President Barack Obama today defended his decision to close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and promptly raised more serious concerns for civil libertarians. In his speech, Obama announced that the country’s “moral authority” demanded closure but then said that his lawyers were working new policies to hold certain detainees indefinitely without trial.
Obama broke the detainees into five categories. He is to be commended for deciding to send some detainees to federal court for a true and legitimate trial. However, he still refused to take the rule of law to its full conclusion. With one category, he isolated to “detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted, yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.” He promised “[w]e are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.” Of course, this would mean holding people in violation of domestic and international law — precisely what George Bush did. It is part of the Administration’s effort to appear principled by doing an unprincipled thing. The reason that we cannot try these individuals is because they would win. The solution, according to both Bush and Obama, is not to give them a trial.
For the full story, click here.
Bush 2.0: Obama Administration Opposes Valerie Plame Appeal
No accountability, were playing by BushCo rules.
For someone who supposedly taught constitutional law, Obama seems unclear on what a right is.
One way or another, he has surrendered any claim to being an agent of ‘change’ with respect to the Bush Atrocity (that is, the presidency of George W. Bush from start to finish).
And your point is? Other than you’re capable of both assumptions of dubious quality and a complete misunderstanding of the term “We the People”?
Every time I come to this blog I become more and more pleased that none of you are in charge of running our country.
…’And those who are exonerated should be treated as any other person who wins an acquittal…”
—
They should be treated even better than just ‘as any other person who wins an acquittal’.
Unfortunately, if they weren’t angry before I suspect they definitely are now, and without much regard to whether we choose to fully recognize and appreciate it!
“The reason that we cannot try these individuals is because they would win. The solution, according to both Bush and Obama, is not to give them a trial.”
**********
“They’re bad. We know they are bad. We’re scared if they get loose. We’ll keep them away from us.”
This is the argument of children–not very bright or very brave children at that.
Bob, Esq:
Your knowledge of politicians and their equivocations and downright cowardice is encyclopedic.
Bad Humor, but do you know how many people would say “I’d give left left arm if I could go to Cuba.”
Bad Humor ok, its not me, I am telling the voices to knock it off. I am only kidding. But the more than unfolds I am just amazed. And to think that when GeoI was in office, we had to wait for Albert Gore before we had the internet remember? So, how much caca do yo think GeoI would have gotten if we had the internet then. Wow. The things we take for granted.
Things must evolve or they die.
Bush and Co. went to great lengths in order to manage what was perpetrated on this country by intentionally straying outside Constitutional processes.
So why would anyone think it won’t require a similar degree of effort to return to where we, otherwise, would have been.
Things don’t evolve backward…
The question arises once again: Is there a shadow government which would explain some of this strange behavior?
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-there-shadow-government.html
Although I am extremely frustrated over the mess at Guantanamo, there are two things to remember. First, this is another example of a Bush catastrophe dropped in Pres. Obama’s lap. Why were we transporting all of these people to Guantanamo in the first place if we didn’t have a clue what we were going to do with them when they got there? Did Bush and Cheney think we would simply keep them in custody until they died from old age, disease or “enhanced interrogation techniques”? It is all too reminiscent of our “plans” for the rebuilding of Iraq following the deposition of Saddam Hussein. Bush apologists, of course, are now lining up to criticize the president for not having a quick fix for another of their mistakes, much as they have done for his failure to turn around the economy during the first three months of his term.
My second gripe relates to the absolute lack of strong Democratic leadership in the House and Senate. Once again Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are permitting Republicans to frame the debate. The fear mongering incessantly flowing from the lips of Dick Cheney and his congressional allies should be recognized for what it is, and ignored. When was the last time someone escaped from a maximum security federal prison? And those who are exonerated should be treated as any other person who wins an acquittal. It would be easy to say that the Democrats in Congress lack the courage of their convictions, but their verbal fumbling and flailing over the last few days suggests that they have neither courage nor convictions.
Obama yesterday invited to the White House leaders of about a dozen human and civil rights organizations as well as law professors. Administration participants in the 90-minute session included Holder, White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
This is so you will know what this link is about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052001365_pf.html
With this meandering, get ready for a doozie of a SCOTUS nominee. It wouldn’t surprise me if Monica Goodling was nominated.
I cannot understand why Cheney is in Washington advocating against closure of Gitmo. Oh yeah, cover myself. Not as good as Johnson, when it is alleged that the only reason that greedy B donated his ranch to the Dept of Interior is to make sure he nor his family was ever prosecuted for the demise of a number of immigrants working on the ranch before he ascended to his rightful throne.
Now if I could only die like Happy and Lyndon, I’d be happy to.
Mespo,
As I was telling Bron, it all boils down to basically this:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/20/darwinian-dilemma-scientists-see-fossil-as-missing-link-while-creationist-scientists-see-old-dead-monkey/#comment-54736
As I keep saying, it’s still a huge mess regardless of whether these detainees were picked up and held under Bush ‘rightly’ so and especially if wrongly.
And before we end up handing over multi-millions of dollars in settlement checks, they certainly require supervised rehabilitation. It can’t be a wise idea to simply release any of them at this stage, and most unfortunately for some, I’m fairly sure.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-obama-gitmo22-2009may22,0,1852417.story
… “I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face,” Obama said.
He said that the his administration would “exhaust every avenue that we have” to prosecute detainees but there would still be some left “who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes” yet remain a threat.
Among these, he said, are prisoners who have expressed allegiance to Osama bin Laden “or otherwise made it clear they want to kill Americans.”
“So going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime” to handle such detainees “so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.”
Obama criticized what he said was an effort to politicize the issue.
“I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes,” he said…”
Mr. Obama is intelligent enough to know that he is abjectly self-contradictory with his position and why would he continue at such destructive self-denials.
The man is very good at raising the ire of people who put him in office by violating the pledges for which he was so outspoken. He rarely stated that he would try to do something, he always stated that he *will* do this and that if we trusted him. The man is downright infuriating.
This is just one more reason why we should never start unnecessary wars; the darn pesky law gets real annoying and a thorn in your side long after the blood and brains dry on the battlefield.
Seconded.
Obama reminds me of the man running headlong along a high wire hoping he can get past the chasm before he topples. What he may not realize is that other end of the wire is anchored to nothing. Avoiding the rule of law under the guise of principle, as JT mentions, leaves a tremendous hole in the body politic. No high wire can span that void. There is a reason that the law is the anchor of civilization.