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.
Mr. Mespo (what a stupid handle):
You recite the bin laden PDB memo that said: “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S” and then directly attack Presient Bush & C. Rice for not comprehending the significance of this dire warning.
1) what day was the attack suppose to be?
2) where city were they planning on attacking us at?
3) what was the target?
4) what weapon were we being attacked with?
5) how many attackers were there going to be?
I would venture to guess that even you know what a moron you are for spouting the “bin laden determined to attack inside the US” BS.
gordon:
“I listened to Dick Cheney’s speech today and I found myself ashamed of having voted for Barack Obama.”
***************
Like you I regretted my vote for Rutherford B. Hayes. You voted for Obama–lol.
anthrax
I listened to Dick Cheney’s speech today and I found myself ashamed of having voted for Barack Obama. That was an effective speech and hit you right in the gut; we either win against these murdering terrorists OR WE LOSE. There is no middle ground.
My eldest son home visiting looked at me and asked “which of these two (Obama vs. Cheney) do you think would have/could have won WW2 because that is the man you want leading us. I realized for sure Barack Obama would have been the guy looking for middle ground with Hitler or Hirohito.
achilles:
“The record is that there were no successful attacks after 9/11.”
***************
Likewise there were no other dirigible accidents on American soil after the Hindenburg. Wouldn’t it have been nice if there weren’t any at all and if all involved in protecting us on 9/11/2001 had bothered to read the memo entitled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.,” conveyed to National Security Advisor (insert snicker here) Condi Rice in August 2001. I bet it would have gotten more play with her if they had pasted a 50% off coupon for Manolo Blahnik shoes.
achilles, your heel is calling.
Obama’s speech was dishonest came when he assured us that detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay has undermined our security:
Guantanamo became a symbol that helped Al Qaida recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo, likely, created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. So the record is clear. Rather than keeping us safer, the president at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.
The “record is clear”? As the slob Keith Oblermann would say, WTF?
The record is that there were no successful attacks after 9/11. What “record” can Obama be talking about? And what evidence is there that Guantanamo “created…terrorists around the world”?
It is absurd to think that anyone will join an organization that chops off people’s heads and gouges out their eyes with spoons because he is outraged that at Guantanamo Bay–what? A female interrogator sat on a detainee’s lap?
One thing we know about extremist organizations is that it is success, not failure, that brings adherents to their banners. After 9/11, al Qaeda has been dogged by failure, defeat and the loss of most of its key operatives through death or capture.
Obama made up his purportedly empirical claim that Guantanamo Bay made the U.S. less secure. It is another example of his conviction that he can slip any sort of howler past the American people and I am F-g sick of it.
Buddha and FF Leo and Mespo72ubed,
Thanks. Thats all I gotta say.
achilles,
This clown & doofus Obama is turning out to be a real embaressment to America.
8*******************************8**************************8
Glad you feel that way, now tell Us why. I can say
This clown & doofus achilles is turning out to be a real embaressment to America.
Now why? support your statement. Ok Trolley Tramp.
This clown & doofus Obama is turning out to be a real embaressment to America.
Bob,
Since we’re talking about the abuses of Bush Co., I was thinking this might be some more wisdom from the late Dr. Thompson.
“You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug, especially when its waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye.”
In this case, the drug is the perception of power without cost or accountability in violation of the Constitution. Thankfully it’s not ether as we all know there is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge. The Dr. agreed on that as well.
“Should I tell him about the bats? No, the poor bastard will find out soon enough.”
“There was only one road back to L.A. US Interstate 15, just a flat-out high speed burn through Baker and Barstow and Berdoo. Then on to the Hollywood Freeway straight into frantic oblivion: safety, obscurity. Just another freak in the Freak Kingdom. We’d gone in search of the American Dream. It had been a lame fu#$ around, a waste of time. There was no point in looking back. Fu#$ no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger: a man on the move, and just sick enough to be totally confident.”
— H.S. Thompson
Buddha,
It was originally penned as “We the States.”
It was re-drafted to make it more warm and fuzzy.
CCD,
Back on the evolution article, were you referring to the upcoming
SCOTUS nominee?
Mespo,
When you consider that the constitution is structured to fend off its first and foremost enemy, i.e. tyranny, how can you afford to overlook Ch 18 of the 2nd Treatise?
Mike Appleton:
“My second gripe relates to the absolute lack of strong Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.”
Wasn’t it John Dean who said leading Democrats is tantamount to herding cats?
I’m little offended he made his speech at the National Achieves, in front of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is a document that should not be politicized or used to legitimize unconstitutional behavior or policy. Furthermore, it is not a document open to personal judgment or interpretation. Inappropriate choice of venue.
I know that it is useless to point this out, but Congress does not have to allow Obama to get away with this, just as it did not have to allow Bush to get away with it. Congress has allowed this nation to become a dictatorship. I am not being hyperbolic; what else is a nation whose leader can imprison whomever he wants for life? Obama seems a more benign dictator than Bush (although if I were an innocent person being held without trial I might think otherwise), but he is still a dictator, and the next President will be too, unless Congress does something about it. Fat chance that it will.
Indefinite detention is simply morally and legally unacceptable. Notice the Catch-22 nature of this policy. We will torture you and thus we have tainted the evidence. Because we tortured you and created tainted evidence we will be unable to try you and you will remain incarcerated the rest of your life.
We should not tolerate our govt. engaging in this behavior. If we do not put the breaks on it now, what it to prevent this as an excellent technique for detaining anyone forever?
We owe these people trials. If we lose because we tainted the evidence, then we lose. At least this way we keep the rule of law. Further, we regain credibility in the eyes of the world. I don’t think the way to go is complicated or difficult. It is completely clear. We need a president who will step up to the plate for justice, even if that costs him an election.
Ab-Zabiyah’s lawyer was on Here and Now today. He made a very good case that his client was innocent. How do we really know who is the worst of the worst? Does anyone in Gitmo really fit that description? How would we know this without trials? We can’t just believe our govt. when they tell us things like this. These are people’s lives. These allegations must be proven. Anyone can allege anything without proof.
In the meantime a confessed war criminal isn’t being detained or even investigated. The contrast between alleged crimes and crimes that have openly been admitted to cannot be any more clear.
Obama knows the law and refuses to abide by it. There’s no backing away from this any longer. It is dangerous to accept his right to do so. That’s what a dictator does. We must pressure him and this Congress and do everything in our power to restore democracy and rule of law to this nation.
raff,
“As Professor Turley states, ‘The reason that we cannot try these individuals is because they would win.’ Or could some of them be in such poor physical and mental health that a trial would highlight the results of torture for the world to see?”
Both would be my guess. If we were shown the suffering and permanent scars some of these people at Gitmo have been subjected to? I suspect there would be immediate violence against politicians. Pure unfiltered rage at what was done to people in our name by those in charge. I think those in Washington and Obama are acting out of fear – fear of We the People will do if the scope of the Bush Co. crimes are made fully public. I’m thinking the Nazis didn’t want the camps made public either for the same reason albeit their crimes were on a much more horrific scale. And when those crimes were made public? Nuremberg, imprisonments and executions were the results.
It was an interesting speech, but it did leave me wondering why Obama said some of the detainees could not be tried. Could the real reason why some can’t be tried is because they were tortured and any or all of the evidence uncovered was obtained through torture and would not be admissable and they would be acquitted? As Professor Turley states, “The reason that we cannot try these individuals is because they would win.” Or could some of them be in such poor physical and mental health that a trial would highlight the results of torture for the world to see? If you are going to uphold the rule of law as Pres. Obama stated, there are no degrees of the rule of law. You either have it for all or you have fallen short.