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.
Here’s an interesting quote from mespo, along with others in the thread:
“mespo727272 1, June 13, 2008 at 8:19 am
Bob,Esq:
“What principle empowers the Fed to predicate its expanded powers upon a non-declared war against a gerund form of a verb, tactic or state of mind?
I remember being scolded by English teachers for expressing, in sentences, such nonsensical thoughts.”
****************
The late Harry Reasoner of ABC News used to warn about the government’s manipulation of language and hence our liberties. Funny almost none of the new corporate shills masquerading as journalists talk about that anymore. As usual, Harry was prescient. War on terror, indeed. We’ might as well have a war on poverty. Oh yeah we did that already. How’d that turn out?”
mespo,
What has changed?
mespo,
You still seem to misunderstand the issue here, so I’ll try again: “You are talking about those combatants charged with crimes.” I am talking about these very people because these are the very people Obama seeks to imprison. It is the subject of this post. You still have not said why you believe it is either moral or legal for Obama to hold a full civil trial where the jury reaches a verdict of innocent and then he is claiming the power to hold these people anyway. Where do you find the legal authority for this action in our Consitution? Please be forthright enough to explain how this specific action, described in JT’s post, is Constitutional.
“…for those detainees to whom the Obama administration deigns to give a real trial in a real court, the President has the power to continue to imprison them indefinitely even if they are acquitted at their trial.”
Where is the Constitutional authority for the president to take this action?
Now under Bush, you did not believe there was such a thing as a “war on terror”. You used to say that was a false idea, much like say that the “war on drugs” is a legally defined state of war under the Constitution. Why have you changed your mind under Obama? What is your definition of, “the war on terror” and how does it confer dictatorial legal authorities on the president. Have you now adopted the legal reasoning of Yoo? If so, why?
JIll:
“There is no moral or legal ambiguity about imprisoning anyone who has been declared innocent, not in the US, not in US run sites around the world–it is wrong.”
********************
Legally presumed “innocent people” are held in detention in this country under color of law all the time awaiting trial if they prove to be a bona fide threat to the safety of the community. Regardless, in your haste to beat the morality drum, I think you miss the point. You are talking about those combatants charged with crimes. I am talking about those prisoners picked up as prisoners of war, i.e. captured on the battlefield or non-uniformed combatants caught aiding in the war effort against us as defined by the Conventions. Prisoners of war enjoy no such due process rights excepting only those to determine status by appropriate “tribunals,” as provided for in the Conventions. If they are not truly prisoners of war, they may be still held in pre-trial detention on criminal charges until trials are conducted and the case is disposed with. I have no problem with either concept, but apparently you do. I just can’t figure out why.
Benjamin Franklin certainly understood the difference between those charged with crimes, and those taken prisoner in wartime. You may want to take counsel from his words, “If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.”
Jill,
Most do not realize but the Soviet Constitution is similar to the United States. It all a matter of interpretation. BTW, I do not disagree with what you have said. And you know it all about Jill, All the time. wink, wink, nod, nod.
mespo,
You see to misunderstand the issue invovled here. “General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, testified. As Ackerman highlighted, Johnson actually said that even for those detainees to whom the Obama administration deigns to give a real trial in a real court, the President has the power to continue to imprison them indefinitely even if they are acquitted at their trial.”
There is no moral or legal ambiguity about imprisoning anyone who has been declared innocent, not in the US, not in US run sites around the world–it is wrong. Obama plans to give trials to our detainees and despite the outcome of innocent, continue to imprison them. You speak about the need of the US to protect itself from terrorists by doing this. You quoted Ben Franklin many times before when Bush made these same claims to dictatorial power: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
There will be no safety for anyone should the Constitution fall.
Patty C—–any comment on Obama picking Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff? Emanuel’s father, Benjamin, was a member of the terrorist militant group, Irgun, in the late 1940’s. They were responsible for slaughtering hundreds of Palestinians in villages and marketplaces. This is all documeted and FACT. Do you not see how disturbing it is to have the SON of a terrorist in our White House?? Oh by the way, Benjamin Emanuel is STILL alive and lives in Chicago.
Patty,
Good for you, we both agree that people doing exactly what you are is necessary for a healthy Democracy. It has absolutely nothing to do with you implying that Buddha shouldn’t express his views because he’s not supportive of Obama, and that he should be supportive of Obama because he voted for him.
—
I ‘implied’ no such thing. He shares his same rant all the time.
What I clearly stated I object to is the constant alternating chicken-little/angry harangue around here. I’d like to hear of people contributing something positive instead of just criticism all the time.
Despite the denial, Buddha was responding to my post, as evidenced by his quotation of my exact phrasing in response to a question asked of me by Jill. I antagonized NO one.
Nice try though!
Somebody should tell him that admitting a problem is half the battle, although one would think he’d already know that.
Bob,Esq:
I did intentionally say “war on terrorists.” Query: would the Geneva Conventions apply if they existed during our war with the Barbary Pirates?
Bob,Esq:
Remember the GC’s go beyond and have application to more that declared war.
“Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
Patty,
Good for you, we both agree that people doing exactly what you are is necessary for a healthy Democracy. It has absolutely nothing to do with you implying that Buddha shouldn’t express his views because he’s not supportive of Obama, and that he should be supportive of Obama because he voted for him.
If they are determined to be prisoners of war then they should be treated as such and not be given their due process b/c they are not due it.
I believe they should be held as prisoners of war.
But others don’t and they are OUTRAGED. But my point is why aren’t they outraged when it happens to AMERICAN CITIZENS?
If they’re outraged by the guantanomo detianee’s status and do NOT consider them to be prisoners of war the they should have the same outrage when it happens to Americans.
And maybe if that problem had been addressed we wouldn’t be having this debate right now.
If the detainee’s are not prisoners of war and are due process then people have to expect the detainee’s suffer the same fate of American citizens who have been suffering this same exact fate the detainee’s now suffer from.
Mespo,
Remember Article I and that thingy about declaring war?
Are you really prepared to accept bastardized maxims of law simply because you’ve accepted faulty rhetoric as fact; e.g. that one can declare war on a gerund form of a verb?
There is no war Mespo; nor does a war exist simply because a rhetorician cannot find the words to describe a current conflict.
Accordingly, let’s not ignore the constitution anymore than it has been.
There is one point to be discussed about how to handle prisoners of war as some of these detainees obviously are. Do they enjoy protections greater than the Geneva Conventions which do not require due process to continue their detentions. The only obligation is to release or repatriate them after the cessation of hostilities or upon serious non-self-inflicted injury or illness. Are all the detainees at Guantanamo “innocent” in the moral sense? Or the legal sense? I have no problem with due process to determine their status but once some are proven by a preponderance of evidence to be prisoners of this war on terrorists within the meaning of the Conventions, what do we do then?
AY,
Thank you for having the common sense to not hold any biases against me.
This is so true. It’s an absolute infringement on the rights of American citizens.
I’ve said it repeatedly one innocent’s lost freedom is not worth imprisoning all the guilty people.
Now, if people had that attitude, the system WOULD be JUST. I’m not saying to empty out the prison but they rights of every person on the planet MUST be respected AND if that attitude riegns there will be justice.
See Sil1, you did it again. Keep it up. Talk about the issues.
.
Anybody that thinks this ios anything new is clueless.
This has been happening to AMERICAN CITIZENS for a long, long time.
Federal holding centers are loaded w/pre-trial federal inmates (And remember all you law-and-order types, EVERYONE in the criminal justice system is innocent untill proven guilty) who are DENIED bail on the FLIMSIEST of arguments for YEARS.
Just go to BOP.com and type in some inmate that’s on pre-trial and his release date will read UNKNOWN and will remain that way untill his case is adjudicated.
There’s guys locked up on pre-trial for sometimes 3,4,5 years while there case grinds at a snails pace through the federal justice system.
Sometimes guys are in pre-trial for so long that even if they’re convicted they get “time served” b/c the sentence is LESS than their time on pre-trial.
Then there’s the guys that beat their case and never get that time they lost.
If the govn’t can do this to AMERICAN citizens who thinks they can’t get away w/it with foriegn combatants or whatever they are.
But everybody LOVES it when some politician or cop or judge or prosecutor talks tough on crime. They think these feds are beyond reproach. Nobody cares about when this happens to the accussed AMERICAN CITIZENS.
My point is this, b/c many will still insist the feds are engaged in nobility against accussed criminals in AMERICA, but remember if they can do it to AMERICAN CITIZENS then forieners are of no conceern (Ask any illegal that’s been bouncing around fed joints for years fighting immigration).
When we start allowing our liberties to be compromised we are all fools. We should have been crying out in outrage against what they do to accussed AMERICAN CITIZENS and maybe it would have never got this far.
woo hoo!