable to be held as POWs and with a bunch of rights under the Geneva Conventions. If they're later suspected of also committing a crime, but subsequently acquitted of the crime, they're still POWs, right? Criminal law and the law of war are two different things.
Bush was an ass because he tried to criminalize hatred of America. He wanted to execute prisoners. Unless someone truly is a war criminal, prosecution is both sinister and unnecessary. But, unless I've misread the bit above, the DOJ guy is just saying you don't have to be guilty of a crime to be held as a prisoner of war.
That said, I don't know enough about what Obama's up to. If he's trying to hold foreigners who haven't taken any part in combat simply b/c they don't like the US, that would be wrong. I get the sense he's still trying to sort the mess out. He did a nice job with Palau. I'll wait and see what he comes up with.
The detainees were NEVER held as POWs. The majority were just imprisoned without having committed any criminal act, without being charged with any crimes, and now, if found NOT GUILTY in a trial, they'll still be incarcerated.
Obama's just scared to release them if they're found not guilty or if there's no evidence to bring them to trial -- they've plenty of torture tales to tell.
He doesn't say what must happen for it to be all right to release the innocent from prison, and I suspect there won't be anything that will alleviate those fears. The consequences will be the same if they were released tomorrow as in 20 years. Well, except if they all die in prison. Dead men tell no tales.
This is very disturbing. In fact this goes beyond disturbing. This goes to the very core of our justice system.
If you are acquitted of a crime in the courts of the U.S. after being judged innocent of the crime in which you were accused, you have the RIGHT to walk out of that court room a free person.
Obama promised a transparant government and change that we could believe in. Neither has come true. He is following the criminal bush cabal in their treasonous acts that defile the Constitution and render the Geneva convention as useless as limbaugh's dick.
No one has the right to keep anyone in prison after they have been acquitted of the crime that they were accused of. Not the state prosecutor, not the U.S. attorney and sure as hell not the President of The United States.
Obama has become a bitter disappointment to me for his promise breaking that is done with relative ease. He has shown me that he is a liar and is nothing more than a politician that will stop at nothing to further his own ambitions. I don't know if this was his intent to start with or if he is listening to and accepting horrible advice or if his doctor should change his medication.
It seems to me that the further down the road he goes with his presidency the more he is picking up the horrible lessons taught by his predecessor. That lesson being to hold onto and expand his power in order to make him, in effect, a dictator.
I hate to think these things because I believed that he was a true patriot. Boy was I wrong!
It seems that every turn he has welcomed the war criminals ideology as his own and that seems to be increasing.
The congress has been completely neutered by the banks, big pharm and anyone else that will throw outrageous amounts of money at them. They too would be cast from the temple by J.C. himself. I must explain that I am not religious by any means and I use this example that can be understood by anyone.
Senator Al Franken, as far as I am concerned, is the lonely star that shines amid the black hole of our government.
Am I pissed. You bet ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LividinLiberty
with this "law of war" stuff now, as I did when Bush was saying it.
We're talking about legalities, right? From a legal standpoint, are we considered to be in a state of war because the president says so, or does it require congress to declare one? I thought it was the latter. Is it even possible, constitutionally or under international law, to declare a war against a non-state actor?
Unlike many of my fellow Americans, I believe war to be an extrememly serious business. And I feel that I've been deprived of my representation in Washington when any president is allowed by congress to make things up as they go along.
Congress abdicated, or should I say, castrated themselves when they told bushco that he could go to war to "keep us safe" They did so because it was the perfect opportunity to please their masters. Their masters being the military industrial complex along with big pharm and the super rich.
Every one of those bastards that abdicated their power to such an idiot deserves nothing better than to be fired and left without benefits. You know, just like real people.
Obama
read my other comments you would gain some insight as to my position. I think Obama has crawfished on his promises concerning about every subject. I have written to him and told him that I would not vote for him again if he keeps down this path.
The right wing does not need a reason of any kind to spew their venom at someone else before one fact is checked. I suggest further study for you.
I also think that the war mongers and war criminals of the past regime need to be prosecuted and punished for their many many crimes. If Obama does not do that, he can stand beside them for aid and abet after the fact. I don't give a shit who is guilty, they need to be prosecuted.
why George Bush will not be prosecuted for his crimes in office.
The title of Glenn Greenwald's excellent column is "The OBAMA Justice System", not the "Unjustice system." Why would John Amato leave out Greenwald's direct reference to the current Democratic president?
Why does Amato choose to cite a passage from Greenwald's column devoid of any mention of Greenwald's main point-- that this "Unjustice system" is President Obama's clear policy choice?
Wouldn't this passage from Greenwald's column be much closer to the column's central point?
Why do C&L posters, in this case John Amato but one can easily find many other examples, bend over backwards to avoid criticizing President Obama when Obama is clearly continuing the Bush Administration's imperial and un-constitutional policies?
It's good that Amato is reading Greenwald, but why pretend that Greenwald is NOT pointing his finger clearly and squarely at the current Democratic president's policies?
Correction: Amato is quoting journalist Spencer Ackerman in the Washington Independent, not Greenwald. And Ackerman does use the name Obama in the very first sentence quoted. Please pardon my misreading-- my apologies to Mr. Amato on that point.
But I would like to see C&L follow Greenwald's lead in putting more pressure on President Obama when he is clearly following Bush and Cheney's lead. This "trend" is much more than just disturbing. It's down right dangerous and happening in plain view. Where's the hope? Where's the change?
This is exactly how Obama is going possibly make himself a one term President. He's already lost mine. It will take a significant 180 on his part in regards to his track record on civil liberties to get it back and, frankly, I just don't see it happening.
If the economy goes further south, with more people losing their jobs and homes, he's losing votes. This, in the end, may very well end up being a situation that is outside of his control. This is what makes it so baffling that he has decided to turn his campaign promises into lies regarding civil liberties and, thus, abandoning a strong core of voters who he had the power to keep on his side.
Between the granting of immunity for those who broke the law that tapped our phones and the 180 on FISA, the interference in prosecuting torture, or even allowing significant daylight to fall on the crimes, the adoption of the Bush administration's approach to detaining people indefinitely simply because the President says they should be in prison, the DOJ's use of comparisons involving beastiality and such regarding homosexuals, and his recent act of adopting Bush's policy of attempting to use signing statements to ignore law, his only true hope of re-election is a miraculous recovery of the economy.
To say Obama has not been an extreme disappointment would be a lie. A shame since, aside from damaging his own political career, he's hurting the nation. He will deserve to lose if he doesn't change course. I'm just skeptical at this point that he has the spine to do that.
Login or Register to post comments.