The Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies — now clearly Obama policies on indefinite detention and blocking the investigation of war crimes. Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department’s chief lawyer, has stated that it is a “policy question” whether acquitted individuals will be released or held indefinitely.
In May, President Obama announced that he supported indefinite detention of individual in violation of both domestic and international law. He has even found his detention policies to be a subject of jokes.
Liberals continue to be largely silent in the face of policies that they once denounced and protested. It is rare to hear any coverage or questions of the Administration’s refusal to investigate war crimes of torture, for example. Liberals seem to be quickly developing a cult of personality that has supplanted the most basic principles of human rights and international law. As with the Republicans under Bush, the Democrats are refusing to push the Administration to investigate torture or comply with international law. Before the inauguration, various generals and senators claimed that Obama and Holder assured them privately that no one would be investigated for torture. It now appears that these stories were likely true. Democrats must choose between their principles and their politicians — and they appear to be making the same choice as their Republican counterparts.
Mespo:
“Surely you agree that the Executive acting pursuant to an Act of Congress to wage war is not a usurpation of its Constitutional powers.”
Sure, but that’s not what we’re dealing with:
9/11 Authorization:
“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
That’s quite a narrow authorization; wouldn’t you say Mespo?
It is not an authorization to wage war against terrorism or terrorists. It’s an authorization to use military force to bring down everyone responsible for 9/11; and the “in order to prevent…” clause is subordinate and fails to enlarge the target of the authorization.
Yet you continue:
“I have no trouble with due process for those charged with crimes, but true combatants bent on killing fellow Americans — or aiding in that effort — deserve no quarter from us, nor has any society in the history of mankind ever taken such a dangerous position without a concomitant pledge from its adversary.”
Query: How did an authorization to use military force against those responsible for 9/11 turn into a world wide war against all anti-American terrorists? Anti-American terrorists have existed for centuries, yet we never gave the Executive war time powers to go after them in the past; how did the Executive obtain that power now? A turn of a phrase?
I completely agree with your conflict of laws argument (re due process and war tribunals) however you’re still missing the big picture. The shift of power upon which your argument relies is as legitmate as SCOTUS appointing a President.
I just thought it needed
I need smaller fingers if I’m keeping this Crackberry.
Mike,
I think I understood where you were going and I don’t think you’re incorrect in your assessments of previous attempts at peaceful revolution here vs. there. We may have crosstalk. My point is that organization aside you’re dealing with a different mindset created by socioeconomics and history. I’m not sure Gandhi’s tactic can work here before that comes into play. I sure hope so as I feel about war the way Jefferson felt about it, but with the “mental fabric” of the two nations in comparison being so radically different, I just thought needed it needed attenuation. Complexity Theory is very initial state dependent in building its equations. With two different initial starting states, we cannot guarantee like outcomes regardless of other similarities.
“I’ve been thinking about what you said about India and I think that’s not really a good comparison for this reason: India was dominated by the caste system long before the English arrived.”
Buddha,
You, like Mespo missed the point that I was making and if two such as you miss my point than I have to admit I must have been unclear in my writing.
The point I was making was not socio/political,it was about the effectiveness of pulling off a non-violent revolution and the ability to do so requiring extensive organization. Ghandi was not only a charismatic figure, he and his partisans were dynamic organizers and therein lies my point. I’ve been through the non-violent revolutions of the 60’s and they failed not because the cause wasn’t just, but because its’ partisans failed to mobilize a good percentage of the citizenry and used tactics that salved the ego, while sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
How’s that for cliche ridden mixed metaphors?
Jim’s purpose here, IMO, is to obfuscate the issue and redirect it. I would not engage with him further because it plays into his hand. There are also others here as a distraction. They will fill up the side bar as quickly as possible. Because they will probably have knocked my post off I will post it again:
I want to ask one last time. To the people who wrote on this blog before I came here and have not yet spoken. You spoke so strongly against Bush when he decided to imprison the innocent and deny them a fair trial (or any trial). When Bush ripped up the Constitution, you were forceful in condemning him, every time. You never backed down to Bush’s illegal and immoral claims of expanded executive power. Why are you remaining silent now? Do you now agree with Bush’s reasoning? Obama and Bush are claiming the same power for themselves. Please help me understand why you remain silent when these same Bush policies are adopted by Obama? Silence is assent. Obama will take your silence as assent to his unlawful, heinous behavior.
“Am I hearing from you and the “Jill Team” that prisoners of war denominated as “enemy combatants” should enjoy due process and equal protection rights involving their detention over and above the extensive framework of rights granted them by the Geneva Conventions? I think we all agree that these persons have a right to a judicial determination of status (rather than an Executive one), but does anyone actually believe that a POW needs to be released before the end of hostilities or other than under one of the narrow exceptions set out in the Geneva Conventions?”
Mespo,
I would respectfully request that you go back over my comments and explain to me where I’ve joined the “Jill Team,”
or even agreed with them? Now it is possible that I was unclear in writing this post, but on re-reading it I will give myself benefit of the doubt.
I made three basic points in that post:
1. Indefinite detention of anyone, without hearing or judicial (or even “Quasi Judicial” oversight is an abomination
in my view.
2. People calling for various “revolts” and disparaging President Obama are ignoring history and the socio/political
set up in our country that determines true power. In doing so they rally their troops against the wrong enemies. I’m all for acting to redress these wrongs, but I want to see more than empty exercises in misdirected anger, before I join the cause.
3. Given the points I made in “2.” above, I pointed out that President Obama, 6 months in, is treading in the same swamp faced by Lincoln for instance and his methodology for dealing with it is only in its’ opening gambits.
That is hardly the “Jill Team” and those other regulars commenting here are hardly team players and all march to their own drummers. I think in that sense your characterization, while admittedly looking for shorthand, was off the mark.
Given the other part of your point these people are not POW’s since we are not now, nor have ever been at war in either Iraq or Afghanistan. These were an extension of the Presidential Police Action theory that Truman used to get us into Korea. I believe that this doctrine has far outlived its’ usefulness and has literally needlessly murdered thousands of our troops and perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. POW’s is therefore not an appropriate term and enemy combatant is an ill defined one. Saddam’s Limo
driver for instance may be a lethal guy in a firefight, but really is he a lasting danger to us?
However, even if we accept that premise of “war,” in Iraq and Afghanistan both those wars were over in short shrift. We won.
We now have occupations going on and in both instances these occupations meet my definition of political insanity.
“but does anyone actually believe that a POW needs to be released before the end of hostilities”
Not a good argument because there are many instances to show that just such a result has been utilized and without disastrous consequences. Israel has done this numerous times in trades for prisoners and in fact on certain occasions did it to bow to US pressure and to world opinion. Are we in the US really so sanctified that we are above these things? I think not.
As you know though, for the most part you, Patty and I have been among the chief defenders on this site of our President thus far, given this I think you were missing my points.
Jim,
You obviously have a problem distinguishing between civilian and military processes. That’s why you keep misreading Boumediene. It addresses this point. You also seem to think the GC operates in a vacuum. It does not. There are also Constitutional, statutory and possibly regulatory laws that impact how we as a nation apply treaties. Boumediene is a fine example of just that.
Jill,
The claim is that “Obama Administration Reserves Right to Indefinitely Hold Detainees Acquitted of Charges”. That is not an unlawful act. Charges are one thing, and detention of unlawful combatants is another. Indefinite detention, until the end of the conflict, is not unlawful.
Some of the things the Bush Administration was doing (i.e. torture) were possibly unlawful. Some other things, upon further review, were not. -Sometimes you look a little deeper at the facts to defend your own. (We are flawed beings)
I’d still appreciate the URL of the individual case info for one whom you say should not be held.
bdaman:
what is your point about the video and the fact that you are not white? I am curious. I am a white, shall we say skeptical diest, individual rights, capitalist, I hate compasionate conservatism and neocons. They have bent our country over the log, think America as Ned Beatty and the neocons as the toothless redneck. And they have made us squeal like pigs.
I also think that Pres. Obama’s rhetoric about white people and greed is incorrect. Haiti does not suffer because of America, Haiti suffers because of Haiti. The way to fix world problems is to try and get more countries to relax their strangle hold on people and the means of production. Free people and free markets are not interested in war and repression but in prosperity and life well lived.
Maybe Obama and Bush can be put on trial at the same time. If that happens would Bush be the defendant and Obama the co-defendant or would it be the other way around.
I want to ask one last time. To the people who wrote on this blog before I came here and have not yet spoken. You spoke so strongly against Bush when he decided to imprison the innocent and deny them a fair trial (or any trial). When Bush ripped up the Constitution, you were forceful in condemning him, every time. You never backed down to Bush’s illegal and immoral claims of expanded executive power. Why are you remaining silent now? Do you now agree with Bush’s reasoning? Obama and Bush are claiming the same power for themselves. Please help me understand why you remain silent when these same Bush policies are adopted by Obama? Silence is assent. Obama will take your silence as assent to his unlawful, heinous behavior.
Patty C. or Patty C or whoever you are going by at this time,
Just yesterday you apologized, as is your practice, after one of your little tirades.
Do you often have bouts of memory loss?
********************************
Don’t ever expect me to apologize to you for anything that I may have said ever again. I am done with that!!!! If you leave my name or reference to anything I say I assure you, you will never have to worry about my commenting on your statements. Do we understand each other you female canine?
As a matter of fact communicate only with mespo727272 as you do not insult him. Now sit back and take another pill or drink your swill and pass out.
lthuedk,
Since you mentioned the idea of a 2nd Constitutional Congress, check this out over at Popehat’s.
http://www.popehat.com/2009/07/09/an-item-to-be-considered-at-the-next-constitutional-convention/
mespo,
You may want to look at this too given your interest in all things Roman. It’s not a bad idea.
I’m just making an assumption here, other than myself I’m sure most of you are white.
Just yesterday you apologized, as is your practice, after one of your little tirades.
Do you often have bouts of memory loss?
More openness and transparancey
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/joe-biden-update-1.html
and this, US prison tells inmate that Obama’s books harmful to national security
http://680news.com/news/world/more.jsp?content=w094305227
“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere… That’s the world! On which hope sits!” Barack Obama, Dreams
Maybe he was listenning to Jerimiah Wright
Patty C.
Are you still swaggering from the swill that you have prepared? Do you think that you need assistance, it is nothing to be ashamed of to ask for help if you cannot control your drinking. Have you shown up at work drunk as much as you show up here apparently under the influence. I hope that if you really are a medical person that your duties do not include surgery. Do you realize how much harm the medical community has caused by performing surgeries under the influence? Get help not only for your sake but the sake of your patients.
Patty C,
Hello Female Canine. You can leaves me out of your rants. I will come back and have you for dinner. Now how do you cook that New England lobster and what sound does it make as it hits the water?
The Professor has asked that you refrain from your fecal matter attacks. Civility is what has been requested or do you not know what that terms mean? I will assure you one of wit as I surly sit here ready to ****. I will grace you with all my might and I will see you running as dysentery can only imagine.
mespo727272 1, July 10, 2009 at 12:24 am
Patty C:
“mespo, isn’t that what I said, essentially @10:34 am, in a few hundred less words…”
*********************
Yours was poetry to my prose, but, as you know, most guys don’t like poetry. Like Plato, you also know that “Poetry is nearer to vital truth than history.”
—
HOw true! Just as we were finishing here last night, I noticed my poetry, which was, unfortunately, mixed in with Buddha’s and AY’s bovine offerings of the day, had just gotten tossed in a massive sweep by JT – at my prompting two fortnights ago.
Next time I’ll be sure to quote myself!
Jim,
You should know the answer to that question. Boumediene v Bush and Rasul v. Bush. The tribunals merely set status for the next phase as they are determinative of status only, not guilt or innocence of any criminal wrongdoing or – if found POW only – when they should be processed and returned at the end of hostilities according to the rules of the GC. It’s a triage process before final disposition. Since the statutory provisions Bush relied on for prosecuting “unlawful combatants” had no adequate due process analog it was proper to return to the Constitution for guidance. The bad news was that guidance said they were behaving in an unconstitutional manner by denying habeas corpus.