Dept. of Pre-Crime: Obama Expresses Support for Indefinite Detention Without Charges
By Susie Madrak Friday May 22, 2009 10:45am
Well, I'm just going to say it: Obama gives a very nice speech, but his plans worry me. Ever see "Minority Report," the movie with Tom Cruise? Set in the future, he works for the Department of Pre-Crime. The police use technology to predict who will commit crimes, and they arrest them before the crimes happen.
Don't pretty this up, folks. This is exactly the position Obama expressed in his speech today, and if we keep silent simply because he's a Democrat, well, we're not doing our job as citizens of this democratic republic.
I agree wholeheartedly with what Digby said:
I know it's a mess, but the fact is that this isn't really that difficult, except in the usual beltway kabuki political sense. There are literally tens of thousands of potential terrorists all over the world who could theoretically harm America. We cannot protect ourselves from that possibility by keeping the handful we have in custody locked up forever, whether in Guantanamo or some Super Max prison in the US. It's patently absurd to obsess over these guys like it makes us even the slightest bit safer to have them under indefinite lock and key so they "can't kill Americans."
The mere fact that we are doing this makes us less safe because the complete lack of faith we show in our constitution and our justice systems is what fuels the idea that this country is weak and easily terrified. There is no such thing as a terrorist suspect who is too dangerous to be set free. They are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. There is not some finite number of terrorists we can kill or capture and then the "war" will be over and the babies will always be safe. This whole concept is nonsensical.
The real terrorists, I'm afraid, are the self-serving hawks who promise to explode a political dirty bomb in the halls of the capitol every time someone tries to be sensible about American foreign policy and national security. They are still running things. They have always run things. And the sorry fact is that their dominance is a decades long model of bipartisan comity.
So now, we're going to have huge numbers of people who spent the last eight years vehemently opposing such ideas running around arguing that we're waging a War against Terrorism, a "War President" must have the power to indefinitely lock people away who allegedly pose a "threat to Americans" but haven't violated any laws, our normal court system can't be trusted to decide who is guilty, terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans, the primary obligation of the President is to "keep us safe," and -- most of all -- anyone who objects to or disagrees with any of that is a leftist purist ideologue who doesn't really care about national security.
In other words, arguments and rhetoric that were once confined to Fox News/Bush-following precincts will now become mainstream Democratic argumentation in service of defending what Obama is doing. That's the most harmful part of this -- it trains the other half of the citizenry to now become fervent admirers and defenders of some rather extreme presidential "war powers."
And Will Bunch sums up:
No matter how much Obama tries to blame this on the Cheney torture policies (which created that inadmissible evidence), two wrongs don't make a right. What he's proposing is against one of this country's core principles, which is habeas corpus. No matter how many guidelines that Obama and his administration try to impose, there is nothing in the Constitution that would permit the indefinite jailing of people "who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes" but who "nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States" -- nor should their be. Not even if we ever do develop the mind-reading powers of a "thought police."
This is why people need to keep the pressure on Obama -- even those inclined to view his presidency favorably. Because while clearly his overall approach to torture and detention issues are "on the right track" as opposed to the very "wrong track" of Cheney and Bush, it is so easy inside the Beltway to start veering off the rails. Making people accountable for the torture and Guantanamo debacles of the Bush years requires the American people constantly holding our new president accountable, too.
Login or Register to post comments.
even the innocent people who were scooped up and stuck in gitmo are likely gonna be fairly PO'd at the good ol US of A.
I know I'd be pissed off if I was them.
I mean...what's the right thing to do here?
Let them go?
Keep them locked up forever?
Kill them?
I'm for letting the innocent people go and dealing with the consequences, if any.
Because the other two aren't really options in my book.
Deaths from 9/11...There were 2,974 deaths, excluding the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon.
Drunk drivers kill 56,000 per year
Murderers kill 17,000 per year
There are 92,000 rapes per year, 855,000 aggravated assaults per year.
Most crimes are committed against family members.
Most crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol
!!
So, the most dangerous threats against us are sitting next to us.
You forgot about lightning strikes and alligator attacks!
Lightning avg. 62 deaths per year!
Alligators avg 18 no lethal attacks per year!
crime rates, are you?
Leadership's point is very valid, we are more likely to suffer such crimes than we are to suffer another 9/11. Doesn't mean you pay absolutely no mind to it, but it does mean that fearmongering is completely unnecesary.
*sigh*
People try to crack jokes when they feel uncomfortable.
It's ok. The biggest problem in the world is social and
economic injustice.
The same social and economic injustice that causes murder and
robbery causes so called terrorism.
THE MAIN POINT...we have 2 million perps in prison now. An army of
sociopaths born and bred right here. Infinitley more dangerous that 254
"terrorists".
... are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. I don't consider someone who smokes marijuana to be a sociopath or any real danger.
But I will keep a close eye on my pizza if they're around.
40% of inmates are non violent drug offenders.
That leaves 1.2 million Let's say just half of those
are psychos That's 600,000!! The same ammount of
people that die very year from cigarette smoking!!
We imprison people for kiting checks. Smoke some dope, kite a check, and steal a candy bar and you can get life in a three strike state.
We imprison more people than Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, both in raw numbers and per capita. While there are certainly some that are truly scary individuals, these are used as heavily hyped examples to convince people that we need a prison state.
I'm with you on the comparison with terrorists. Even Obama noted that we have hundreds of terrorists in American prisons right now.
However, for the majority of our prison population we really need to ask who is correct: The U.S., the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, and The People's Republic of China under Mao, or the rest of the civilized world.
I'm going with the world on this one.
No, Annaleigh. People will sometimes say that dying in a terrorist attack is less likely than being struck by lightning or being eaten by an alligator. I was joking about that.
Samantha Bee: "So doesn't that mean we need a War on Lightning?"
My name is Big John...and I told you so. I don't care what party you support, partisan hackery is hackery. Dems and Reps only have cosmetic differences.
Obama was never going to fix BushCo, just morph it for more public acceptance.
agreed, thats why that line was left blank in the voting booth, None of The #$%^ing Above in 2012.
Obama will be end up being terrible just like Clinton who rolled over on Free Trade and a litany of other issues which would have seen much stronger opposition had a Republican been promoting them.
Republican foster extreme and in time very harmful policies. Then the Dems step in a set them in concrete. Possible, because they(Dems) strike the majority of the nation as more rational.
Really they are just as owned as the Repubs.
Wasn't that one of those silly things taken away from us by the military commissions act? So now that the dems are in power, when are we going to see some movement to repeal that? When are we going to see President Obama give stump speeches demanding Congress to repeal it?
Oh right, money.
See? I told you that Obama wouyld be just as bad a Christanic terrorist and a traitor against everything America stands for as the Christanic terrorist Bush regime is.
Zero "change." Christanic terrorists run the country and the result is what you see.
..I supported and voted for him but he will lose my support and vote in a heartbeat if he becomes or perpetuates the W administration policy of "no habeus corpus". I didn't vote for a Dictator in 2000 or 2004 or 2008!
Oh yeah, no special prosecutor, no investigations into torture, that'll do it too. I'm trying to be patient and see the big picture but that picture is still out of focus and I need clarity and accountability!
you supported and voted for him then you're complicit. Voting again , regardless of who you vote for, will not fix the damage that you've done.
..is that we are ALL currently complicit. Without an investigation or trials or prosecutions of these charges of torture, we are all at risk. It doesn't matter who we voted or who we think would be better than the other guy; none of that: WE are a nation of torturers. We have the right to redress our Government and we are engaging in that right here, right now. But it has to lead to an obvious conclusion which is the investigation and prosecution of war crimes by the actors and enablers.
This "WE" you speak of is an hallucination. There is no such thing as a "nation". If you think there is, then please tell me when it's PHYSICAL existence came into being. I guarantee you it was nothing more than a mind-creation that most were duped into believing had a physical existence.
The torturers is not "WE" the torturers are people who pretend to work for another mind-creation called "government.
A nation is like a gang. If you are part of it you're guilty of the crimes, even if you didn't commit them by your hand. It really is that simple.
We (others on the planet) are not America, YOU are. One option is to leave and stop being American.
...I'd have rather had Kucinich to vote for in the first place. I'm not buying the "he's playing chess and we're playing checkers" crap that some liberal talkers are spewing.
Oh yeah? Uh, well, uh, who are you going to vote for Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin? Huh?
Neither one has anything to offer. Obama at least offered HOPE, not like McCain, not like Palin who offered NOTHING. Obama the candidate got himself elected. Now, he's Obama the President who is trying to reconcile the mess left by the last administration. Either he can or he can't. Either he will or he won't. In case you haven't read some of my rants, I want Accountability for the failure of the last administration to keep us safe because they employed an illegal activity called "torture" (as well as other transgressions) that has more than likely made us less safe. I don't care who the President is, I'd like to think I voted for the best man for the job, but then I'll hold him accountable if fails in his obligations!
I don't know how many elections you've been through, but when was the last time a politician carried through with their campaign promises? Especially, the president?
In 2000 George Bush offered "no more nation building" and "restoring civility to the political system" and "tax credits for health insurance" and to "change the tone in Washington."
Yeah, how'd that work out?
The term is gradualization. Sometimes referred to as 'the German Catastrophe'.
you are active participants to the unwinding of the American Empire.
America is slipping. She is a well armed maniac, with no financial future, no industrial base. She's paranoid, weak and bereft of ingenuity or originality.
She is clinging to her past and clutching her weapons.
about it too.
You both got that right. What a change in the last 10 years. Your shine is gone. People are moving on. Looking to China and other places, where stuff is happening. The USA s becoming a has been.
In some respects, the Bush administration has finally showed the world the true nature of the United States. The core of the country has been rotting and infected for many years. Bush tore the bandage off and allowed all to see just how ill and deluded the US is.
The "shine", was much like painting over a section of wall that's moldy. The mold is still there, still growing and affecting all those around it. The paint makes it looks nice and neat though.
When you cut through the grime and get to the inner core of the American Way, you see a system that punishes all who differ in any form from the economic or political model the US holds dear. The US supports horrendous dictators if they are amenable to US "suggestions".
The US doesn't and never has cared one little bit about human rights or decency in it's satellite states. So long as the money rolls in, then Uncle Sam is happy. Step out of line though and the marines will slap you're country back into shape. It's happened dozens of times over the years.
What do YOU propose that "we" - the US, Obama - should do with:
1) A Taliban Commander captured in the field who is certain to return to the fight if you release him, and yet you have no specific charges to try him?
Or
2) An Al Qaeda demolition expert captured in the field who is certain to return to the fight if you release him, and yet you have no specific charges to try him?
Those are the two examples cited by Obama in his speech, in the "fifth category" of detainees at Guantanamo - to be held in indefinite detention without charges.
What would YOU do?
For instance, during World War Two all German POWs were held until the end of the war, as were American POWs. It is standard military procedure during a war.
And Military Tribunals are also SOP during war time - used to sort out the POWs.
Any suggestions?
1) A Taliban Commander captured in the field who is certain to return to the fight if you release him, and yet you have no specific charges to try him?
You release him in accordance with the law, and maybe you bribe him to gather intelligence for you. Or you now follow him and find out where his associates are. It's called following the law and smart intelligence gathering.
Or
2) An Al Qaeda demolition expert captured in the field who is certain to return to the fight if you release him, and yet you have no specific charges to try him?
Same answer
.
Those are the two examples cited by Obama in his speech, in the "fifth category" of detainees at Guantanamo - to be held in indefinite detention without charges.
What would YOU do?
For instance, during World War Two all German POWs were held until the end of the war, as were American POWs. It is standard military procedure during a war.
Terrorist are not POWs. What nation do they fight for. "Enemy combatants" is a bullshit term created by criminal lawyers to justify illegal government activity. It is at the core of the problem with the Bush Administration.
And Military Tribunals are also SOP during war time - used to sort out the POWs.
Same answer.
Any suggestions?
who are so enamored with locking up people indefinitely with no charges...in direct conflict with our and international law...ponder THIS.
You want to break American law and get me to agree...fine.
Answer ONE question.
Why wasn't Bin Laden assassinated on Sept. 12, 2001?
We knew where he was, and we could have done it. We could have blown him, Mullah Omar and all of the Taliban up on the same day...in one stroke...and the world would have cheered.
But Nooo...Mr. big balls War President Bush issues a bullshit statement about giving 24 hours for Bin Laden being turned over.
What BULLSHIT. We had 3,000 Americans killed on American soil...and we're pussyfooting around.
Such BULLSHIT.
Obama's proposed setting up a framework involving several people (not just the President) to periodically review the status of those held without charges.
"Habeus Corpus" ensures that a person will be brought before a judge where it will be stated why he is being held.
Obama's proposal does not violate Habeus Corpus.
What law does it violate?
The 6th amendment.
There's no criminal prosecution so the sixth amendment doesnt apply.
That is a non answer!!!
Go back to the Fourth Amendment!!!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You know, due process. Stuff like "innocence until proven guilty," a neutral and detached magistrate, a jury, a lawyer, the right to confront and subpoena witnesses, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.
But what the heck, Bush had a hunch, and Obama agrees completely. So who cares about the law?
I guess answers are easy when they are stupid.
If you're going to play that game, then the Geneva Conventions come into play.
They are a treaty ratified by the Senate, therefore they are the Supreme Law of the land.
There are 245 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. By BushCo rules, these are not POWs, these are not foreign citizens, these are not human beings. They have their own made-up labels which puts them in a new class of existence. No law applies to them – not US, not UN, not Military.
They have not been charged with any crime. It is not known why they are there. It is not known what they have done. It is certainly not known what they may do if they were to be released.
Yet there they are. Not charged, not tried, not convicted, and not released.
What laws have been violated? None – if you go by these rules. These rules, however, ARE a violation.
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.
And when the US Constitution says 'people' it means all people, not just citizens.
We are no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of men. May God help us all.
Thank you
pretty hard to pretend to fight a war on "terror" when the alleged "#1 terrorist" is locked up or dead.
and if we put the gang leader away on day one, how could we get our hands on the all the loot . . . there were oil fields to be privatized and contracts to dole out to cronies!
Why wasn't Bin Laden assassinated on Sept. 12, 2001?
We knew where he was, and we could have done it. We could have blown him, Mullah Omar and all of the Taliban up on the same day...in one stroke...and the world would have cheered.
But Nooo...Mr. big balls War President Bush issues a bullshit statement about giving 24 hours for Bin Laden being turned over.
1. Read 1984, specifically the part describing "Goldstein" We can't kill the Boogie Man, what will we fear?.
2. When Bush asked ObL the Taliban said sure, show us your proof he was involved. There is no proof!! ObL has never been charged with 9/11.
What BULLSHIT. We had 3,000 Americans killed on American soil...and we're pussyfooting around.
Such BULLSHIT.
It's not bullshit, it's the American Way!! It's how we do business. From the Halls of Montezuma, to the sinking of the USS Maine, to Pearl Harbor, to The Gulf of Tonkin and the invasion of Panama, politicians manufacture the conflict, the media fans the flames of public opinion, lower and middle class kids here the call to arms in the name of freedom, war profiteers reap the rewards, mothers all over the world cry, the working classes mourn the dead and humanity gives in a little more to the worst crime ever....war!
The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden to the US on one condition. The US had to give proof that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. The US has to this day shown no proof that Bin Laden or any of the so called "terrorists" had anything to do with 9/11.
I believe it was Herman Goerring who said that if you tell a big enough lie and repeat it often enough it will become the accepted truth. Starting at approximately 10 am on September 11th, the story became Osama and the 19. No other names were put forward. No evidence was given that would stand up in a court of law. Yet, we've heard for years how that wily Osama and his cadre of Muslim fundamentalists perpetrated a crime against humanity.
No credible evidence has ever been presented. To this day the FBI has not added 9/11 to Bin Ladens most wanted poster, citing the fact that they have no evidence that he was responsible.
We've been told to ignore any dissenting voices as "conspiracy theorists" and "crackpots".
How dare you call anyone a terrorist before giving them a trial.
..can bring, my suggestion is for an international committee to decide to create a court of law in which Un-aligned Combatants, i.e., terrorists, can be brought to trial. Terrorism will not go away. We can't conquer people's minds with bombs, guns or torture. We can use our humanity to come to grips with it and its probably the only way to put an end to a Gitmo type of facility.
The Sixth Amendment
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.
Notice how it says "accused" not citizen, or white man, or property owner!!
...would at least be something, but he is suggesting holding them without even that much. I'm sorry, there are no doubt a few really bad guys that we're holding, but if we can't prosecute them within the bounds of our laws, they should be released. If we don't they win either way, because it just makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Besides, what would prevent us from following their movements once released? Maybe they would lead us to other, more dangerous assholes.
Obama's proposed setting up a framework involving several people (not just the President) to periodically review the status of those held without charges.
... if you don't have evidence sufficient to make a case against these (hypothetical) guys, you don't have sufficient reason to detain them.
That's the problem with 'terrorism' as a tactic... fighting a uniformed army or a whole nation makes it easy to identify your enemies. In this case, it is unfathomable that we round up and detain locals who like like the terrorists we're fighting, and then we hold them indefinitely, just in case.
The folks we've detained are 'suspects', not 'terrorists'... either make the case against them or let them go.
Wouldn't it be a shame if we detained indefinitely all the Americans who fit Tim McVeigh's profile?
If "we" are just rounding up suspects - I agree.
But that's not the situation Obama's inherited.
He specifically mentioned a "Taliban Commander" and an "Al Qaeda demolitions expert" as the detainees who fall into this "fifth category" of detainees.
What do YOU suggest "we" do with them?
The same thing we did with Timothy McVeigh. Give them a trial.
there were actual evidence of their being what they are said to be then it would be rather easy to get a conviction in US court. On the OTHER HAND if this "evidence" of them being a commander and demo tech was only gotten trough illegal torture then there's no reason to belive that it is in anyway true.
... not sure what's unclear here. Were the Taliban Cmdr and Demo Expert were doing something wrong when we captured them? If yes, make the case against them (changing their status from suspect to convicted terrorist) and disposition them accordingly. If no, let them go despite your anxiety about their potential to use their skills against us in the future.
Otherwise, we're simply holding suspects indefinitely, and in some cases we're exacerbating the situation by tainting the case against real terrorists by treating suspects in an illegal manner.
Now that the Foolking is gone, sort of.............. he has his vewy, own torture library of CD's Dick burned esp. for him.
The only problem with releasing these poor, debased tortured people is that they can never, never, never be 'normal' again.much less functioning adults. They are broken, and in many cases mind-less, won't be able to get a job, rent an apartment, make friends.....etc.
That and of course the 'bad publicity' it would give the junta/corporations if they were left out in public for any 'Amerikan' to interact with
stop fighting with your fellow man. Problem solved!!
Excellent suggestion.
Now .. how do we get there from here?
could stop associating with or supporting people who want to fight/kill and start setting an example by basing every decision you make and every action you take on whether it is going to make the world a better place.
How do you know you have a Taliban Commander or an Al Qaeda demolitions expert yet not have anything to charge them with? How is that possible?
If you have a Taliban commander perhaps he could be charged with crimes related to, oh, his commanding the Taliban against U.S. forces. If you have an Al Qaeda demolitions expert, maybe he could be charged with, I don't know, making bombs.
But the fact is, you don't have either. Otherwise you could charge them - easily. You just have a Dirty Harry hunch. Of course, Dirty Harry is always right; we know this because we saw the "bad guy" commit the crime in the first scene of the movie. The rest of the movie is really just a justification of Dirty Harry "getting tough" and "bending the rules" so the "bad guy" doesn't "get off on a technicality."
As for POWs in WWII. Most were held for half the time Bush and Obama have already imprisoned these people. Obama indicated he'd like this War on Whatever is Convenient to continue for another 10 years - at least.
Also, the POWs of WWII were taken from an actual battlefield, not kidnapped from their homes in the middle of the night and flown to Bagram or Gitmo.
They know they're a commander and demolitions expert the same way they knew women flew around on broomsticks a couple hundred years ago -- by dunking them.
I assume we know we have a Taliban Commander and an Al Qaeda demolitions expert among the detainees at Guantanamo.
I don't know how "we" know that.
The other problem Obama mentioned in the same breath is that the evidence against them is tainted - so cannot be used in court - but we are nonetheless certain they are a Taliban Commander and an Al Qaeda demolitions expert.
What to do?
In other words they don't know SHIT about these two except for falsehoods that were gotten through the illegal use of torture. Torture IS illegal you know? America prosecutes those who torture you know? Yes? Evidence produces through torture is WORTHLESS and that is why it can not be used in ANY legitimate court of law.
It's easy to jump to conclusions, but YOU don't know that there isn't any untainted evidence to prove they are a both dangerous and likely to return to fight.
We know it because the government is so certain it will get it's ass kicked in a fair trial that it refuses to conduct one.
I'm sure with you there. They're too afraid of exposing the junta that took over the USofBLOODYISRAEL in 2000
Nice try. But if we used torture to extract confessions, then we are not 'certain' by any stretch of the imagination. As I said above -- women admitted to flying around on brooms when submitted to dunkings. Do you suggest anyone was certain they were actually flying on brooms?
Same answer as above.
YOU don't know that there isn't untainted evidence to prove these guys are a "Taliban Commander and an Al Qaeda demolitions expert" who are certain to return to the fight if released/
...that there is no evidence, but if there is and it's enough to put them away, why the hell don't they send them to court and convict them with it?
I majored in philosophy, and took 4 semesters of logic. You make no sense.
Think it through...
If there is untainted evidence that they are dangerous, then use that untainted evidence at trial.
If that evidence is 'tainted', then it is not evidence, because evidence gained through torture is NOT EVIDENCE. People will confess to anything to get the pain to stop.
Your logic stands on its own. The appeal to authority isn't necessary.
Well then put them on bloody trial then!!!!! How many times does it have to be said to you? If they confessed to anything while undergoing torture, then that is worse than useless. Every single man, woman and child would confess to anything to make the torture stop. There's nobody who's immune to torture, I don't care if it's a navy Seal or a librarian, that person can and will admit to anything to stop the torture.
You have no evidence, yet you are certain. And I use the term "you" deliberately. Please don't say "we" when advocating the termination of basic human rights. Our country's name has already been horribly disfigured by monsters determined to use fear to drive the lemmings in whichever direction is chosen.
Why is the evidence "tainted"? Given Bush and Obama's proclivities, there's a good bet that it's by torture. The tortured evidence is not admissible for a million good reasons including unreliability, yet you still wish to rely on it to imprison someone for life.
Or do you just want to cover up monstrous behavior by the U.S.? Bush and Obama definitely do.
.
.
/
You have a trial. If they are found guilty, punishment is given. If they are found not guilty, you let them go. The end. There are no guarantees in life; nothing is perfect; that's the American way. Is that a big problem? You've been doing it that way for a couple of hundred years.
PS You can't hold someone thinking they might do something one day. It really is that simple. Don't let fear of what might happen rule you.
They won't release these guys because they know they'll spill the beans on what was done to them inside that shop of horrors. And the same pseudo-rationale applies here as does with Obama's decision to reject the FOIA request for those photos -- doing so will put our troops in the field in additional harm's way.
The calculus involved in making these determinations is beyond anything I ever studied in math class, and I progressed rather far and rather well in math. How do you decide whether the Muslim world will react more negatively over the crime or the cover-up?
Sorry, Obama -- this is not change I can believe in. It's the same degenerate behavior we all rejected when Bush did it. This is NOT the America I grew up in. And Obama is every bit a part of the problem.
...the fact that unless and until the Bush administration stand trial for their crimes, the Muslim world will never trust anything we do or say again. Why should they, knowing that rules and laws only apply to other countries and not ours?
I'm waiting for the Spanish Judge Garzon to issue subpoenas.
And demand extradition.
And the US be forced to decide whether to cough up our War Criminals for prosecution on foreign soil.
Oh, you just hate Obama because he's black.
i was shocked by president obama's embrace of preventive detention but just as concerned by his wreckless use of the term "war" in reference to our conflict with al qaeda . . . "war" applies to conflicts between states, not between states and criminal gangs like al qaeda
of course, if we really are at war with al qaeda, then the geneva convention apply, and the detainees were entitled to timely hearings to determine whether they really are enemy combatants or just mistakenly captured civilians . . . and of course, "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever" and "prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind"
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
From Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture.
And from our own US Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
As I heard Obama's proposal that's exactly what he intends to do, even with the persons held indefinitely - periodically bring them before a panel to determine whether to continue to hold them, etc.
. . . for timely hearings
if the al qaeda detainees are prisoners of war, then the geneva conventions apply, and we have already violated them many times over
if the al qaeda detainees are not prisoners of war, then criminal laws and procedures should apply
in either case, there is no provision for indefinite detention
fyi, many human rights groups and states consider indefinite detention to be torture
What if it were you?
Bring them to me. I will make Democrats out of them in 3 weeks.
I was pondering just what "can't be released" actually means since it strikes me that if you've got something on them you could bring them to trial and if you didn't you could let them go. Why can't we release the ones that are left?
Because they are insane. The solitary confinement, the abuse, the torture - we've killed their brains. You "can't" in good conscience release someone who is incapable of taking care of themselves and I'll give 20:1 that's who we're now talking about.
Obama mentioned that the evidence against these "category five detainees" was tainted, and yet "we" are certain that if released they would "return to the battlefield."
I'm glad I'm not the person trying to sort this out.
It's not difficult. Obama is using double-think. We are not certain of any such thing, IF the evidence is tainted. Torture produces false confessions. We know this, and we have known this for centuries!!!
Do the right thing. Do the moral thing. If they return to the battlefield, at least we can hold our heads up high and proclaim that we stood by our own principles. And do you honestly believe a few additional combatants would make any difference whatsoever over there? Honestly?
You need to consider the fact that our government LIES. It has been caught lying. And it has been caught trying to cover things up. Neither of those are respectable in a democratic society.
Obama should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. He disgusts me.
Did you listen to his entire speech yesterday?
It sure doesn't sound like you did.
Yes, I did.
Have you read the Magna Carta?
Isn't it in Latin?
(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnaca...
The history of 38 is noteworthy, since torturing people into confessing crimes they didn't commit was a heinous, but common, practice.
NO. It's 100% English.
Originally, Magna Carta Libertatum was written in Latin, the language of the educated in 1215.
Also, it's "Magna Carta," not "The Magna Carta" as it's often called. There is no consistent definite article in Latin.
Thank you Alex, I'll take Potent Potables for $1000.
OK, good work there. I have only seen an English copy. It is readable by anyone. I was of the thinking that wheyghey may have thought it was hard to read a copy.
For $1,000, A potent, and of often illegal, potable flavoured with anise.
absinthe?
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Absinthe is of course the pp here. It is made by distilling wormwood, also known as Artemisia absinthium. It also acts as an insect repellent.
What is a sidecar?
Never underestimate the value of being an ex cocktail waitress.
When I used to drink I was all beer, Canadian or Scotch whiskey and wine. I have no idea what goes in 90% of drinks.
Never met a cocktail waitress I didn't like. They have a certain je ne sais quoi.
Ever see Girl Drink Drunk?
And that certain je ne sais quoi? It's money and booze... :P
/
I'm not 100% sure (maybe 99%). I just Googled an image to try and hit home on the Jeopardy reference.
Do the right thing. Do the moral thing. If they return to the battlefield, at least we can hold our heads up high and proclaim that we stood by our own principles. And do you honestly believe a few additional combatants would make any difference whatsoever over there? Honestly?
Except if even one of these people shows up again, perhaps bombing an embassy or even (not likely) a building on US soil and end up taking even one American life, then the Republicans will have all the ammunition they need to try and tear down Obama, and the Dems, with him and it will WORK because so much of the electorate is made up either slavering idiots or perfectly decent, but easily startled ninnies, both of whom can be sold ice on an igloo with the right scare tactic. If there was ever anything the GOP was good at and unashamed of using, it is manufacturing and selling a good scare tactic.
Now, please don't misunderstand, I am with you. It simply occured to me that this is part of what President Obama is dealing with, politically speaking. Which of course brings us back to "sickened", sick at heart (speaking personally now) that Obama is possibly not the man I hoped he was and is not brave enough to choose the right thing over the politically motivated thing.
Well, we'll see, one way or the other, no?
I don't see the same conundrum you do. If they've got nothing credible on these guys they must let them go.
95% of our legislative representation should be locked away indefinitely. Also, all corporate CEO's that manage firms deemed "to large to fail" should be locked away indefinitely as they pose a threat to the security of the American financial system.
This logic could take us all over the map. Let these guys go. We know a large majority of them aren't guilty of any crimes.
In fact let's lock up all the politicians and corporate leaders.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse visited visited FDL today, and he had this to say in the comments:
Watch for this argument. What'll it take - a judge and two doctors?
And we all know that such 72-hour detentions are held in solitary confinement, and no communications with the outside world. Oh wait, I suppose that's where his analogy just doesn't fit AT ALL.
I believe he was referring to a way in which the administration can weasel in indefinite detention without trials.
Maybe this is TMI - but I was civilly committed for a period when I was 17 (a cocktail of drugs and a "challenging" childhood), and the sense of powerlessness is, um, very educational...
I understand that. And I was showing that, despite the fact that we do lock our own people up under 'civil standards of proof', we do not hold them incommunicado, and we don't do so indefinitely without trial.
In other words, Whitehouse's analogy doesn't apply.
"Well, I'm just going to say it: Obama gives a very nice speech, but his plans worry me. Ever see "Minority Report," the movie with Tom Cruise?"...
Umm, if you're going to allow fiction to make you paranoid, why don't you just load up on Glenn Beck or Hannity? It's cheaper.
Rachel Maddow drew the same comparison last night (to this Tom Cruise movie) and possibly that's where Susan Madrak got the idea for the comparison.
I haven't watched the movie, but I did listen to all of Obama's speech, and it looks like they (Maddow & Madrak)are comparing the proverbial apples and oranges, and in the process doing a great disservice to both Obama and the political process itself.
It is MUCH wiser to confront the issue directly, rather than making a comparison and then shooting at the "straw man" created thereby.
If Maddow or Madrak et al have issues with Obama's proposals then they AND we AND the political process would be far better served by confronting Obama's proposals directly.
Quote his speech and go from there. Don't equate his speech to a movie and then pretend that Obama's proposal is the same as the movie.
I'm out. Too nice a day to sit at the keybd any longer.
Ciao 4 Now Y'all !!
Has 100 percent success rate.
However, that was the problem with the movie as Cruise's character was caught killing another person.
Using "Minority Report" as a metaphor was just as bad as the RNC using James Bond to go after Pelosi.
That's besides the point. I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. Just because the president wants to do something, doesn't mean Congress will automatically go along with it. (The shutting down of Gitmo proved that).
To me it was another tactical move by Obama, and another that he can rescind in the future (like the photo issue.)
hat
Scenario:
If Obama is willing to violate the constitution, in the future (as expressed), then he must now be impeached to prevent the future crime.
Will Biden do better?
Peace
Cui Bono?
hat
Scenario:
If Obama is willing to violate the constitution, in the future (as expressed), then he must now be impeached to prevent the future crime.
Will Biden do better?
Peace
Cui Bono?
hat
Scenario:
If Obama is willing to violate the constitution, in the future (as expressed), then he must now be impeached to prevent the future crime.
Will Biden do better?
Peace
Cui Bono?
Commenting from Uganda and the Internets pipes are somtimes clogged. (no apologies to Ted or George)
...the Constitution, we should have chosen Kucinich and Gravel. Or somebody like them. Obama's FISA vote and support for faith-based initiatives should have told voters all they needed to know about how he regards the Constitution. Talk is cheap and easy, but actions and choices tell the real story.
...like 'Obama expresses support for indefinite detention without Charges'
Which part of the following paragraph from his speech is NOT clear on what he intends to do? Please pay attention to the BOLD.
The facts as they are and not as we want to have them are:
- We routinely detain POW indefinitely during periods of WAR so this is not something new. This was the reason for the Bush Administration's desire to classify the detainees as Enemy Combatants of a war without end. (The Global War on Terror). The problem was that, amazingly, our severely right-handed Supreme Court couldn't even stomach those arguments since these detainees are not tied to a sovereign power with which we are at war, and they tossed out that method.
- Because of that surprising Supreme Court Decision, our Congress and Senate (including our weak-kneed Dem's) passed the Military Commissions Act that all but codified Kangaroo Courts. Now in theory, for people captured by the military, there is nothing wrong with military commissions. But the methods employed by the Bush Administration in these commissions were even objectionable to the Military so they had to go
- We don't know what the detainees are guilty (or not guilty) of doing and the sole reason for that is we have not attempted to bring any charges against them and have not given them access to courts that would allow them to protest their detention. But that is far and away different from saying that all of the people left are not guilty of any crimes. For example, while many of the detainees may not have committed a physical act of violence against the U.S. they still could be charged and detained under conspiracy charges (i.e. conspiracy to commit terrorist acts) without ever having technically "lit the fuse" of the bomb. It is under these auspices in which I'm pretty sure the Obama administration would like to charge these "grey area" detainees.
The problem most likely lies in the fact that the information on the alledged conspiracies was most likely obtained through the Bush Administration's illegal interrogation methods and thus would NOT stand up to Federal Law Standards nor the standards of any non-Kangaroo court. What the Obama administration is struggling with is to find Federal charges justified by the non-tainted evidence in an open and transparent manner that still grants the defendant an opportunity to defend themselves against said charges. Even if the charges mean that the defendant may already be eligible for release for time-served.
This is not an easy undertaking and I'm sure I'll probably disagree (to some extent) with whatever solution they do put forward, but I simply don't see how Obama's statements actually equate to an endorsement of indefinite detention without charges? And while I fully agree that to do so is an assault on the basic principles of modern Western Society, Obama nor his administration have NOT SAID, NOR IS SAYING that this is what is intended. Those that argue that he is, are making s**t up out of whole cloth.
The important aspects that I took from that speech was that he, the President, is not going to make these decisions in a vacuum. He will not attempt to circumnavigate congress, nor the courts in attempt to achieve some mythical perfect result of which he is the sole author. Adhering to these principles will force Congress to do it's job, force the Courts to assess whether we are adhering to our core principles and will allow Americans interested in this kind of thing, to participate in the debate over what is being done in our names. And if we don't like what's going on, then we'll vote the bastards out. In a representative democracy that's all we get.
He also said:
In other words:
When you refer to "in other words" you are referring to your own words, which were pieced together by reading between the lines using a lens based on your own personal experiences -- an absolutely valid approach to take as you are entitled to infer what you want. My only wish is that you simply recognize it as your personal guess as to what he is going to do and not a stone cold lock as to the future course of events.
As citizens it is our duty to hold this administration's collective feet to the fire to make sure that what gets done in our name is, open, transparent and legal. But making the assumption that the Obama administration will commit the crime of indefinitely detaining people without cause based upon the statements that have been made thus far is pure folly.
Making such assumptions is, in principle, no better than assuming the detainees are criminals / terrorists without having gone through the required processes to determine it to be so.
My point is that like so many times in history, people always want to fight the last war. Obama is not Bush, Bush wasn't Clinton, and so on. Obama could be worse, he probably will be better, but in addition to making our voices heard on the policies that we desire, we should criticize him on what he does and says rather than condemning him for things NOT done NOR said. And as I originally mentioned, he has NOT called for indefinite detention without trial and has begun the process to unravel the GITMO mess that was handed to him by his predecessor. I, like you (and the detainees I'm assuming) would like the process to move faster than it currently is, but the facts are that it is moving and the steps being taken are being communicated to the public rather than being done in secret. This is a far cry from the last few years and I'm excited about that, but make no mistake, should it be decided to indefinitely detain without trial, I'll be right by your side protesting the injustice.
Sure, he gave a speech about closing Guantanamo, but he didn't do it. It's still there, and its prisoners are still there, imprisoned, without trial.
We hold people for 48 hours max without charge, otherwise the Constitution requires we release them. Bush/Obama disagree. They believe the ultimate power is theirs. Obama gives a pretty speech, but that shouldn't negate his actions. He's immunized criminal telecoms, he's protecting war criminals, and he continues to imprison people without charge and has requested the power to do so indefinitely.
These aren't my "interpretations"; this is what he's done.
(Sorry I'm late back to the thread. The Hawks were finally on home ice)
I agree 100%, I was never mad that a Republican was shredding our constitution (or even because a Bush was doing it) I was mad that a person was shredding our constitution.
The fact that it was Bush and Cheney made me mad that people (any people) were dumb enough to be tricked by these guys. And I find it very sad that most of America just doesn't care what happens to their country or what is done in their names.
Yeah, I'm certainly concerned with Obama's detention talk, but I want to wait and see what he comes up with. And hopefully hear more about why some people can't be tried or released.
I'm not ready to rush the White House w/ torches just yet, though: If we caught a guy fighting for the Taliban in 2001, and the guy says if he's released he's going to go back and fight with the Taliban again, what crime has he committed? That's a POW case. It's not a federal crime to fight in an army that's at war with the United States. But how does POW law and the Geneva Conventions apply to a conflict like this? It's a complicated question, and I may disagree with the way Obama eventually resolves it, but I'm encouraged by his appreciation for the best version of "American values", for the Constitution and for our responsibilities to the rest of the world. We'll see what he comes up with.
We had 8 years to get off our collective fat ass and storm the WH when a gibbering Chimp and his foul handlers were making this unbelievable mess (let's call it 5 years, owing for at least 3 to observe for ourselves that he was indeed mucking things up, to put it mildly), but after 150 days people on both sides are ready to give up on Obama?
I understand that people are short on patience; I am as well, but I know why I feel that way: 8 years of insults and abuse from the right, their constituents, and that dry-drunk fratboy have made me leery as heck and Obama is getting the brunt of it from all but the most faithful of us.
They're not getting the information they want because they are looking in the wrong place. They ought to check Dick Cheney's brain. The Mastermind of the whole debacle. He has repeatedly advocated for the Unitary Executiove and Presidential Power. He will stop at NOTHING. He's the shadow president, waiting to take over.
But if people are found guilty after a trial let them rot. I know this sounds really bad but think about it for a minute, We know of at least 3 that are really bad in there, and in a super max these people would not be in GP. Also we are so focused on what is going to happen to these people who (i agree have been horribly tortured which I'm totally against) that we have forgot that we have killed how many on the battle field?
Just wanted to throw this out.
we know 3 are bad, so fuck the rest?
Please do me a favour and never claim to be 'left,' 'progressive' or 'liberal' while discussing fucked up shit like this.
What if one of those guys was your dad, son, brother, best friend?
As the post is so badly written I'm not sure I could figure it out after three readings, but sensed it was a lot of douchebaggery.
Let me spell it out simply. You are holding people without trial and torturing them, and that is against your laws and international laws. The end.
Glenn Greenwald explains:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/0...
Obama in his speech says nothing about indefinite detention or preventive detention. The closest he came to saying anything of the sort is his use of the term "prolonged detention." The preventive, indefinite detention of which everyone is speaking, I believe, comes from the following segment of his speech:
And from that I still do not get where he is endorsing indefnite, nor preventive detention of any sort. He is merely making a statement of fact. There are people whom we cannot prosecute for past crimes, but who we believe DO pose a threat to national security. The facts are that right now we don't know what we are going to do with them, hence the need for our Legislative and Executive branches of government to come up with a plan / framework / mechanism for dealing with those detainees which fall into this category. It will also be necessary for the Judicial Branch of our government to assess and interpret (if brought in front of them) whether the steps taken are constitutional.
Obama, himself, admits that he does not know what form those steps will take, yet somehow the punditocracy has determined that Obama's speech contained a super-secret, decoder message was that we were definitely attempting to indefinitely detain these prisoners without trial.
In the end Obama very well might end up endorsing such a plan, and I will vehemently disagree on all of the grounds Greenwald mentions, but the fact still remains that AT THIS POINT no plan put forward by the Obama administration includes any such provision.
but isn't this what their trying to do with some of the new gun legislation that is currently in congress?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?...
From what I can see of the legislation that you linked to it deals with giving the Attorney General the latitude to:
- Deny firearms sales and purchases between parties believed to be domestic or international terrorists.
- Allows the Attorney General to withhold information about the denial when it would compromise National Security
- Grants greater discretion to the Attorney General in the approval of explosives licenses
In the interest of full disclosure, let me say this, I am about as anti-gun a person you will find because I can't see how assault rifles are used for hunting, and that full copper jacket bullet serve any other purpose than the more effective killing of people.
However, I can't see how that bill passes any sort of legitimate scrutiny. It reminds me of the terrorist watch list for air travel where I can be denied a job, credit, a plane ticket or a visa because I'm on a terrorist watch list but...I'm not allowed to see the terrorist watch list and it's damned near imppossible to get myself off of it because no one will tell you why you're on it.
Using this process as the basis for denying someone a right deemed constitutional (incorrectly in my mind) seems wrong on a lot of counts.
That being said, in my mind, this law further makes my original point in that the Obama administration is working hard to find legitimate charges against the GITMO detainees wherever possible. Because the simple act of prosecuting these people will allow us to legally forbid the detainees expected but not necessarily proven to be terrorists, the right to obtain travel documentation, guns and explosives. Three things pretty critical to the modern terrorist.
deny you a basic right, without a trial. And the DHS watch list, is a good example. What if the Atty General decided that since everyone that was on the watch list shouldn't be allowed to purchase/own guns because they were a "suspected terrorist" or there was a internal memo to the police in MO that basically listed anyone with a Ron Paul ,Libertarian party, gasden flag, pro-life etc bumper sticker a possible terrorist.
And not on topic but since you brought it up, what makes a "assault rifle" as listed in the AWB not useful for hunting? Is it the pistol grip or thumb hole stock, the muzzle brake, barrel shroud or the bayonet lug? If you are talking about full-auto military firearms I'll agree that they aren't that appropriate for hunting, but the ban wasn't about full-auto/select fire weapons, it was about cosmetic differences. Here is a video from a CA police officer explaining the difference. Near the end watch how quickly he converts a standard hunting rifle into a "assault weapon".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Also FMJ bullets are less effective at killing(for the most part) they are designed not to expand and to pass cleanly through, that is why the Geneva convention makes them the only legal rounds to be used against people, compared to hollow/soft point bullets.
There will not be any real change in the US superstructure until there is some real change in the US economic base.
The US economic base is EMPIRE.
Want democracy and social justice at home? Then start letting go of the US Empire.
Until then, US "politics" and "culture" amounts to cheap talk, expensive death, and self-delusion.
Obama: "there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."
Question: People "who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes" because why, please, sir? Because they were tortured by the US Government? Or because the US Government has no credible evidence against them? Or both?
Question: But you say these are people "who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States" because why, sir? Because the US Government has no credible evidence against them and/or the US Government tortured them or both? Which is why the US Government/you cannot tell us?
post on C&L, I was starting to get worried about C&L there. But Susie you are right. The wing nuts keep trying to call him the most liberal president ever, but some of his actions are a little Cheney. I have felt like a near one man show on taking both parties to task for their economic blundering. Thanks for helping to restore my faith that one can identify with a party and still be capable of critisizing it when it does wrong.
I would just like to say a few things.
First, I am not trilled with what Obama said in this speech. If he really will hold people in a preventive way then that is a problem in the extreme. But I also do not think we should lose our heads over this one speech. He has not actually done anything yet regarding this matter of Gitmo inmates. Let's see what the plan is and in the mean time keep pressure on him and Congress to do what is right in this matter.
Second, I would like to point out to those Obama supporters who are really pissed at Obama (and rightfully so) that if you think Obama is behaving badly can you only imagine the hell that would be going down if McCain/Palin was in office?
If they had won we would not even be having this discussion. If McCain had won there would not even be a slim shot at possibly going after the crimes of the Bush Administration. With Obama we may have at least some kind of shot.
Those torture memos and photos? We would be struggling even harder to get them released.
Don't Ask/Don't Tell Policy? Forget getting that revoked under McCain; he supports the policy.
You think it's bad Obama continued the faith-based programs? Well, let me remind you of Sarah Palin...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs (Rev. Wright ain't got nothing on this pastor...)
As bad as Obama may be it could have only been worse under McCain.
That's not to say we should not go after Obama for doing crazy things. I'm just saying we should not over react and say the country or the world is coming to an end. Or that we would have been better off under Person X or Y because odds are that ain't true.
Relax people. If we liberals lose our heads like Hannity or Beck we're all going to have the same problem Republicans currently do.
Login or Register to post comments.