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,
I’m just a straight Siciliano who picked up all my dialect from slang spoken in the social clubs and my house.
“When the games ends the pedestrians, the horses, the two queens, the vesconi (?) will all be in the same little box.”
I’m a Sicilian so I know all about double meanings, that could be an insult, a warning or a prediction.
I’ll just leave some words we should all take heed when dealing w/anyone b/c it could go for our intention or the intention of our foes.
“Livarsi na petra di la scarpa”
sicilian1:
“Quando finisce la partita, i pedoni, le torri, i cavalli, i vescovi, i due re e le due regine tutti vanno nello stesso scatolo.”
EVERYONE, (Mike S please read)
I’ve been following these posts and there are many intelligent and informed opinions. People can pontificate abt this forever. I have been enlightened by the analysis of past SC decisions and how they apply and could effect these issues.
In a perfect system, how should these Gitmo prisoners be classified?
Legally speaking:
How long can they be held?
And does there need to be an ongoing war to hold them? Or are the
crimes with which they’ve been charged enough to hold them indefinitely?
Are they due speedy trial rights?
What are their due process rights, in regards to different classification?
Is the POW tag neccessary to hold them indefinitely?
How long can they be classified as POW’s?
If the war on terror is an “eternal” designation then does that mean the prisoners are “eternal” POW’s and the govn’t will “eternally” hold them?
If they are civilian criminals, how should there case be adjudicated?
If convicted as civilian criminals, where should they be held in custody?
Once they’ve served their sentences, would they be deportable?
But amidst all this I believe the bigger issue is how the govn’t gets away w/this.
B/c I believe that the govn’t will classify these prisoners in determination of however long they want to hold them,and will re-classify them if they have to,and however many times they have to to hold them as long as they politically can get away with or want to.
And when that fails they will manipulate and pressure the courts as much as they can to get the outcomes they desire.
And when that fails they’ll just tell everyone to go pound sand and take it up the wahzoo.
I would also like to know how WE as a people have allowed the govn’t to get away w/disregarding the Constitution and CENTRALIZING powers the way they have.
I know I have taken some shots at the lawyers BUT in reality I know that it is not truly their fault. The executive branch has turned the other 2 branches into it’s minions. The courts have been so corrupted by the bullying of the executive branch that we are tied in knots w/legislation and rulingsthat are so subtle in it’s contradictions that any ruling can be justified.
The judges, lawyers and prosecutors are scared stiff of not towing the party line. It’s nice to talk abt constructs such as “doing what’s right”, “standing for justice”, “following your conscience”, etc. But when you face the might, majesty and dictatorial heavy handedness of the federal govn’t, the self preservation instincts kick in and your just looking to survive to the next day.
MIKE S,
I askyou this question b/c you have an insight from a historical perspective. You’ve been in the trenches during the 60’s fighting the fight. Even though I was on the “wrong” side of the law, I too feel like I was fighting the noble fight. I was joined w/my brethern and standing hard against the oppression of the powers that be. But after being slapped down by “big brother” even I was humbled and decided to live a less “virtuous” life. I know you have had a personal experience w/an ex-felon so I know you do not hold my past against me. We have slung mud at each other in the past but I still respect your opinion. I am not trying to bait you, you have my word as a man.
I would like your larger perspective of where we are as a citizenry/ How did we let our Constitution be usurped? Do you feel that WE have let the govn’t legislate away many of our liberties? And if so please explicate. How do you feel the whole Gitmo issue will eventually play out? And most importantly, how do WE turn back the clock to re-take what the govn’t has stolen?
If you disagree w/any of the questions, please feel free to explicate why.
Take your time in answering. It’s time for me to watch “Friday Night Smackdown” (Wrestling) So I will return to read your comments later.
Also to Mespo (Even though we’ve battled, when push comes to shove, we’re still “La stessa cosa”. I hope you feel the same)and Bob, Esq., in your legal expertise, (irrespective of yoour personal desires for the ultimate adjudication of the prisoners cases) how do you feel this is ultimately going to all play out in the end for the Gitmo detainees?
Mespo:
Forgot this one:
“SCOTUS took care of that issue.”
Hamdi?
Hamdam?
Which case and how went into the systematic abuse of constitutional powers in directing the nation in a war against the undefined and thereby justifying the indeterminate detentions of all said undefined individuals?
Mespo:
“You’ll get no argument from me that Bush got an inch and took a mile based on the Congressional authorization, but as you note the authorization is broadly written and of indeterminate length.”
Not only is the length undefined, but so are the enemies and the ultimate objective; thereby leading to something closely resembling this:
Capt. Dobbs: You admit it!
Capt. Yossarian: I admit I’m being [attacked].
Capt. McWatt: Yeah? By whom?
Capt. Yossarian: By them!
Capt. Dobbs: But, who specifically is “them”?
Capt. Yossarian: Every one of them!
Capt. Dobbs: Every one of who?!
Capt. Yossarian: Every one of who do you think!
Capt. Dobbs: I haven’t any idea!
Capt. Yossarian: Then how do you know they aren’t?!
In Re: The “Bush” transgressions v. the “Obama” transgressions
Jill has her panties in a twist, and rightly so, over Obama adopting the Bush agenda on a wholesale level while nobody dare says a word.
What changed? Do I hear it said that an arrogant under-educated inarticulate Executive using the Constitution as a urinal puck is an outrage, while the same acts and legacies continued by his more reserved, well educated and race-barrier-breaking- successor should be greeted with warm-hearted applause?
At the moment, Obama has followed in that same old tradition of power; once gained rarely ever given back. Accordingly, if you’re going to distinguish Bush from Obama, please do so in earnest.
Finally, here’s a little thought experiment regarding the problem with relying on an authorization to wage war on the “undefined.”
http://www.philforhumanity.com/Infinity_Minus_Infinity.html
IT NEVER ENDS.
“You’re totally full of crap on respecting the Constitution for torture, but not suspending habeas corpus.”
Torture is prohibited, in accordance with Article 3, Section 1(a) of the Third Geneva Convention -A Treaty, adopted by this country in accordance with the provisions set forth by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlawful combatants are not addressed by the Third Geneva Convention. The assumption that such a category as “unlawful combatant exists” is contradicted in the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment.
If an unlawful combatant is tried and sentenced, be it in military or U.S. federal court. He/she should have the right to challenge the legality of such sentence. -Habeas Corpus
However, the only other tribunal afforded any detainee would be to determine their status as a prisoner of war. -Rank has its priviledges. And the Geneva Convention ensures those priviledges be bestowed upon those determined to have prisoner of war status.
Most people don’t know it, but the Third Geneva Convention also addresses others whom most would not consider.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
Yes. If the civilian contractors that drive supply trucks are captured, they can be detained until the end of the conflict. (This wouldn’t apply in the instant war, because the enemy doesn’t have detention camps. They have no commissioned officers to run a detention camp if one did exist.)
Last post on the way out of town and I switch off the phone.
Jim,
You’re totally full of crap on respecting the Constitution for torture, but not suspending habeas corpus. Your rational that war trumps law is the argument of tyrants. Call me childish if you want to, but your an enemy of the Constitution if you selective uphold it. That’s what the Neocons do. This is the Bush Co. modus operandi. Ignore the law whenever it’s “inconvenient”.
You’re right. We probably don’t have anything to say to each other. You’ve shown me you’re a Neocon for a fact with that little bit of behavior added on to everything else you’ve put on display. No matter how much you whine about loving the document you are oh so willing to only partially protect and enforce, you’re a hypocrite and liar when you say you respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Your actions say otherwise.
Thanks for showing where your real loyalty lies – and it’s not with the law or Constitution, Mr. Militarism, but with the military chain of command. Enjoy your brown shirt, fascist. But please keep coming back to so we can show people what the enemy within looks like. You’re right that you have a right to your opinion no matter how illogical, illegal, ethically bankrupt or outright evil they may be. Just don’t expect your stupidity to go unchallenged and after that blatant lie about respecting law, don’t expect kindness either.
Bob,Esq:
“This horrific incident, which incidentally does not compare in catastrophe to either Pearl Harbor, or the Civil War.”
************
In the Hall of Infamy 9-11 probably ranks above Pearl Harbor (2300 dead/1100 injured) but well below Antietam (23,000/4000) or or Gettysburg (51,000 casualties).
Mike S.,
“The Iraq War was unnecessary and as for Afghanistan I believe that while and incursion was called for to get Bin Laden and Al Queda, we should have gone in in force got them and gotten the hell out.”
I agree completely. We went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, aided by bad/fabricated intelligence.
Our military was not prepeared to fight against non-state actors. Our Congress had never before declared war against such a broad-based ambiguous enemy.
The policing of non-state actors is generally the responsibility of the hosting government. Unfortunately, that wasn’t going to happen.
The men and women of our military are generally good people. They don’t desire power. -In fact, they relinquish the ability to make thier own decisions for the benefit of the entire country.
While some generals may take advantage of their position, most have a deep love and respect for their country and their troops. The good ones far outnumber the bad.
Jim Byrne:
good info, thanks. Why is it so hard for people to accept that militant Islam is at war with the west, declared or not. This is not and should not be a “police” action. We should treat this as a real honest to god war and get it over. If there are civilian casualties then so be it. Don’t support the crazies if you don’t want to die. Seems simple enough to me.
Larry,
What is your point? As a Jew and supporter of Israel I think Irgun were out of control fools, who did far more harm than good. That was the man’s father. My Father went to jail, I’ve never been accused of a crime nor been on trial nor sentenced to jail. Does that make me a jailbird or a bad person because of something my father did when I was an infant? Very stupid reasoning.
Patty,
Thanks for the correction. Eat well this weekend.
“While I agree that you understand the chain of command, you had one great benefit that a soldier does not. -You had the ability to opt out.”
Jim,
You are absolutely right on that. It is because of that inability to opt out, that we should use our armed forces only when necessary and not sacrifice soldiers on the altars of politicians and officers ambitions. The Iraq War was unnecessary and as for Afghanistan I believe that while and incursion was called for to get Bin Laden and Al Queda, we should have gone in in force got them and gotten the hell out.
That would truly have been a police action and that is what is really necessary to combat terrorism. It is police work and it is counter terrorism work, it is not to sacrifice young people’s lives because people who have never served feel they are smarter than people who have. I do believe that in a fight
where death is involved there are no half measures. However, ass somewhat a student of history I’ve read of the follies of commanders and King committed to enhancing their glory. Think Poitier’s or Crecy for instance, or perhaps General Phyrrus.
Buddha,
“You may have taken orders from him, but him taking orders from us normal citizens is still the norm”
You’re wrong. While he must act in accordance with the Constitution, he directs the operations of war.
“As it is, the CIC can order a solider to do his duty.”
A play on words. -A soldiers duty is to obey the lawful orders of their superiors. The ultimate superior is the POTUS.
“He can’t order me to do squat.” Unless you’re breaking the law, you’re right. He has no authority to dictate your actions.
“I’m HIS boss.” No you’re not. He answers to the U.S. Constitution. You may have a limited influence on him gaining the Office of President, and the same limited ability to prevent him from being reelected, but he does not answer to you, or popular opinion while holding that office.
“His ability to command the military is constrained by the Separation of Powers and he is subject to both the law and the Congress in discharging those duties.”
The Separation of Powers Doctrine limits the scope of his authority. It also limits the authority of Congress to interfere with the Constitutional authority of the president.
to act as CIC.
Congress (per Article I, Section 8) has the authority:
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
—“Yeah, you may be a solider. Many of us here are lawyers. That would make us the experts on law.”
And that would make me…the expert on military operations.
“that thing you’d disregard to wage unfettered war for the personal profit of corrupt politicians.
Shame on you! If you really believe that, we have nothing to discuss. You should join Jill in her beliefs. What an ignorant statement to make to someone who expresses the same respect for the Constitution that you do.
“You might want to consider that when evaluation of why you aren’t getting any of them as converts to your militarism.”
I ask for no converts. The opportunity to express my opinion is much appreciated, but I am not trying to garner support for a movement.
“Evasion in the light of defeat is the tactic of trolls. There is simply no legal basis or defense for detention as you seem to want it exercised. You don’t want to be considered a troll? Then don’t start acting like one again.”
Now you’re just being childish. I treat you with respect, and expect the same. If you feel better by labeling me as a troll; you are free to do so.
BIL:
have a great time at the lake, after all your hard work this week you need a couple of days to unwind.
And now . . . off to the lake.
IS,
You keep talking but not making any sense. You should really work on that.
Jim,
Arguing that you being for one illegality instead of another doesn’t make you Neocon.
Hm.
Well, you’re right, that doesn’t make you a Neocon. It makes you irrational, contradictory and possibly stupid. But wait, it gets better as those aren’t the only options. Just because you agree with the President who is breaking the law doesn’t make you right. It just means you agree with criminals. That would make you either explicitly or implicitly an aider an abettor of the criminals. In this case, that would be the Neocons. All you are doing now is lending credence to you being a plant as Jill suggests.
You are starting to stink of troll again, sport. I said if it was subterfuge it wasn’t very good and I meant it. Thanks for illustrating that point.
BIL:
so Churchill and Roosevelt and Truman were unethical barbarians?
Jill,
I probably should ignore your comments. Had they merely been ad hominem attacks, I would have done so.
Let’s get a couple of things straight:
“one week ago he committed a class 1, felony flattery by asking you to explain what a neocon was to him.”
I asked how “the locals” were defining “Neocon” because I found many to be using the term to paint with what I considered to be a broad brush. Indentured Servant, Buddha, Mike S. and others provided information that clarified the intended use. -Not everyone with an adverse opinion is a Neocon. I know that, and by their answers, those that were kind enough to respond, know that too.
“Yet a week later he is posting the most sophisticated neocon legal arguments justifying all the abuses of the bush administation.”
I have supported the detention (of indeterminate length) of enemy combatants. Your inference that such is to be attributed to the Bush Administration is demonstrative of a lack of knowledge on the history of war(s). We have two types of enemy combatants; lawful and unlawful. The unlawful kinds are not afforded more rights than the lawful kind. The Third Geneva Convention (1949) -a little before Bush -permits such detention. (mespo provided that information)
I think the Courts determination on habeas corpus right for aliens was wrong. Apparently, some others, including our current president, agree with me. As President Andrew Jackson once stated about the Court. “Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”. It appears that this Court is running into the same problem.
—FYI –paying the locals to assist in the capture of suspected terrorists is not a crime. In fact, it’s a pretty smart use of resources. Now if we were just paying for warm bodies (i.e those suspected of nothing), I’d have a problem with that.
PS. If you find me supporting government sanctioned torture, you are welcome to call me a Neocon, or any other name you find necessary.