Where's the outrage? Obama sides with Bush, detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

There is a lot of outrage over what is perceived as Obama bashing on these boards, but zip, nada, goose-egg when it comes to critical analysis of Obama.

I'm calling bullshit on that. The disparity in outrage at DU is ridiculous. Feh.
DoublePlusFeh!

STILL NO RIGHTS FOR BAGRAM PRISONERS

Friday 20 February 2009

by: Nedra Pickler and Matt Apuzzo, The Associated Press

Washington - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.
<>
It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

http://www.truthout.org/022109Z
-------------------------------------------------------

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it."
--Barack Obama

[grassfed]

1. There was a Feb 20 deadline

Obama admin retains status quo "for now".

[Political Tiger]

7. True. The issue has not been decided yet.

However, Obama has not yet decided what to do about the makeshift prison at the U.S. military base in Bagram, where the U.S. government is holding more than 600 prisoners, or whether to continue work on a $60 million prison complex there.

In late January, Obama directed a task force to study the government's overall detainee policy and report back to him in six months.

But the new administration faced a February 20 deadline to tell U.S. District Court Judge John Bates whether it would "refine" the Bush administration's position on four men being held at Bagram who have filed suit against their detention.

....

After Obama's executive order indicating changes to the government's detention policy for Guantanamo, the district court asked the new administration if it wished to change its position on the prisoners at Bagram.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE51K0S120090221

[navarth]

2. I can't agree about the goose eggs.

I've seen lots of criticism of Obama here. I've done some of it myself. But I try and keep it constructive criticism when I can.

Other than that, no argument here.

[Captain Hilts]

3. It's not about policy here, it's about personality. Disappointing, yes. nt

[Skittles]

4. it is outrageous and sickening

but for the most part you are correct - there is no critical analysis - it falls under "GET OVER THE PRIMARIES" if you even try.

[bottomtheweaver]

5. Word to the wise: Beverly Eckert.

Unless maybe they'd like to give up their cars and jets and walk. Obama's father is another hint. So is Biden's first wife. Shit happens.

[leftstreet]

6. oops

(snip)

The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the U.S. in conflicts worldwide to do the same.

If Congressional Democrats weren't complicit in BushInc's war crimes, this bullshit wouldn't be happening.

[elocs]

8. Well I just can't keep track of what I should be outraged about. I thought is was this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5103876

[wyldwolf]

9. It doesn't involve Hillary, so there is no outrage

[rug]

10. I'm waiting for someone to post Let It Sink.

[QC]

14. ALERT AND IGNORE!1!!!! ALERT AND IGNORE!1!!1!!!

[liberalsince1968]

11. What this is saying is that Obama APPROVES EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION.

I am sickened and disgusted by this.

This is NOT the kind of president I want. There is no excuse for Obama following in Bush's vile footsteps. NONE.

Yet, that is exactly what he is doing and there is no way to spin it otherwise, though I see many people are trying.

[ncteechur]

15. No that is not what it says. You are WRONG.

[liberalsince1968]

21. No, I am NOT wrong. According to the article, the Obama administration is turning a blind eye to

extraordinary rendition.

[ncteechur]

25. That may be how it reads but it isn't what is being done.

When have we ever allowed POWs detained in other countries half-way around the world access to US courts? It is impractical to do so and to my knowledge we have never done so. The Geneva Conventions do not specify that detainees or POWs be allowed trials in US courts.

[Zhade]

85. Um, you do realize that US courts exist on any US military base, right?

NT!

[HamdenRice]

54. You are flat out WRONG. Obama has ended extraordinary rendition

If you are going to be "sickened and disgusted" shouldn't it be about "real" things rather than made up thing?

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326

Renditions Buffonery
By Scott Horton

...Moreover, Obama committed to shut down the extraordinary renditions program, and continuously made clear that this did not apply to the renditions program.

In the course of the last week we’ve seen a steady stream of efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down. These stories are regularly sourced to unnamed current or former CIA officials and have largely run in right-wing media outlets.

<end quote>

You've been punked by right wing media.

[bottomtheweaver]

66. "Panetta said he considers appropriate those renditions that send individuals

to other countries to face prosecution.

"'Having said that, if we capture a high-value prisoner, I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily, to debrief that individual and to make sure that individual is properly incarcerated so we can maintain control over that individual,' he said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/panetta-confirmation-hear_n_164390.html
......................................

Apparently Paneta also admitted that the Clinton administration used rendition 80 times, and said he's okay with it as long as the prisoner is transfered for prosecution, not torture. But don't forget that the Bush admin has never admitted that they weren't. Also the Scott Horton quote seems to be about the future. Have you seen any evidence that Obama or Panetta has actually issued orders to end renditions of any kind?

[Dreamer Tatum]

73. Nice post

Always love actual facts.

[QC]

12. Sorry, but we don't discuss policy here anymore.

So do you have anything to say about the Obama family pet? The girls' allowances? Do you have any bathing beauty pictures of any politicians to post?

[kiva]

16. A few months ago I wondered if many people would

become disillusioned when it became clear that no one, including Obama, could live up to the hype being slung here--"he'll end the war the day he takes office", "everyone will be happy and it will rain kittens and puppies." Instead, however, we've had a disconnect with issues. Whenever someone disagrees with Obama's policies (Afghanistan, health care reform, extraordinary rendition, cabinet appointments) they are told to calm down, be grateful that we defeated the Repugs, and enjoy the slide show--"Oh, look, aren't they cuuuuute?" Perhaps we need the General Discussion: Political back, so that we can talk politics again, instead of personalities.

[QC]

17. Ain't it the truth!

There was a time when one could get a formidable political education hanging out around here.

I miss that.

It would be nice to see policy and strategy make a comeback.

[kiva]

18. In the interest of full diclosure,

I've enjoyed some of the fluff too...LOL cats are my weakness. But, as you wrote, the original appeal of DU (for me) was the great collection of links to articles and some very good discussions/arguments about issues. Maybe having a forum specifically for political concerns, like GDP (political, not presidential) would provide a place for discussion about issues and events that really are political.

[sampsonblk]

22. Finally, some sanity. Thank you (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

23. Whoever would become disallusioned because they thought Obama was going to end

the War in Afghanistan the day that he took office are wowfully uninformed dumbasses who didn't really follow the elections. That's where there is a disconnect, IMO.

I would suggest that those who are disallusioned to get settled in front of some of Obama's Youtube speeches from the campaign and educate themselves so they don't continue to sound silly.

The rest of us who took the time to understand the platform that Barack Obama ran on are able to now look at pictures, because most of us believe that we got exactly what we voted for....

You seem to be the one commenting more about personalities rather than the actual issues that were raised during the campaign.....or is this a case of do as I say, not as I do? :shrug:

[vaberella]

28. HI-FIVE, I couldn't agree more. Obama NEVER said he'd end war in Afghanistan.

However he did say he realized that military force is not enough to get anything done in Afghanistan and he would end or try to limit to the extreme military presence in Iraq within 18 or so months.

[Two Americas]

36. so what?

Some are against the war. They were before the primaries, during the campaign, and now after the election.

In fact, almost everyone here was at one time. Certainly, people were not attacked for expressing opposition to the war. Who changed? Not the critics.

People are opposed to the war. They would be just as opposed to it no matter who was president. That means it has nothing to do with Obama. At one time, people could oppose the war here and not get attacked for that.

[kiva]

34. I knew that Obama said that we would not be leaving

Afghanistan soon, because I was paying attention to what he said before the election. The "wowfully uninformed dumbasses" are not those of us who have been paying attention to what is happening, they are those who find it easier to answer any question with "I trust Obama to take care of things" than to really think about issues. This attitude is what has drawn the comments from me, and from others, about the 'personality cult' mentality of many poster who conflate their own emotional reaction to Obama with thoughtful discussion about issues. Posting cute pictures or hanging up posters of our president doesn't mean that you know anything about politics, it just means you like the image.

[Two Americas]

35. where that idea came from

A year ago, the most zealous Obama promoters were spreading just such ideas. That is where the "wowfully uninformed dumbasses" got their ideas.

Talking about Constitutional rights for detainees is "commenting more about personalities?" In what universe?

What difference does the campaign make now anyway? People would have every right to be opposed to a position as expressed during the campaign - and angrily attacked by you for that - and then work and vote for the candidate as the lesser of two evils anyway - as vigorously demanded by you at the time - and then criticize the position now - and get more angry attacks from you.

[jeanpalmer]

38. Irrespective of what he said in the campaign

I wouldn't expect a moral person with a conscience to send drones and hellfire missiles against 13 civilians living in 2 tents in the desert. WTF's going on inside his head?

[jenmito]

83. So you thought he was lying when he repeatedly said he'd strike within Pakistan

to go after high-value targets if their govt. refused to cooperate? :shrug:

[stillcool]

29. Politics instead of personalities..

never happen. Bash and trash is way more fun, than talking about our government, how it works, who it works for, and why it will never change unless people do something about it.

[Elidor]

72. I think that aspect of DU will come back in time

And you're spot on in your description of the current dynamics of discussion.

One thing about this issue that generates so much confusion around here is the difference between rendition and extraordinary rendition. People need to understand the differences between those two programs. From wiki: Rendition, in law, is a transfer of persons from one jurisdiction to another, and the act of handing over, both after legal proceedings and according to law. Extraordinary rendition, however, is that which is outside the law.

I'm watching the Afghanistan developments and hoping I'm missing something. And seeing Nedra Pickler's name on the AP story makes me very wary about the whole thing. But the thing is, as Pat Tillman so eloquently pointed out, "This war is so fucking illegal." It's not a war. If there is no stated military or humanitarian objective that is realistically achievable, there's no way for U.S. troops to leave the country. Under these conditions, detainees can be held indefinitely with no charges. That is intolerable for a country that claims the twin mantles of freedom and democracy.

[jenmito]

82. I don't know ANYONE here who thought ANY of those things you claim they

said/thought/posted here. Most of us are VERY aware of his positions he ran on. The people who now seem disillusioned are those who are angry that he's doing exactly what he SAID he'd do-expand the war in Afghanistan (which he called the "right war.") Nobody thought he'd end the war the day he took office or any of the other things you claim. I DO know people who like posting pictures of the Obamas AND know he always planned on expanding the war in Afghanistan and everything ELSE he's doing. There's nothing wrong with enjoying pics of those we elected while also being knowledgeable of his long-held positions.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

60. Its evenly divided between the DLC cheeleaders and the Obama family pet watchers

Explains why the DLC cheerleaders have been so successful of late shouting down any policy discussions over the heads of the Obamafans.

[QC]

67. Between the two of them it's very difficult to have a conversation

above the usual level of the junior high playground.

[Political Tiger]

13. Why does this AP "story" have no facts to backup its claim?

I read this AP hit piece three times yet could not find one fact to back up the claim "The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails." People are so anxious to get outraged over something that all they need to see is a headline to become outraged. Never mind bothering with facts!

[FrenchieCat]

20. We discussed this last night.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8214992


And as far as I'm concerned, this is a premature speculation, based on some thinking that it would be a great idea if Citizens of countries other than the United States captured in Aghanistan during a NATO War in where they were fighting on the other side should have access to US Courts and be protected not under the Geneva Conventions but under the American Constitution.

It is my opinion that these detainees should be subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention only, and should not have access to US courts. However, I do believe that because this war seems to have no end, that there should a sytem found in processing them and giving them rights in "a" court, International or an afghan court. In the meantime, sense it appears that Bush violated the Geneva Convention, he should be tried in a court of law either here or by an International body.

[krawhitham]

24. are you blind? People rip Obama all day long here at DU

[dionysus]

26. yeah, kind of hard to miss that isn't it?

[CJCRANE]

48. We need a "Where's the Outrage..?" forum

because this meme is so prevalent now.

[GeorgeGist]

27. Try to change the greatest nation ...

in the history of the world?

That may be the Hyperbolic Hypocritial Hope you believe in, but in my opinion it's callow nonsense.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

31. U.S. NOT #1? You take that back, George!

Be a little more sensitive to the new crowd here, they desperately
need their confortable tunnel of reality.
-------------------------------------------

"Every day we're told we live in the greatest country on earth and it's always stated as an undeniable fact: Leos are born between july 23 and August 22, fitted queen-size sheets measure 60X80 inches, and America is the greatest country on earth. Having grown up with this in our ears, it's startling to realize that other countries have nationalistic slogans too, none of which are 'We're number two!"
--Dave Sedaris, "Me Talk Pretty One Day"

[soccermomforobama]

30. While on the surface it looks like it is as simple as Obama siding

with Bush, I think there is more in play than that. Bush made this policy and in terms of Gitmo the Supreme Court ruled against him and sent the message that his policy was unconstitutional. In terms of Bagram, Bush again made this policy and there is a case currently in U.S. District Court dealing with Bagram detainees. I think Obama is allowing the Bagram case to work its way through the courts (which undoubtedly will end up at the Supreme Court). Knowing how the SC ruled in the Gitmo cases, there is a great reason to believe that they might rule the same way dealing with Bagram and giving the detainees constitutional rights.

Once that happens, it will once again be proven that Bush pissed all over the Constitution and that Obama did the right thing by letting the courts decide the matter rather then just reversing Bush's stance. By letting it go through the courts, it silences all of those critics who say he is doing things carelessly. There will be those who do not agree about the detainees having constitutional rights but the courts have ruled and their decision must be respected.

[AyanRand Is Dead]

32. Technically...

How many counrties offer constitutional rights to foreign citizens that aren't on there soil? Would Canada offer an Ecuadorian in Japan the constitutional rights of Canada?

[EmilyAnne]

33. U.S. courts? What does that mean, exactly? Would the prisoners have to actually be on U.S. soil

to use U.S. courts?

I apologize for asking what many may see as a dumb question.

[SeattleGirl]

37. I don't think it's dumb. I have the same question.

[geek tragedy]

39. 99% of the detainees at Bagram do NOT have any constitutional rights

under any stretch of the imagination.

If you're shooting at US troops in Afghanistan and they take you prisoner, you do not get to contest your detention. Just like captured combatants in France, Italy, North Africa, Germany etc during World War Two had zero right to contest their detention in US courts.

This case represents the exception--four guys who were not captured in Afghanistan taking part in the hostilities, but rather arrested in other countries.

[EFerrari]

40. The Geneva Conventions require DUE PROCESS for prisoners

and that is the issue here, not matter how much the Bush White House or the Obama White House chooses to obscure it.

[geek tragedy]

41. Due process does not mean access to US courts or

constitutional protections. It merely means that they have a right to contest before a military tribunal the claim that they were combatants.

[EFerrari]

42. And that's merely more than these souls, some of whom were illegally

kidnapped and tortured and even killed have had.

[geek tragedy]

44. Still, US courts don't have jurisdiction. n/t

[niceypoo]

43. Have POWs in foriegn countries ever had "Constitutional rights?"

I didn't know our constitution was valid in other countries.

I believe the geneva convention is the standard in such matters

[dcindian]

46. In a way yes

Since the constitution says that any treaty signed which does not break US law is in fact the law of the land.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

When the president or any other US citizen breaks such treaties then they also break the constitution.

[uponit7771]

51. No, technically this is false. The constitutions binds the US to applie GENEVA convention to them...

...NOT the constitution.

[dcindian]

59. Yes but they are covered under the geneva convention by law

Due to the constitution of the United States. Therefore they are afforded at least some protection under the constitution.

[Unsane]

45. Why the hell should POWs caputured in foregin countries have access to US courts?

I mean, are you hearing yourself?

[HamdenRice]

47. Obama is right. Detainees in Afghanistan don't have Const'l rights. They have Geneva rights

If you're going to be outraged, at least get your facts right.

Prisoners of war don't have, and never have had, "Constitutional" rights. They have rights under the Geneva Convention and under other "laws of war."

Constitutional rights apply to US citizens, as well as aliens on US soil.

The Bush administration's position was that "enemy combatants" have neither Constitutional rights nor Geneva rights. Under the Bush doctrine, they could therefore be held indefinitely and tortured.

The Obama administration is taking the view that everyone familiar with international law and the law of war agrees on -- such detainees are essentially POWs and have rights under the Geneva Convention. That is in fact what he's implementing, allowing the Red Cross full access to the prisoners, shutting down "black sites" and ceasing all mistreatment. Under Geneva, the prisoners must be released when hostilities end.

[Perky]

52. Thank you Thank you Thank you

I am outraged to think people think this is even plausible. Geneva is what applies here.



Enamy combatants, captured in a foriegn field of battle do not enjoy the constitutional rights of the capturing country, There is no legal infrastrarcure in place, there is no due process. nor should there be. You attack an ememy convoy, you get caught, you go to their prison camp. You stay there until the hostilities cease. Are people actually expecting POW to have a regaular trial? To see a lawyer?

NO. They get three square meals a day, they get exercise. they get to practice their religion. They get regular visits from the Internation Red Cross/Red Crescent. THey get to write home, They do not get our consitutional rights! They are not citizens, they are not residents, they did not attack us on US soil. What would be he basis for the US Consitutiion applying here?

[Zhade]

87. Good post clarifying the differences. Thank you.

NT!

[rug]

49. The Government will extend U.S. law to Panama and seize Noriega when it suits its agenda.

It will seize others in their own land and hold them indefinitely calling them enemy combatants while simultaneously denying them access to any reasonable measure of a fair tribunal to challenge that status.

Make no mistake, it is callous political calculation, not nuanced points of international law, that is driving these choices.

[HamdenRice]

53. Huh?

While I think that the war against Panama was illegal for other reasons (namely, it was to save Poppy from exposure as complicit in contra cocaine trafficking, etc.), US law does apply to people who commit crimes against the US overseas. If a Colombian drug lord conspires to export cocaine to the US, he has violated US law and can be tried in US courts. That was the justification for trying Noriega.

And it works in reverse. If you sit in your home in the US and conspire to commit a crime against Panama, and you violate Panama's laws, they can try you.

The hard part is getting physical custody of the accused. It can be done through extradition (ie cooperation between the country where the crime was committed and the country against which the crime was committed) or in some cases "rendition" (not extraordinary rendition).

But these are criminal defendants, not "combatants" or "prisoners of war."

[Exilednight]

55. And it works in reverse?

If you sit in your home in the US and conspire to commit a crime against Panama, you're typically called the President of the United States.

There's a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that you will not be picked up by Panamanian authorities and renditioned back to their country for trial, You may be picked up by US authorities and tried in a US court where you are protected by the Constitution, but you won't end up in a Panamanian court unless you were on Panamanian soil.

[HamdenRice]

56. We'll see whether sovereign immunity crumbles

When you bring in the example of the president, then you are in a different legal landscape. But the US does extradite regular criminals for criminal prosecution in other countries.

Presidents and kings have historically been protected under international law by a form of sovereign immunity. That began to change after Nuremburg and has been further eroded since the international war crimes tribunals. Ironically, Bush senior may have set a precedent in prosecuting Noriega that may bite junior in the ass. We'll see whether Bush and Cheney are eventually prosecuted for war crimes.

[Exilednight]

58. I have never heard of a US citizen being extradited to Panama for a planned crime ..........

I have heard of Panamanian citizens being extradited back to Panama, but never an American unless they actually committed the crime - and even that is very rare. Most of the time they are tried here in the US.

[rug]

57. Invasion is a rather unusual form of extradition.

The decision to invade Panama and parenthetically ship Noriega to Miami for trial had little to do with the United States Code. It was a legal gloss to raw political and military policy.

The people seized in Iraq and Afghanistan are seized for the same purpose: to carry out political and military policy. That their legal status is being punted around from administration to administration changes nothing. The decision has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with law.

If the political will is there the prisoners (insert detainee, combatant, kidnapee, terrorist or your personal favorite) would be afforded review of their status whether in Geneva or Washington. It's not.

[Exilednight]

61. This is where law gets tricky ........

If a prisoner(insert detainee, combatant, kidnapee, terrorist or your personal favorite)is held within the United States, and war is not officially declared, then that person is afforded the same rights as a US citizen. If war is officially declared, then that person is given the same rights as a prisoner of war, who shall be released upon a cease fire, end of hostilities, or any other means which brings the war to an end.

But, the Geneva Convention also holds provisions for those that commit war crimes and does provide for a tribunal system in which those that are accused are given a fair trial.

[uponit7771]

50. **** ANOTHER KNEE JERK POST ALERT!!!****************** They have Geneva rights, if they were on US

...soil they'd have our rights.

I'm starting to think there are freepers with high post counts on DU, this is turning into a pattern

[biopowertoday]

62. Bush knew that keeping them OFF our soil would prevent

them from rights. Obama is following in Bush's shoes so far about this issue.

[geek tragedy]

64. There's no reason to keep Taliban on US soil,

Furthermore, they are not entitled to access to US courts or protection under our constitution. Waging war against the United States does not gain them the privileges of American citizens.

[biopowertoday]

76. the whole purpose of classifying them

with a new category of enemy combatants was to give them no rights at all--including the minimal of due process.

[geek tragedy]

79. And that backfired on Bush. n/t

[asteroid2003QQ47]

63. I'm starting to think there's...

a plethora of ignorant assholes on DU.
For the critics here with more than one brain cell, how many Constifuckingtutional 'rights' do you honestly think the Empire would accord you, regardless of soil, when push comes to shove?

[Unsane]

70. yawn

leave your stupid outrage at the door; or at least know what the fuck you're talking about. POWs captured on foreign soil have NEVER had'constitutional rights'; geneva/intl laws of war dictate this area. If you want to give full jury trials to fucking terrorists captured in Afghanistan you're in a bizarre, idiotic minority.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

71. Duly noted as prima facie evidence denoting your total lack...

of qualifications to respond.

[freemarketer6]

65. I am totally flabergasted by Obama's decision, as I have been

for many of his decisions. However, this is not a board to express ones consternation about such things. I did so last week and was called a "freeper", which I didn't know what that was but have since looked it up. I come to this place because of the quality of the research done here and its organization. I'm just wondering: after 8 years of the Bush disaster, should Obama turn out to be not what we thought, will even the most respected members here be allowed to voice their concerns? And should we all be huddled around barrel fires next year warming our hands, will we be there as Americans or Democrats?

[grassfed]

69. Obama said Bush drove US "into a ditch" and

once in the ditch there are only so many options. Afghan prisoners could be a threat to US troops in the region if released. However the Obama admin was only meeting a Feb 20 deadline with a temporary opinion. The economy has consumed the admin's focus. There are promising signs such as Chas Freeman, apparently nominated to head the National intelligence Council, George Mitchell, etc.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

75. George Mitchell a "promising sign"? Never been to Maine, grassfed?

It bespeaks volumes that you hitch your wagon to Mitchell!

That Mess on the Prestile

From a way Down East came a stench of politics and potatoes, and news of a border incident that true patriots will long remember as
By FRANK GRAHAM, JR.
<>
GEORGE MITCHELL, Democratic National Committeeman , is *“Freddie”* Vahlsing’s lawyer.”
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1970/2/1970_2_106.shtml

Rogues, Rascals, & Villains
Presenting a dirty dozen of Maine's most loathsome — from itinerant ax murderers to homegrown Nazis.
By Edgar Allen Beem
<>
The rogues and scoundrels assembled here, however, are either Maine natives we’d like to disown or notorious individuals remembered largely for mischief, misdeeds, or mayhem perpetrated right here in the Pine Tree State.
<>
Fred H. Vahlsing, Jr. (c.1936–1991)

Vahlsing was the erstwhile Sugar Beet King of Maine who, in the 1960s and 1970s, became the state’s most notorious environmental villain. Shady businessmen with big ideas are a dime a dozen in Maine history, but Vahlsing, with his cowboy hats, snakeskin boots, and private planes and helicopters, had a certain flair and swagger about him that made him easy to dislike when his promises of a second cash crop (after potatoes) for Aroostook County started to fall through amid defaulted loans and polluted streams.

Vahlsing built a potato processing plant in Easton in 1960 and, in 1965, added a sugar beet plant next door. In 1967, he successfully sought reclassification of Prestile Stream from a Class B stream to a Class D, essentially an open sewer for processing waste. In 1968, irate Canadians dammed the Prestile in protest of the filth that was flowing out of Maine.

In 1972, after Vahlsing had defaulted on thirty million dollars worth of state and federal loans, Representative Louis Jalbert was forthright enough to say he was “an ashamed patsy” for ever having fallen for Vahlsing’s sugar beet song and dance, but then plenty of other Maine pols were (or should have been) red-faced, among them Senator Ed Muskie and Governor John Reed, who both supported reclassification of the Prestile, and GEORGE MITCHELL, who prior to his senatorial career was Vahlsing’s Augusta lobbyist.
http://www.downeast.com/Down-East-Magazine/August-2008/Rogues-Rascals-Villains/

What other riveting bits of political wisdom do you have to contribute?

[grassfed]

77. Mitchell the last best hope to stop genocide i n Palestine

sorry about your filthy state

[asteroid2003QQ47]

80. "sorry about your filthy state"--But not it's filthy politicians?

Incongruity evidently is your strong suit though it certainly
does not enhance your credibility in matters political.

[grassfed]

90. Maine beets before maimed and starving Gaza kids

sweet

[asteroid2003QQ47]

91. We are allies re: Gaza kids, thus I applaud your efforts...

while simultaneously questioning why you would have any faith in George Mitchell's ability to make a positive contribution?
:pals: ?

[totodeinhere]

68. I totally agree with Obama on this one.

Giving those detainees in Afghanistan the same constitutional rights as US citizens would be tantamount to giving constitutional rights to Nazi prisoners of war in WWII. The US constitution does not apply to the whole world. It only applies to the USA itself. To assume that our constitution should apply to the whole word is the height of arrogance and hubris.

[Perky]

78. ding ding ding

[Phx_Dem]

74. They're not Americans and they're not being held on American soil

or in an American territory. Why on earth would the US Constitution pertain to them? The Geneva Convention should dictate how they are treated.

Gitmo is on "American soil" in Cuba (similar to a foreign Embassy). Different situation.

[LWolf]

81. I've been expressing outrage at Obama's agenda and policies

since he became a primary candidate.

Of course, I'm in a very small minority at DU.

But that outrage has been here all along.

[Zhade]

84. What. The. Fuck. This is inexcusable!

EDIT: And by that, I mean my confusion! Being reminded that they have Geneva rights, but not rights under our Constitution (being as they are not U.S. citizens) clarified the issue for me.

[Samantha]

86. Doesn't the United States Constitution apply to only United

States' citizens?

(Putting aside for a moment the rights of prisoners we take, isn't that a true statement?)

Sam

[ProSense]

88. I'm outraged:

:freak:

On second thought, maybe I'll wait:

Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor, said it was too early to tell what the Obama administration would end up doing with the detainees at Bagram. He said some observers believed that the Obama team would end up making a major change in policy but simply needed more time to come up with it, while others believed that the administration had decided “to err on the side of doing things more like the Bush administration did, as opposed to really rethinking and reorienting everything” about the detention policies it inherited because it had too many other problems to deal with.

“It may take some time before we see exactly what is going on — whether this is just a transitory policy or whether this is really their policy: ‘No to Guantánamo, but we can just create Guantánamo in some other place,’ ” Mr. Balkin said.

After becoming president last month, Mr. Obama issued orders requiring strict adherence to antitorture rules and shuttering the Guantánamo prison within a year. He also ordered a review of whether conditions there meet the standards of humane treatment required by the Geneva Conventions, and a review of what could be done with each of the 245 detainees who remain at the prison.

link

[WeDidIt]

89. Prisoners of War have no rights under the cosntitution

They have rights afforded via the Geneva Conventions.

[EFerrari]

92. Which when ratified here, become law.

To say they have no rights under the Constitution is an obfuscation of the rights they do have.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

93. "Prisoners of War have no rights under the cosntitution" but...

not being a "Prisoner of War" you do? Better smoke another bowl, WeDidIt,
in a war mongering nation ALL are "Prisoners of War!"
------------------------------------------------------

"To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated,
preached at, controlled, assessed, evaluated, censored, commanded; all by creatures that have neither the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue... To be governed means that at every move, operation, or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in a census, taxed, stamped, priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorized, recommended, admonished, prevented, reformed,
set right, corrected. Government means to be subjected to tribute, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name of public utility and the general good. Then, at the first sign of resistance or word of complaint, one is repressed, fined, despised, vexed, pursued, hustled, beaten up, garroted, imprisoned, shot, machine-gunned, judged, sentenced, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to cap it all, ridiculed, mocked, outraged and dishonored. That is government, that is its justice and its morality! ...O human personality! How can it be that you have cowered in such subjection for sixty centures?"
--Pierre-Joseph Proudhorn, In Politics (1849)