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.
Jim,
Here’s a link to a presentation given at the 2005 ACS National Convention, entitled “Immigration Law: The Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens”. The bottom line is this is a nebulous area ripe for both clarification and abuse. It’s a .pdf file.
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Immigration%20Law.pdf
We signed the Geneva Conventions. They were ratified and they are legally part of the law of our land per legal Constitutional proceedure. You may find information on POWs and the rules for their treatment, there.
Patty,
I don’t really care about what Buddha’s doing, I’m not here to defend him. What I was pointing out is that in context (I’ll spare everyone the quotes here, but would hope they’ll go back and read what you said), your questions were clearly backed by the thought that since Buddha hasn’t done what you consider helping (which is an assumption that you have no basis for), he has no right to complain. It’s especially clear to anyone who knows about your history of commenting that we should all shut up and let the President do his thing.
Anyone can do a quick scan through of what you’ve said. They may agree with my interpretation, they may not, but I’d be willing to bet there are more that agree than not. You know exactly how to get your point across. The fact that you’re also clever enough to do it without being explicit doesn’t change the point one bit.
Jill,
Where, in the U.S. Constitution, are prisoners of war addressed?
Are non-U.S. Citizens protected under the U.S. Constitution? If so, please provide supporting source.
–I’m trying to help with, what appears to be, confusion.
Here is Justice Kennedy’s opinion against Bush in JT’s post linked below:
Kennedy writes: …
that ““The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/06/12/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-the-detainees-in-massive-blow-to-bush-administration/
Or keep acting like stupid and aggressive drunk. Your choice.
“The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project:
“Continuing to detain a person indefinitely without charge or trial for a crime for which he has been acquitted is absurd and unconstitutional. If the government has sufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges against prisoners held at Guantánamo, it should file those charges and prosecute the prisoners in ordinary federal courts. But the government should not be holding prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial, and it should certainly not be holding show trials from which guilty verdicts will be honored but acquittals will be ignored. The suggestion that the government can protect the country only by disregarding the Constitution is an extremely dangerous one that should be unequivocally rejected.”
Hey Patty,
You have no authority to threaten ANYONE with a ban, so stuff it.
I’ve been trying, but Patty is particularly confrontational. I’ve only escalated after many attempts to get her to stop it. By your leave, I’ll back off her for now, but as mespo so aptly states, I see no duty to suffer fools gladly.
—
BULL…
You and AY will back off now, AND in the future or you can count on the boot! You two remind me, again and again, why mespo and I get along so famously and always have.
As for mespo’s response to the post here, he nor I understand what is so difficult for you to grasp.
Detainees can be tried for any ‘crimes’ previously charged for which they are currently being held, acquitted, and still remain in custody on suspicion of being a threat. That’s not to say that would happen necessarily.
Unless I miss my guess, any such determination would occur on a case by case basis.
But there is no way that the US engaging in torture or illegal detentions would influence other nations to act the same way . . .
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31822017/ns/world_news-washington_post/
Unless you account for Mexico.
Prof,
I’ve been trying, but Patty is particularly confrontational. I’ve only escalated after many attempts to get her to stop it. By your leave, I’ll back off her for now, but as mespo so aptly states, I see no duty to suffer fools gladly.
I apologize, please remove them.
Buddha,
Since your such a value, why don’t you just ask JT to ban me. You vapid cow.
**************************
Could not resist.
I enjoy videos of cow mooing as much as the next guy. However, we need to dial down on the personal attacks and name calling. Please help maintain the civility rule. I would appreciate it.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 9, 2009 at 8:46 am
Hey, Patty.
Since your such a value, why don’t you just ask JT to ban me. You vapid cow.
**************************
Could not resist.
Washington D.C. is a criminal organization masquerading as a democratic government.
Or come back and moo at me some more about who you don’t like me.
Hey, Patty.
Since your such a value, why don’t you just ask JT to ban me. You vapid cow.
“Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent” by Marjorie Cohn
DefendUSx July 08, 2009 16:12
Marjorie Cohn is a Distinguished Law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego where she’s taught since 1991 and is the current President of the National Lawyers Guild. She’s also been a criminal defense attorney at the trial and appellate levels, is an author, and writes many articles for professional journals, other publications, and numerous popular web sites.
Her record of achievements, distinctions, and awards are many and varied – for her teaching, writing, and her work as a lawyer and activist for peace, social and economic justice, and respect for the rule of law. Cohn’s previous books include “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice” and “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law.”
Her newest book just out, co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd (a recognized expert on military administrative law), is titled “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent.” It explores why US military personnel disobey orders and refuse to participate in two illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also explains that US and international law obligate them to do so.
“Rules of Disengagement” goes into courtrooms where military personnel “have spoken out, arguing that (today’s) wars are illegal (and immoral) under international (and US) law.” It’s a “practical guide” providing “specific discussion(s) of applicable regulations and laws” for readers “to form their own conclusions and consider their own options.” Above all, it’s a way for honorable young men and women to dissent, resist, and disengage from two illegal, immoral wars, in hopes many others will follow their example.
I forgot the link to the original story.
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/06/12/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-the-detainees-in-massive-blow-to-bush-administration/