Obama Considering Continuing Bush Policy of Indefinite Detentions Without Trial

225px-official_portrait_of_barack_obamaThe Obama administration has already adopted extreme executive privilege arguments that dwarfed the arguments of George Bush. It has moved to kill dozens of citizens lawsuits to uncover criminal acts of the government. This week, it refused (despite a court ruling) to release embarrassing photos of detainee abuse. Now, in the continue morphing with the prior Administration, Barack Obama is considering a continuation of the Bush policy of indefinitely detaining suspects without trial. I will be discussing this and other issues today on the Ed Beck Show on MSNBC.

Members of Congress are being consulted on the idea. Given the lack of principles motivating democratic leaders in past instances of unlawful surveillance and torture, it is not expected to received to hit much problem in Congress.

The result is that we close the Gitmo facility to recreate it on U.S. soil. The proposal reflects the concern that, if forced to comply with federal law, we could not justify the continued detention of these individuals. If Obama is worried that some added pictures of detainee abuses will be used to recruit new volunteers for Al Qaeda, what does he think his replication of Gitmo will do for recruiters?

As I mentioned last night on Rachel Maddow, the Obama Administration has become the greatest bait and switch in history. No torture prosecution. No abuse photos. No citizen lawsuit on privacy. Absolute executive privilege claims. It is not surprising that civil libertarians feel that we have succeeded in merely upgrading to Bush 1.2 (with the added ability to pronounce multisyllabic terms).

For the full story, click here.

34 thoughts on “Obama Considering Continuing Bush Policy of Indefinite Detentions Without Trial”

  1. “Although I have some real problems with Professor Turley’s liberal views—sometimes—his legal bearing is one aspect with which I rarely disagree. He is my initial legal compass”

    FFLEO,
    Me too, but as you know I’m more agreeable to his liberal views. JT though is a well known public person and he has correctly perceived his role as speaking truth to power and this IO have and will continue to fully support. You and I have more flexibility of response because except for here we are unknowns in the political process. I want the Professor to keep the heat on, but I also know enough about how administrations and bureaucracy’s work to be ready to declare the game either apparent or over, so early in the first quarter.

  2. Ms. Becker:
    Has your location changed since the posted user profile states Alabama?

  3. Obama is the worst kind of politico. He engenders confidence, has a boyish smile, promised progressive change and now he is no more than an Uncle Tom for the corporate judicial system. It appears race has nothing whatsoever to do with power. Once you’re in, you’re corrupt. Very disconcerting. Michelle should divorce him. Reconstructing Wall Street without ral change, remaining in Iraq, Afghanistan and ignoring the genuine needs of the very people who elected him. A community organizer? Please.

  4. Would it be at all helpful at this point to ask the Illinois Bar Association to consider disbarment of Barack Obama? After all, he has no respect for U.S. law and treaties. I would be glad to help sponsor such a complaint, as an Illinois resident myself.

  5. Mike,

    Although I have some real problems with Professor Turley’s liberal views—sometimes—his legal bearing is one aspect with which I rarely disagree. He is my initial legal compass and I only occasionally have to readjust my declination to follow this legalisms.

  6. FFLEO,
    It is true. However, part of the inconsistency comes from the fact that this is a new administration, made up of disparate people, all of whom are vying to solidify power bases. Historically, this is the way our government and others run. The only way for us average folk to get a handle on it is by trying to sort out rumor from fact and to trust our own reading of what’s going on more than that of any supposed pundit or expert.

  7. I agree Mike Spindell, but when a man is so inconsistent it is difficult to gauge his actions, especially when he has the power to cover-up so much.

  8. Does anyone try to look at the original story to try to determine whether this is rumor or policy. The not releasing the photos was announced policy and I’ve already called the WH to protest. All else is press speculation and you all know how well their record has been.

  9. “The American public should not salute. We should make it clear, in every way possible, that this is complete lawless and unacceptable in the American system of justice.”

    Jill,
    On this we agree, but it still must be asserted that this is all based on a speculative WSJ story and that Gates’ mentioned it before congress does not represent Administration action.

  10. Wow, what a week for Obama:

    – infinite detention on US soil
    – not releasing torture photos
    – reviving military commissions

    I can’t believe I voted for this guy.

  11. “This action is morally repugnant and a dangerous slap in the face to our system of the rule of law.”

    Jill,
    What action is that? The article is speculative and lacks sourcing.

  12. Wow, what a week for Obama:

    – infinite detention on US soil
    – not releasing torture photos
    – reviving military commissions

    It makes me sick that I voted for this prick.

  13. Perhaps Obama needs drug screening. He might be hittin’ the white powder of his youth.

  14. “…merely upgrading to Bush 1.2 (with the added ability to pronounce multisyllabic terms).”
    ____________

    Hit that nail with the legal hammer squarely on the head…

  15. This was mentioned in the testimony of Robert Gates before Congress. Look at it as a trial balloon. Running things up the flag pole, (and this idea is circulating from many sorces allied and within the administration) is a time honored way to see who salutes. The American public should not salute. We should make it clear, in every way possible, that this is complete lawless and unacceptable in the American system of justice.

  16. This action is morally repugnant and a dangerous slap in the face to our system of the rule of law. No president should be able to hold anyone in indefinite detention. If anyone here did not support this idea under bush but now supports it under Obama I must ask, why is that?

    Gitmo was designed as a black hole, a way to subvert the rule of law by placing people on what the cheney administration called, “foreign soil”. Obama’s plan is to subvert the rule of law on the American mainland. I do not understand how this can be excused, justified or accepted by our population. The law regarding indefinite detention applies to American citizens as well as foreign nationals.

    There is no credibility to this move or the move to revive discredited Military Commissions. These people should be given a fair trial in our civil courts or at the very least, a Courts Martial. We most certainly are destroying our own best values and our Constitution if we allow such a thing to go forward.

  17. Here we go again. I read the original story, which only quotes Lindsay Graham and appears in the WSJ. You know the WSJ, that highly conservative financial paper, now run by Rupert Murdoch. I await the flood of outraged comments that will accompany this article, which doesn’t represent anything but un-sourced speculation. That it might be being released as a means to put pressure on the President to continue these policy’s is as much a possibility as believing he is really considering this. However, we all know, don’t we, that un-sourced speculation is almost always true.

Comments are closed.