Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration said Tuesday it may continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.
The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times : Obama Stays the Course on Bagram
Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama - 2008 Presidential ...
Siding with Bush, Obama says Afghan detainees have no U.S. rights ...
Obama Not Ruling Out Releasing Gitmo Detainees In U.S.
Obama may hold detainees indefinitely - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Oh, Obama fanboys, is there no excuse you won't come up with to defend your precious leader? The detention policies have been in place for far too long and after the election in November, the President should have started formulating a plan to deal with the legal limbo we've created for these detainees. At this point, it's not enough to blame everything on the previous adminstration, people voted for change and they're not getting it. To me, this issue of how we as a nation respect and interpret the rule of law is of the utmost importance.
I still believe he was the best option we had, but you are right. This is awful and has to be stopped.
Agreed on both accounts.
There is an ancient saying that if you hate your enemy too much, you will become like him.
After the shock of 9/11 and eight years of Bush/Cheney rule in the U.S., we have become what we hated. And increasing the rest of the world will hate us for these acts of tyranny, which are completely contrary to even our own better principles.
But examine the reality of what we are doing.
"Tyranny: Cruel and unjust use of power or authority not within the rule of law."
Tonto to Lone Ranger:
Whaddya mean, "WE," whiteman?
.
I mean "We the People."
Whether we agree with U.S. policy on these issues or not (I am decidely in the NOT column), these illegal acts are being committed in our name, and it is we the People who will have to live with the long-term consequences of allowing our government to act outside of the Rule of Law.
Shalom friend.
We should change the inscription on the Statue of Liberty's tablet to read:
"Welcome to Limbo."
I'm not sure--to do that dance you have to bend over backward. These policies have us bending the Other way...
We are now one small step away from indefinite detention of American citizens even after acquital. President Obama - what are you thinking? Is this the Change we voted for?
It was the then Sen Obama who said ,to paraphrase "If a group of people are being served a different kind of justice,that threatens my civil liberty".
Well,thats how I kind of feel right now. Because they day i shall be accused of something i havent done,I will also be either denied the right to defend myself or they may just refuse to set me free even after I am found not guilty
Big difference
The Bill of Rights was a step forward for mankind. Either you believe in it or you don't. There is no gray area. Once you think of it as a special right, it loses its value.
We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal...
.
Your "big difference" is no difference at all. At one time due process only protected white land-owning males. Would you say there is still a "big difference" between them and everyone else who is now protected by those laws? The laws have to apply universally or not at all, because by your logic all a government would have to do to detain you without cause is arbitrarily change the definition of your legal status.
That's why they invented the term "unlawful combatant.
There is no action these terrorist have taken which overshadows what we experienced in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, or Korea. This includes 9/11. So the idea that we need a new and more brutal system of law for these people is weak tea at best.
Because they're not.
If they are, why haven't we tried and convicted them? The U.S. had a 100 percent conviction rate in terrorism cases before George W. Bush came along. Trying and convicting terrorists in U.S. courts while affording them the full legal protections of American citizens was never a problem.
Why are these guys, who are supposedly the worst of the worst, so different?
KSM, Zubaydah and a handful of others are definitely terrorists. The rest? If they're so guilty why do you have a steady stream of people who've dealt with them, including former prosecutors, coming out and saying most of them are innocent?
Jose Padilla was an American citizen. He was denied due process, held in a floating military brig for four years and tortured.
Being an American means NOTHING. Even in America.
You know we got to sit around at home
And watch this thing begin
But I bet there won't be many live
To see it really end
'Cause the fire in the street
Ain't like the fire in the heart
And in the eyes of all these people
Don't you know that this could start
On any street in any town
In any state if any clown
Decides that now's the time to fight
For some ideal he thinks is right
And if a million more agree
There ain't no Great Society
As it applies to you and me
Our country isn't free......
Blow your harmonica, son!
(Zappa/Mothers of Invention/Freak Out/ Trouble Every Day)
http://www
And how old is that song? Zappa could see it Then! And folks here, now, still can't...
Rule Of Law; That was 1966. I remember lying on my back in a room with blacklight posters on the walls and listening to that album and song. That was a life-changing, eye-opening experience, which has never left me. FZ was a crown jewel in American cultural history.
Miss him every day.
Check your Bio Rule of Law
Thanks FZliveson!
A prohet of many whose visions were not obliterated by pipe dreams and false hope that others will step forward and act to halt the creeping tyranny he saw coming. FZ acted with the the hope that others would see what was coming and act to alter the course of humanity. His music was real and orginal and his lyrics inspired those of us to act and be free within ourselves. He knew that freedom was measured in our ability and actions to resist those who would deprive us those freedoms. For that FZ was as free as a butterfly.
Thanks again
Thanks for recognizing. Go see Dweezil's "Tour de Frank" concert tour by Zappa Plays Zappa. Dwee is better than dad was at the guitar, but his mind is not in the same place.
Cheers and check your profile.
Blow your harmonica, Son!
Original headline: 'U.S. May Not Release Acquitted Detainees'
Revised headline: 'U.S. May Not Release Detainees EVEN If They've Been Acquitted
Latest headline: 'U.S. May Not Release Detainees Even If They've Been ACQUITTED'
Notice the subtle shift in emphasis on certain words, as we go throughout the day and experience these little revisions.
I expect the next one will either be: 'U.S. May Not Release Detainees Even If They've BEEN Acquitted'
or: 'U.S. May NOT Release Detainees Even IF they've Been Acquitted'
Either hp is worried about a l@wsuit or it isn't happy with the amount of traffic and is trying to increase it. In any case, there aren't many more options...
Might, may, could, whatever..
This is not about reinventing the Magna Carta. The laws are on the books. It shouldn't take 8 years to figure out what justice is. Call a lawyer, talk with the judge, open up one of those Constitutional law books that Professor Obama taught from. Just do it.
This is not only disappointing, I really feel like my head is going to explode.
Almost a new low point for our nation. What's the next legal protection to be abandoned?
Who's your Daddy?
And with these practices here in America,America has the gutts to condemed nations that actually PUT TO TRIAL people before locking them up after they are judged guilty,aka Iran and North Korea?
to those who think otherwise, THIS nation is bound, like all the others who signed them, to the geneva conventions and the nuremberg accords.
both those documents declare that a "w@r of aggression" is the supreme crime against humanity, now prosecutable by the ICC.
in order to hauled in front of the ICC for such crimes, it is only required that the aggrieved party be a member of the court, not the criminal perpetrator.
iran is a signatory to that court. iraq, under pressure from the bush administration, did not sign on, but as soon as they do, they will have every right to prosecute US under that court, as they should.
we all have to live on the same planet. it would be nice if we could do it peacefully.
International Courts are unconstitutional. Write an ammendment and we can talk ...
Cite the section of the Constitution that says that.. & "ex post facto" does NOT apply here.
no, they are not. until the formation of the ICC in 2001, we were a party to the international court system as agreed upon in the four geneva conventions and the nuremberg accords.
since both of those were duly ratified by congress, they became the laws of this LAND. ONLY the congress has the power to rescind our signatures from those documents, NOT the president.
the CONSTITUTION provides for the recognition of international law becoming OUR laws through the process of CONGRESSIONAL consent to the treaty.
we are NOT free to do as we please in this world, while at the same time expecting everyone else to be pushed around by us too, if we don't like what they do.
what you recommend is anarchy, and wholly uncivilized. luckily, our CONSTITUTION sees things differently.
Fredo is that you?
All the troglodytes posting here who are trying to pass off any of our current crisises off on the current President, after all of 5 1/2 months in office, just don't have the b@alls to admit that having a black man as President is just eating them up inside. And they wouldn't admit that in a million years preferring, instead, to keep harping on the "Barry" thing, socialist thing, or the economy, attacking his wife, or whatever..
"All the troglodytes posting here who are trying to pass off any of our current crisises off on the current President, after all of 5 1/2 months in office, just don't have the b@alls to admit that having a black man as President is just eating them up inside."
Look I voted for Pres. Obama, and I VERY much disagree with several steps he's take thus far in his Presidency. If those of you who want to give him the benefit of the doubt (which I do for NO politician) don't stop accusing those of us with valid disagreements over health care compromises, gay rights backtracking, civil liberty backpedaling, etc; of being nothing more than trolls or secret racists, than you're going to cause Obama to lose a lot of votes.
Ok, then I'll accuse you of being one of the most impatient people in the world
You couldn't have said it better.
Great post.
Yeah. It's all cause he's black. Save that garbage for when it's actually warranted.
He's black. Dammmm. Nobody told me...
Yikes. The new main thread.
:[
barkrudedog69 I'm a Fan of barkrudedog69 I'm a fan of this user permalink
Why would America allow another court to have more authority within its borders than the Supreme Court? Good left wing thinkin
==========
Same reason we impose into others.
Your thinking is ,we can do everything we want and limiting others,eh?
Obama is a fasclst, like his predecessor and role model Dubya.
Uh no.
Take it easy.
Yes no (a)
No to (b)
Loading comments…
Posted: 07- 7-09 09:18 PM