Indefinite Detention Weighed

[Truth2Tell]

Source: WSJ

MAY 14, 2009
By EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.

On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The decision to block the detainee photos contrasts with the administration's release last month of Bush-era Justice Department memorandums outlining the interrogation tactics used on prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency. The release of the memos set off a heated political fight, with supporters of the Bush administration accusing the Obama White House of endangering the country and some of the current president's supporters calling for criminal probes of those responsible for the interrogation policies.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html#mod=djemalertNEWS

---

This is not a good sign.

[Abq_Sarah]

1. Well, well, well...

This should be interesting.

[IndianaGreen]

2. I thought Bush was no longer in the White House

Why is the Obama Administration trying so hard to join the Bush war criminals?

[jody]

4. Perhaps more proof corporatists own key politicians in both parties.

The people shouted, "We the people are dead, long live the corporation."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Why are you ten moves behind Obama?

/s

[mbperrin]

30. Hmmm...wonder what Jefferson would have thought of gulags?

I hate the very idea, much less the people that suggest, create, and run them.

Shit.

[billyoc]

3. -- indefinitely and without trial --

Thank God, our long national nightmare is over...

[AnneD]

22. You forgot to use this...

:sarcasm: Some folks are sarcastically impaired.

[billyoc]

24. I won't coddle the sarcastically impaired.

:hi:

[AnneD]

29. What about those of us......

with a major case of buyers remorse. Can we get an exchange or store credit.:spray:

[ShortnFiery]

36. Damn, how many of us contributed significant $ to this TRIANGULATING Corporate loving "democrat?"

:grr: :nuke:

[neverforget]

5. WTF happened to "and justice for all"?

:wtf: :argh: :grr: :nuke:

[Hosnon]

6. (sigh)...no text...

[winyanstaz]

7. oh oh...my God, how low we have fallen now.

Some change alright....not.

[Zenlitened]

8. Don't worry, someone will be along shortly to tell us...

... why indefinite detention is brilliant! exactly the right thing to do! a masterful chess move!

[Iowa]

9. Yet another in a long list of Obama sell-outs...

There is no denying it. There is very little difference between the two parties. Both are self-serving and corrupt. Both serve the interests of the plutocracy, not the people. Democratic leaders try to stay just a tad less evil than Republicans, and they succeed in that, but just barely. Both parties are deserving of our derision and contempt. While our contempt for the Republican party must be greater, that doesn't mean the Democratic party has earned our support. Clearly they have not. With Obama, that should be abundantly clear by now.

I think many of us are beyond outrage and disappointment; we have either given up altogether, or are pushing for the rise of third party worthy of support. Obama's series of breath-taking sell-outs has gone a long way toward destroying any hope for good things to come out of government and politics - especially in younger people. And that's a shame. We had a real shot at creating another energized generation, like the FDR Dems... unfortunately, we elected a light-weight who threw it all away with his timidity, appeasement, and outright sell-outs.

[Lorien]

16. Sadly your post seems to be spot on

this has been one hell of a week of disappointments. If this continues for much longer I will be ready for a third party; and I've been faithful to the Dems pretty much since birth. :-(

[Vidar]

26. It does look that way.

[depakid]

31. "pushing for the rise of third party worthy of support."

Democrats never learn, do they?

At this rate, by 2010, they'll have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. By 2012 who can say?

A charismatic Green or independent 3rd party candidate might just be enough to affect the election.

[liberalmuse]

10. I hope to fuck this guy is kidding.

I really do.

[MasonJar]

11. It is time for a real democratic president, someone like Barbara Boxer

or Russ Feingold. There are others, but Obama is not one of them. He should have waited until 2016 so he could have gotten much needed experience. Obama is in way over his head; he is not following through on his change message, probably because he barely had the time or experience to form it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. New boss, same as the old boss.

[The Green Manalishi]

13. I'm not happy about this

But, I will give President Obama the benefit of the doubt.

There just might be a chance that some of the individuals being held really ARE dangerous assholes; I meant there are some sick fucks that just want to kill people- and combine that with religious fanaticism and Ronny Reagan era CIA training and it would not surprise me if there were a few dozen motherfuckers who we haven't snuffed, but can and will kill innocent people if they get the chance.

The photos on the other hand- let's get them out there and get it over with.

[springhill]

15. Then we try and convict them...........

what is so hard to understand about that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. And because their imprisonment was so compromised by Bushco's

torture regime no evidence will be permitted, and therefore they need to be released. Is THAT the option you're looking for?

When a guy was arrested in Afghanistan only because somebody gave him up under torture, doesn't that fatally compromise his detention? So even though we are 100% sure he IS a terrorist who WILL kill upon release, we have no lawful grounds for holding him?

My personal opinion is that in that case we do just let him go. Ship him home. It was OUR fuck up. But some people, understandably, don't want this guy to keep killing.

[Mechatanketra]

28. Your logic is flawed.

If someone is arrested "only because somebody gave him up under torture", then we can't be 100% sure they're a terrorist.

If you had meant that we were somehow already 100% sure were terrorists, and the victim of torture only gave up their location, then their case hasn't been compromised, because the evidence that makes us 100% sure ought to still be admissable since it wasn't the product of torture.

But — and I can't stress this enough — if it was the product of torture, we have no business saying we're 100% sure of anything. If you feel 100% sure in those circumstances, that's more incriminating of you than the accused.

The vast majority of injustices committed by our legal system seem to boil down to the fact that people become "100% sure" of someone's guilt too damn easily. Then they get outraged by all the things (e.g. the exclusionary rule) we build into the legal system to account for the fact that the "reasonable doubt" standard fails in the face of so many thoroughly unreasonable people. These don't exist to coddle criminals, but to stop kneejerks from effectively framing the innocent.

[snot]

14. WTF? So totally through the looking-glass, so soon?

[leveymg]

17. Who is proposing this within the Admin? How I hate anonymously sourced reports.

[Truth2Tell]

18. This is all they offer

The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.

They do say the "internal deliberations" are continuing so it's clear this isn't a yet final decision as far as they know.

As to sources, we get "some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials..."

Pretty weak. This could be a "we only wish it were true" story by the WSJ.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. "Weighed," which means that no final decision has been made, so

it is not necessary for everyone to get their panties in a bunch.

[Zhade]

27. Sexist.

NT!

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. How so? Men wear panties too

[debbierlus]

20. Kick - this is sick.

[Zhade]

25. Uh, how is this change?

Fucking liar.

[No Elephants]

32. I am not an obamabot. However, there has been change. He is not torturing.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[ShortnFiery]

35. WTF!?! What do they have on Obama, et. al.?

If we ALLOW Obama to get away with this, the very NEXT Republican in the executive Branch will DETAIN "US CITIZENS" indefinitely.

It will happen to US in the not too distant future if we REMAIN SILENT now. :grr: :nuke: