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,
Then we’ll just have to disagree as I think Kennedy’s majority opinion in Boumediene was dead on. It’s also an excellent history lesson on the origins of habeas corpus (for those who have not read the case). In Souter’s concurrence, the ruling also upheld the Court’s earlier ruling in Rasul v. Bush which held “[a]pplication of the habeas statute to persons detained at [Guantanamo] is consistent with the historical reach of the writ of habeas corpus.” Stare decisis in action. Scalia was grasping at straws and I found him as unpersuasive as I usually do. The government failed to prove they had provided an adequate alternative to habeas corpus by statue so by default Constitutional authority is the proper well to draw from. That was all that was required to win, but the Detainee Treatment Act failed. And the fact is that, agree or not, that is the ruling in effect at this time.
Jill,
Thank you for your consistency.
As a former federal inmate, who did time in 2 different fed joints, 3 holding/transport centers and 1 county jail awaiting trial, I will admit that actually doing the time in the different joints was realatively easy.
Fed time is basically easy time once you accept the loss of freedom and separation from family. Most joints are relativly sedate. And w/inmates doing decades worth of time they WANT the places to run easy. They want routine and calmness.
That article you refered to about prison rapes, I would be wary. I never saw nor heard of one rape in my time in the feds. The hispanic population had there “punks” but that was about it.
Everybody thinks prison is OZ. But it’s not. Guys are LIVING in these places, they want the same drama-free existence as anyone. As far as rape, what makes someone think that a heterosexual male who has loved women there whole lives and possess that natural inclination could make himself go against that b/c there are no longer any women. There are “punks” for those inclined to it. But most guys just want to do there time and be left alone.
Fed time is a little different than state time. Fed inmates are a higher caliber of criminal so there’s more order. I’ve heard horror stories about state prisons and Federal Pens can get rough and racially divisive. But I did my time in medium security fed joints so it wasn’t as bad.
Rape is RAMPANT in WOMEN prisons from BOTH inmates and C.O.’s. There’s been MANY a C.O. who’s knocked up a woman inmate. That is a real problem.
The horror of the federal system is that the sentences are so draconian. They hand out time like they hand out water. And b/c of the guideline system (Granted they’re onlt suppossed to be “advisory”)there is no compassion in taking into account individual circumstances.
Then the feds house you in facilities out of state so ones contact w/family is diminshed. Then you only get 300 minuets of phone time a month. So your family is forced to move on w/their lives and just “do” w/the minimal contact the feds afford.
Then they move inmates constantly that it burns you out.
Then they did away w/parole MANY years ago (Contrary to what everyone thinks) When you get a fed sentence, you’re doing 87% of your time, 54 days of good time/year.
All rehabilitation outlets are non-existent. No more college classes or any trade training. If you like sports, there’s plenty of that. But the feds did away w/all weight training equip. Only the old joints had there weight equip “grandfathered” in.But if the equip breaks, it can not be replaced.
All fed joints are is warehouses of humanity. You could pick up a bid and go to sleep untill they woke you up onyour out date and nobody would ever know.
I’ve already spoken about the dirty, underhanded tricks the feds play to give people undeserved amounts of time.
There is NO justice in the system. Even those that are part of the system (cops, judges, prosecutor’s) do NOT care one bit about justice. It’s all a dog-and-pony show to cover there own a**es, protect their careers and maintain their power.
The judges continuously legislate away our rights. And in doing so these judges end up legislating away their own power and ability to check the justice system. All power and policing ends up being centralized in the federal government. And those w/all the power are the overzealous prosecutor’s and cops who have NO checks. And the executive and legislative operatives who strong arm judges to legislate the power into the executive and legislative branches. If some renegade judge goes against the “powers-that-be”, they just write a new law. And when it gets challenged they steer the case to some in-the=bag judge who’ll give them back the power.
That’s what’s going on out there today.
rofl
Uh, sure, Milla. See, when two objects . . . er, when a daddy bee likes a . . . well, hmmmmm. Being suggestive across some language barriers is a problem. I suspect your English teacher is from Texas so maybe he can explain it in ranching terms.
Mike,
The fact that those Ghandi had the home field advantage and VAST numbers on his side probably didn’t hurt either.
Buddha,
I think the Supreme Court got BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH wrong. While the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the constitutionality of the act (Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006), I don’t believe our Constitution gives the Court personal jurisdiction over non-U.S. citizen detainees.
The rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution apply to U.S. Citizens and those who occupy the U.S. legally. If we start applying those protections afforded to enemy combatants, we may as well determine that war itself is unconstitutional.
Deprived of life without due process. -How do we ever constitutionally drop a bomb? -We couldn’t ever prove whether or not an enemy soldier in the enemy camp that we just bombed had any intent of shooting at us.
War sucks! War against a non-state enemy sucks even worse. When we do our best to make war fair, we extend the war at the peril of those who volunteer to defend us. The rules applied to civilized society cannot be effectively applied to war.
War itself should be a deterent to future wars. Trying to make it acceptable for family viewing is the wrong way to fight it. I think war should be the meaniest, nastiest thing we could ever imagine. i.e. You kill 10 of my people…I’ll kill a million of yours. I’ll kill your wife, your children, your pets. -Still want to attack my people?
PS -I spent 8 years manning the underwater platform from which to release the hell we call “The atomic bomb”.
Mr. Buddha, I do not get the gravity of what you meant by my meatspace joke. Would you be kind to me and help me understand what you meant, you big sexy green godwich.
Sorry I’m so late to the party but medical need (resolved) took precedence over attention here. Here’s what I think in short.
Indefinite detention is flat out wrong and while I could no doubt develop some justification for it, in the end there is no adequate justification. To the extent that President Obama’s Administration practices it, I am unalterably opposed to their actions in this matter.
However, how many of you who so glibly write of how we need to radically change this have ever really taken part in a revolution? What my generation did back in the 60’s was in effect a non-violent revolution and we got our asses kicked and ultimately were failures. Why was that so?
We over estimated our own power and the effectiveness of the tactics we used. Protests and marching only get you so far. In the end it is all about organization and that was achieved by my side only rarely. Ghandi won with the same tactics in India because Ghandi was a master organizer. We weren’t in his league.
We didn’t understand who we were fighting with. It wasn’t LBJ and it wasn’t Richard Nixon. This country has been run by a behind the scenes oligarchy for many years now. If you’d like insight into how it works read books like “The Power Broker” by Robert Caro, his LBJ biography’s, “The Permanent Government and the fall of New York” by Jack Newfield and even recent works by Jeremy Scahill. The books by Caro and Newfield I recommend though because they show how what is happening is less a conspiracy, then it is about a bunch of peers working together for their mutual interests.
When Nixon stepped over the line, he was removed, with little difficulty by those he had offended and they weren’t what people today call “The Liberals.” President Obama too may be President, but he does not fully control the country, the military, or the intelligence community. How much they control him is the question. That remains to be seen, but those who think him a free agent are remarkably naive. I personally believe he is trying to do the right thing, but I’m not sure he’s got the power to do it. It’s one thing to say he is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, it is quite another to have them recognize it.
Not understanding the extent of our power and also our not understanding the nature of the enemy, led to the Anti-War
Revolution and the Civil Rights Revolution ultimate failures.
Damn though, we were great sloganeers and we really knew how to launch invective, winning though we lacked the skill for.
We were also too doctrinaire and too quick to alienate those who didn’t follow lock step in our beliefs. Much too quick to cast aspersions on the motives of potential allies and to make enemies of potential friends because they didn’t share in our purity of belief.
I know there is someone reading this is at this point sputtering to themselves that I am a defeatist and too willing to compromise my beliefs. If you think that you are totally wrong. I’m not now, nor will I ever be famous/rich and I’m certainly not a hero but I and my family have paid dearly for my adherence to basic principles and my refusal to play anyone’s game, even if it would have led to my advancement. Experience though has taught me that fighting words are cheap and empty threats are even cheaper.
My advice is don’t ever quit standing up for what you believe in or standing up for all of our freedoms, rights and a just and humane society. However, if you want to really change it and finally throw out the selfish aristocracy that runs our society, you had better be prepared to start at the bottom and organize your way to the top. You had better learn how to
influence people to join our cause and reach out to those who might not seem to be obvious allies. I’m with all who live to fight for the right cause, but I will not be again played for a pawn in the game of someone who doesn’t understand how the game is played and what exactly are the stakes.
As a cheap yet historical for instance, on where President Obama is after 6 months, go back and look at where Lincoln was at the same point in his administration. The secessionists were gone and the abolitionists were out for his head. He had managed to sorely disappoint both sides and although there were no polls back then, he was by all appearances a failure. I’m not saying they are the same, but I am saying they are facing similarly daunting obstacles.
So sorry, My Zombie Killing Goddess, but occasionally Buddha does have to take a meeting in meatspace instead of cyberspace.
Speaking of which . . .
(insert your own filthy “meatspace” joke here)
Oh so where is my Buddha man. He spoke of me and now he avoids me. Oh Buddha, where is he?
Jill,
Please provide the link to the specific individual Greenwald refers to. (Greenwald hyperlinks so much stuff. I don’t have time to look at every source he provides)
Let’s keep this focused on detainees. Things that have been done to detainees (i.e. torture) are beyond the scope of this debate.
Scilian,
I do harbor the same outrage about how we treat our prisoners in the US. It is wrong. Torture occurs here. A study on the rape of inmates by guards was just released and it is appalling. I should have commented on that thread and felt badly that I had not done so. The way we treat inmates and those who are also wholly innocent but could not afford or luck into strong representation is a horrible thing. It needs to stop and the perpetrators brought to justice. There is always a connection between the degredation we show to prisoners at home and to those abroad.
Jill,
I read your last post and it is true.
I would assume you hold the same outrage for those whose rights are being trampled daily.
That is consistent and commendable.
I made a big mistake. There is a third and large group of people being held without trial and who if innocent, will still be imprisoned should the president say so–this is the largest group, a group of people whom we have tortured and imprisoned for years without trial. They are the wholly innocent. They are the collataral damage of a govt. run wild, a govt. whose desire for power is so great that human lives may readily be sacrificed to its aims.
We must take back this nation. We are a nation of laws, not of men. This is a left wing Milgram experiment and we must not fail it.
Jim,
I agree w/what you say about holding enemy combatants, if that’s what they’ve been classified as.
And if they’re civilians, why would anyone think they wouldn’t have their rights manipulated upon and trampled like they are done to AMERICAN detainees everyday.
If they get away w/it in American federal courts w/American federal prisoners then this issue w/Guantanomo detainess becomes a moot point. So if you have an issue w/them remaining in custody after the conflict has ended do you have the same issue when it happens in American federal courts daily.
Jill, Jim and anyone else.
Example:
Federal inmate serving his federal sentence in federal prison.
Said inmate is reindicted while serving his federal sentence on NEW charges.
The feds bring him back to court to arraign him.
Said inmate is now held in a federal facility in the district in which he is being charged.
Before the trial starts, said inmate finishes his federal sentence.
His lawyer files for bail on the new charges.
Feds object.
Judge denies.
Now the inmate is on pre-trial status at the federal holding facility.
It takes about 1 year for the new trial to come to docket.
The new trial ends in a mistrial.
Said inmate is brought back to the holding facility while the feds DECIDE whether or not to re-try the case.
While the inmate is in limbo on these new charges, this pre-trial inmates lawyer motions for bail.
After much surety is secured by the accussed inmate, family and friends the inmate is released on bail.
Bail entails many restrictions that are enforced by the probation department.
Remember, the inmate is still in limbo while the feds DECIDE what to do.
So, he’s on bail in limbo.
Feds decide to re-try.
This time he beats the case and becomes a free man.
Without saying, the feds in all their zealotry and pomposity are ENRAGED that they’ve been beaten.
They scrumage around old cases and unearth rats lingering away in federal prison to patch together a case of decades old crimes to reindict this private citizen who they consider an adversary.
Remember, there is NO new criminal conduct. Only the words of cooperating witnesses already doing time who have been promised a reduction in their sentences for their testimony. And already “battle tested” rats who’ve served the feds purposes in the past.
This person was is reindicted and the feds detain this man on the new. new charges.
This man’s lawyer files a motion for bail.
The feds of course label him a danger to society (Even though the charges include no new criminal conduct)The feds also of course say that he’s a danger to flee given the severity of the charges (Even though this man has the means to secure millions of dollars in bail and has done so in the past)
Judge finds a way to manipulate his decision in the favor of the feds motion to deny bail.
Remember, this is a STRAIGHT motion to deny. Not that he can’t make it.
So this man wastes away for another 2 years while the feds drag their feet and a judge who is inundated w/bullsh*t cases has no room on his docket to quicken the pace.
So after about 2 years the man beats the feds again.
What happens to all those years he’s spent in limbo?
What happens to the years he lost w/his family?
What happens to the financial burden he’s assumed?
How are these abuses of his civil rights remedied?
Where is the justice?
Jill,
You are passionate and well-informed in your opinion even though I may disagree w/some points.
I do not accuse nor assume. But do you reserve the same outrage for that man’s example and the COUNTLESS of others that have suffered the same fate at the hands of this dictatorial govn’t?
I personally feel the enemy combatants or whatever they’re labeled are a moot point b/c it’s nothing new. And if WE THE PEOLE had taken notice of these abuses to or own citizens we probably wouldn’t be having this debate.
Jim,
“The real truth is that the power Obama claims for himself is that of a dictator, not a president. There is no legal basis for his claim. It is unconstitutional on its face. At its core, it is abhorrent [sic].”
I think she’s got you there. Unlimited detention is evil in addition to being unconstitutional. Habeas corpus must be restored. There’s no and, if or but about that. The rest is just semantics.
Jim,
You do realize you quoted the legal opinion of someone on trial for war crimes in Spain and who even the ABA is thinking of disbarring. If you do go to Glenn Greenwald’s column you will have the very example you seek–he links there to a detailed article on a specific person who was admitted by the govt. to be innocent, whom the govt. also choose to detain. I offered clips of what he said.
As to the argument itself. There are two groups of people. POWs whose definition and treatment is clearly outlined in the GC. Who consititues a POW is not in question. That they must be treated honorably and may not be tortured is also, not in question.
The second group are people who are planning attacks against the US. Unless they fall under the circumstances outlined in the GC, these people are criminals. They may be terrorists but they are criminals. Prior to GWB we had no problem recognizing terrorists as criminals and prosecuting them as such. We had to wait for our very own war criminals to devise a phony class of individuals who they unsucessfully argued had no rights. These people are the detainees, whom we hold illegally, without charge. These are they people that we tortured and whom we still tortured due to the war criminals who devised and support torture. That our govt. officials made up a false designation for a group of people that they might torture them, does not mean either the legal definition is legitimate or that tortue is legal. It means we have war criminals in the past and current administration.
What Bushbama is claiming is the right to pick up anyone from anywhere (and this includes citizens) and hold them without charge for as long as the president so desires. Bushbama then claims, that should this group of people be given a full civilian criminal trial and be found innocent, this will be irrelevant to the president. In other words, we don’t have a functioning system of justice anymore, we have a dictatorship.
I will not argue this any further because I feel like I am arguing about whether torture works or doesn’t. It’s beside the point and so are my arguments with you. The real truth is that the power Obama claims for himself is that of a dictator, not a president. There is no legal basis for his claim. It is unconstitutional on its face. At its core, it is abhorent.
*A word to the people who post on this site who are writing here on behalf of the govt.–I don’t know if you believe what you are writing or are just here to obfuscate the issue. I hope you believe it because otherwise, some things are definitely not worth a paycheck. Good luck to you. If you believe the govt. who turns on some of its citizens will never turn on you, think again.
Bob Esq.,
Being an enemy combatant could be considered a treasonous act…an act performed by a traitor.
It was Hamdi’s status as a U.S. Citizen that permitted him to retain the rights afforded U.S. Citizens. That’s what distinguished his case from the rest of the enemy combatants.
Patty,
I don’t work for you. I’m not obligated to answer your smartass questions. What I do outside of here is just that and none of your business. If you don’t think I do anything locally, well, Phil Kline would tell you different – he hates my guts. I reserve the right to withdraw my support from anyone for whatever reasons I see fit. You don’t like it? Tough. I didn’t marry the equivocating bastard, I just voted for him. We’re not chained at the hip. My loyalty isn’t to him. It isn’t to the DNC or the RNC. It certainly isn’t to the graft riddled Federal Government. It’s to the Constitution. Period. End of line. And that’s the lens I use when and how I decide whom to support. Not your opinion. Again, you don’t like it, too bad. None of this is your call.
“An enemy combatant need not be charged with any crime to remain in a detained status.”
And Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?
And on the topic of Hamdi, has anyone reconciled the distinction between treason and enemy combatant?
Hamdi is a U.S. citizen. You can’t be an enemy combatant and a traitor at the same time. Funny world we live in.
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.
—
Apparently it’s not clear, as the word I used was ‘support’, not ‘help’, and I know what I mean in context wherever I use it
-as in to keep from sinking under weight.
I asked Buddha to name one thing he’s done to support our new president since he took office. I got no reply, just more static.
I wrote nothing about Obama voters being duty-bound to remain stoically on board in the face of any and all profound disagreement simply by virtue of having stepped into the ballot box back in November.
As much as Buddha would continues to try his hand at discrediting me, he is simply digging his own hole, but thanks for mentioning you are not distracted by it.