Anyone see Turley on Keith? He pretty well destroyed Pres. Obama's reasoning.

[LittleBlue]

for holding people without trial or using a military tribunal.

1) We're holding people without trial because we're afraid they could be acquitted in a normal court.
2) Military tribunals = not legitimate courts.
3) Pres. Obama needs to realize this. Holding people without trial because the President is afraid of acquittal is tantamount to tyranny.

He also said that the United States cannot have buyer's remorse over the Constitution; it is the law, and we must not reject it simply because we're afraid something bad may happen.

Thanks Mr. Turley!

[truedelphi]

1. h3e is also not releasing Photos! Photos!

Did the world come to an end when we saw the awful photos of My Lai?

Maybe it simply is that Obama has not been around the block long enough. Forty seven is the new 25.

[iconocrastic]

114. Rules of evidence are different

[MarjorieG]

2. He nay yet change, but as prez, how does he account for releasing someone who then does harm.

Obviously a range of how dangerous, and after being held and maybe tortured, I'd say they're motivated,

[Time for change]

11. Give them a fair trial

Just like any other alleged criminal.

Isn't that what all democracies are supposed to do?

[Clio the Leo]

26. but they're alleged war criminals .... which is NOT like any other alleged criminal. NT

[Garbo 2004]

39. Previously alleged war criminals were tried. Nuremberg, for ex. nt

[Clio the Leo]

43. Sorry, "war criminal" was poor word choice...

.... POWs are not tried, they are held until the end of the hostilities and released.

[leftofthedial]

66. but they're alleged pedophiles .... which is NOT like any other alleged criminal. NT

[leftofthedial]

67. but they're alleged serial killers .... which is NOT like any other alleged criminal. NT

[leftofthedial]

68. but they're alleged subversives .... which is NOT like any other alleged criminal. NT

[leftofthedial]

69. but they're alleged liberals .... which is NOT like any other alleged criminal. NT

[vaberella]

72. How obnoxious do you need to be?! n/t

[inna]

98. he was not being obnoxious, he was making a critically important point. nt

[vaberella]

117. Note the 4 points listed in succession above mine.

Hence...Obnoxious.

[leftofthedial]

102. more obnoxious than this

apparently.

[leftofthedial]

70. actually, I don't think very many of them are, in fact, alleged war criminals.

terrorism is a crime, but not, by definition, a war crime.

[Unsane]

82. they're POWs

[leftofthedial]

101. but there also is no declaration of war, ergo, no POW by definition.

They are kidnap victims.

[Unsane]

106. So no POWs in Vietnam?

[Krashkopf]

108. Legally, NO. There were no "POW"s in Vietnam

What there were were combatants taken prisoner by the opposing side in an armed conflict between two sovereign states.

And, yet, despite the fact that there was NO DECLARED WAR, and thus NO RIGHT to POW status, the United States insisted that our prisoners in Vietnam be accorded full rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Can you say "hypocrisy?"

I tremble for my country when I recall that GOD is just." - Thomas Jefferson

[Unsane]

109. link to Geneva Conventions requiring a "declared" war?

you're arguing nonsense

so, because the us congress didn't draft an official war declaration, those captured on the battlefield aren't pows under international law? whew!! i'm glad all it takes to be removed from geneva protection is for the country engaged in conflict to not "officially" declare war!

[mkultra]

104. they are POWs until reviewd by a tribunal.

[Unsane]

81. give POWs a jury trial?

[Time for change]

92. I don't believe they've been classified as POWs

And if they have been, there is a serious problem with that too. POWs in any other war we've fought have been released at the end of the war, if not sooner. This "war" is supposed to last forever. And furthermore, the war is not legitimate. All these people were doing (those who were picked up on the battlefield) is defending their country against invasion. The idea of indefinitely classifying them as POWs for that is sickening to contemplate. As for those who were not picked up on the battlefield, there is even less legitimate reason for classifying them as POWs.

[mkultra]

105. according to the GC they are POWs

until they face tribunal where they can be reclassified.

[Raine1967]

110. The president referred to them as POW's in his speech

at the National Archives.

[atreides1]

12. How does a judge who releases a defendant account for it?

When a jury finds a defendant not guilty, are they held accountable for that decision if the same person commits another crime?

No they are not, because under the rule of law the defendant received a fair trial and was found not guilty.

You cannot choose to modify the law just because you think that someone will do harm if released.

[DatManFromNawlins]

50. That's the problem with being President

It's easy to criticize someone when you aren't in power and aren't privy to all the information and intelligence that a President has. But once you get to actually grasp the scope and complexity of the situation, you might find that despite your personal convictions about how something SHOULD have played out, you don't necessarily have a solution that is all that much better than what the previous guy came up wtih.

This is a problem that Obama is facing. Bush imprisoned people at Guantanamo largely based upon intelligence that was gathered about those people. It is not a privilege he should have had, and he put them at Guantanamo to try to get around "troublesome" US laws. A solution involving "prolonged detention" is only about a trillion times worse, because it legalizes the practice.

If we are to condemn Bush for engaging in a war that Congress agreed to wage, and for finding a way to indefinitely detain supposed "enemies of the state," then should we not condemn Obama if he gets Congress to approve the practice for indefinitely imprisoning people for being supposed "enemies of the state?"

Which action is ultimately more dangerous to the republic?

[EFerrari]

71. We have a justice system that has worked for two hundred years.

Holding somene because they may in the future commit a crime is unAmerican.

[scrappydo]

3. Turley is a pain in the neck.....among other places....

For God's sake...hold off on the criticism until this whole thing plays itself out....you may find yourselves eating crow....

[JamesA1102]

4. Well Said

Plus Turley totally mischaracterized what the President said.

[inna]

100. that was NOT "well said" at all, sorry.

plus, what was is that Turley "mischaracterized"? pray tell.

[billyoc]

9. When does my indefinite detention "play itself out", exactly?

[uponit7771]

14. When the AG office gets full records from the mess the Bush admin created...

...next?

I mean, did anyone miss the part where the justice dept doesn't have a case against any of these guys because the Bush admin lost their records!?!?!?

[billyoc]

23. So it never "plays itself out" if these alleged records are never found, then?

[Clio the Leo]

29. It "plays itself out" when hostilities cease....

.... that is, If we actually HAVE any of these hypothetical indefinitely detainees to begin with.

Which we dont. ;)

[choie]

34. "when hostilities end"????

and when the hell will that be? The "war" on terror is neverending - that's the "beauty" of it. As I said in a previous post - how would you feel if your son was indefinitely detained (for example, the last eight years) without any end in sight? Turley is absolutely right.

[Clio the Leo]

40. exactly ...... that's why this whole thing is a mess, with no easy answer...

.... no matter how hard we try to make it seem like there is.

[choie]

44. what makes this a mess, with no easy answer

is politics. Unfortunately - I should say - tragically, Obama, the Dems and others are thinking about their political hide. Not about what is just. The "war" on terror is bullshit - and if politicians had the guts to admit that - we would be that much closer to moving toward an answer.

[Clio the Leo]

48. So do we ignore Al Qaeda and hope they just wont bother us any more?

The President says they're a threat ... if that was coming from Bush or Cheney, I'd be suspicious too .... but I worked my butt off for Obama for a reason.

Are you calling BS on him?

[choie]

53. I'm calling Bullshit that a threat from one group

is enough to cause politicians to tear our constitution to shreds and to claim that this "war" can ever be won. If Obama thinks this war can be won - then I'm calling bullshit on him.

[Clio the Leo]

55. Well, since Barack Obama is not Sarah Palin...

.... I dont think he's overly worried about "winning" anything. I'm certainly not aware of him ever mentioning that this is a war to be won but a threat to be protected against.

He said, and I quote...

We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?pagewanted=all

... again, if it was * saying that, I'd roll my eyes and curse him under my breath .... coming from Barack Obama, that's a WHOLE 'nother matter.

So we can either choose to believe him or assume that he's blatantly lying to us.

I've already told you I think it's the former.... I certainly hope you dont think it's the latter.

[LooseWilly]

65. You do realize that you've just completely imploded your argument in defense of Obama's new policy?

The argument that the detainees that are still openly professing hostility against the US, allegiance to Osama bin Laden or the Taliban should continue to be held despite the lack of viably prosecutable evidence... as POWs, essentially... depends on acceptance of the eventuality of Obama and Congress coming to terms with a definition for... yes: declaring hostilities ended. If a legal framework for declaring hostilities can not be determined... then we just have illegal detentions & a police state.

So, by saying "I'm certainly not aware of him ever mentioning that this is a war to be won but a threat to be protected against." You are now arguing for a system that would amount to the institution of a despotic police state.

You do realize that, right?

So, in future... you will want to answer "yes" when people mock Obama for thinking that he will be able to declare the war over. And indeed, as a version of POW status for detainees who are fighters for a non-state enemy... Obama seems to me to be on semi-firm political and philosophical footing. The real problem, of course, is in the details of determining a set of guidelines for declaring non-state hostility initiation, non-state hostility cessation, and non-state combatant "re-habilitation". Once (if) such guidelines are set then, and only then, will there be a legal framework for holding these detainees (and yes, they do exist...) until the law decrees they should be released.

As a matter of fact, these guidelines may well be of great use in the near future at least, in order to allow a framework for Congress to declare war (or decline to declare war) on non-state entities that are deemed to be hostile to the US.

In other words... Obama better come up with the means to allow some President to declare the war over... or else we're just a prison state.

[Clio the Leo]

80. hmmmm....

... well, I dont know that I've completely imploded my argument .... but yeah, the scenario you're describing, although drowning in hyperbole, might technically be true.

Fortunately .... all we've got right now is a big fat "if."

If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1&em

The other part we're leaving out is that it doesn't come down to JUST his decision. And fortunately for your side of the argument, the Supreme Court has smacked down every attempt the Bush made at holding these guys indefinately. I'm a good Democrat, but I do have a fair degree of confidence in the American government and its system of checks and balances. ;)

[Captain Hilts]

27. I give him credit for consistency. He's a real 'the law's the law' guy. nt

[atreides1]

30. How long should we wait

I keep hearing the same claptrap, wait, wait, wait, flame the critics, wait, wait, wait.

Give us a reasonable time!!!!

What if it's the president who doesn't come through, what if he's waiting to see if people will forget what he said yesterday, and then continues to look forward?

Turley is doing his job, he also is a Constitutional lawyer, just like the President was.

Why is it that so many here at DU wear the same rose-colored glasses that those at the site which we will not name, did.

I'm not going to wait until he runs for a second term, he said January 2010, and that's when I expect it to happen. He did mention Guantanamo during his campaign, one would have thought that with all the high IQ's surrounding him, someone would have come up with at least the outline of a plan.

Maybe those people aren't as smart as they pretend to be, or maybe the whole Guantanamo thing was just another one of those campaign sound bytes that was done to make the voters feel warm and fuzzy inside?

As it stands now, I don't think he has a plan for closing down Guantanamo, that's why he wants all three branches to get involved. Maybe between them they can come up with a viable plan, that won't violate the US Constitution.

So, would you say that the beginning of the next fiscal year is more then enough time? That will be October 1st, that gives the government 121 days from now to come up with a plan. That should be more then enough time to at least present a plan.



But

[ChiciB1]

86. I'm WITH You... But You KNOW What So Many "Here" Think Of "Us" Don't You??

For me, it's not about THE MAN, it's about THE LAW!! I could go on, but I know what's coming!

I'm a Liberal AND a BOOMER, so we "think" differently I suppose! Time, okay ONE YEAR, but off to a BAD start as I see it!

JMHO, I can't run away from what I feel in my gut! I'm not going to argue over and over about this, just making my little statement here! I've learned what being "in the minority" feels like, been there most of my political life! I can take the heat, but don't plan on getting into a pissing match about it!

[stray cat]

5. We let murderers go free to murder again due to technicalities

and I guess we can let these guys out and wait for them to kill as well - if we can't successfully prosecute them. I just pity those who end up as victims and hope its no one I know.

[Krashkopf]

107. First of all, the Constitution is not a FUCKING technicality!

Secondly, nobody is talking about "letting anyone go."

If the the detainees have committed crimes, they need to be tried in Civilian court, convicted, and sentenced to prison. If they are found NOT GUILTY (because none of the evidence we obtained through torture is admissible, for example), they should be deported to their home country.

If the detainees were captured combatants, they need to be held in military prison, and be accorded all of the rights (in the Geneva Convention) that we expect Americans to be accorded if they are captured in an armed conflict.

What the fuck are you SO AFRAID of? When did America become a nation of sniveling frightened children?

I tremble for my Country when I recall that GOD is just. - Thomas Jefferson

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Yet Obama is planning on trials for detainees in normal civilian courts.

Did either you or Turley read Obama's explanation?

[vaberella]

8. I don't know why people listen to that guy.

He contradicts the President when the president doesn't say what he says the President said. The man is a fool...there is disagreeing but put the truth out there.

[Clio the Leo]

31. Because he supports their already made-up minds. NT

[firedupdem]

58. That's exactly it. I've had no use for hm since Clinton's impeachment. n/t

[uponit7771]

16. Turley is starting to sound like Krugman to me, not giving a chance for Obama to do his work...

...because they have an artificially set deadline for Obama's actions

[scrappydo]

36. Amen...

Obama has been in office four months...he needs time to unravel the mess Bush and CHENEY left us with.....some posters have no patience - they want IMMEDIATE solutions for complex problems. There cannot be a "time table" in solving all of the problems on President Obama's plate. President Obama is privy to a great more detailed information than any poster here is privy to. Yet some blow hearts, including Turley, think they have all of the answers. Nice to make such immediate responses to something most people know nothing about nor do the have the background. President Obama is a chess player and he moves his pieces very cleverly and with great deliberation. I do not agree with all of President Obama's decision, but I am glad he is OUR leader, OUR president!

[redqueen]

25. Read? Why should those who are so righteously right have to read?

They're right, facts be damned.

[Clio the Leo]

32. What I'm curious to know....

... is how many of us have actually READ the Constitution that we're upset the President is betraying?

[LittleBlue]

41. Deeds speak louder than words

First, how many is he planning to try? Turley addressed this, saying that he would only try the slam-dunk cases in civilian court. The remainder would be held indefinitely.

[vaberella]

7. You believe Turley's crap?! Did you not hear President O yesterday?!

There will be trials on US soil.

[CBR]

10. The usual Turley worship.... I am dissenting against Turley and it

is my right!

[QC]

13. Turley is an enemy of the people. n/t

[jgraz]

17. Yeah. The pod people.

[rug]

35. He must be placed in prolonged detention for our safety.

[QC]

90. That is an excellent idea, comrade. I shall suggest it to the politburo! n/t

[jgraz]

15. Oh no, you said the 'T' word!

:popcorn:

Don't you know he's been declared a non-person on this board?

[QC]

20. Doubleplusungood!

[uponit7771]

18. *******TURLEY DIDN'T LISTEN TO OBAMA'S SPEECH*************

Obama is working to try these people in court.

Turley is reminding me of Krugman and Maddow, setting up artificial deadlines for Obama to act on what they want and when they want it.

[Clio the Leo]

21. Neither did half of us here it seems. ;-) NT

[Cha]

28. All I can think of is

"Power Trippin"

[LostinVA]

37. Krugman, Maddow, and Turley are all good liberals

Who know their Teddy Roosevelt.

[LittleBlue]

57. Please explain preventive detention measures

Turley described these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&hp

Sounds like indefinite detention due to a high risk of acquittal.

[quiet.american]

91. Thank you! Turley, Maddow et al., are completely ignoring Obama's following statement:

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Now how in the world does that add up to "buyers remorse about the Constitution" according to Turley, and to Maddow and her guests' incredulous question of "how can one man have that sole power?!"

These are people with advanced degrees getting it so wrong. Unbelievable.

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. Let's lobby the White House to release them all, and move them in...

next door to Turley, Krugman and Maddow. That is if they don't live in gated communities. It's one thing to pontificate night after night on a cable news show, and a whole nother thing to govern the country, within the law, and keep the populace safe.

It sounds like Turley is advocating for immediate release of the detainees, and I agree with him, but only if they're allowed to move in next door to him.

[Clio the Leo]

19. No, Mr. Turley is twisting his argument and not telling you the whole truth.....

He seems to be insisting that ALL of the Gitmo detainees should be tried in the US court system and according to the Constitution .... but what HE is not telling you, what Rachel didnt tell you and what my beloved KO is not telling you is that the US Constitution does NOT address foreign citizens who are accused of crimes committed on FOREIGN soil. READ the Constitution, it's NOT THERE!!!

Some of these people are subject NOT to the Constitution but to the Geneva Convention which says "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities." (Third Geneva Convention, Article IV, Section II. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Third_Geneva_Convention )

And what EVERYONE is forgetting is that the President said, "If"

If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-obama-text,1,121227.story?page=3

Everyone is CONVENIENTLY leaving that part out. ;)

[uponit7771]

22. Yeap, I think that argument was simple and apparent..

[LittleBlue]

42. I'm certain Mr. Turley does not understand the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention

being that he is a practicing law professor. :crazy:

[Clio the Leo]

45. Oh without question he KNOWS what he's talking about....

... he knows the Constitution just as well as the President does ;-)

But that's NOT what I'm saying.

I'm not saying he doesn't know ..... I'm saying he's SPINNING his argument in a way that not only mischaracterizes what the President said, but attempts to make a comparison between two things that are not equal.

[LittleBlue]

56. Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I need someone to explain to me...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&hp

What is this preventive detention status? It seems like a new status cooked up to justify holding people indefinitely.

[vaberella]

74. Maybe you should read the constitution. No law degree needed.

When you find where it mentions how prisoners of war who are considered criminals on foreign land and are not US citizens should be tried in US court systems following the US constitution, let us know.

[LittleBlue]

116. Our Constitution indicates that we must follow the Geneva Convention

and nowhere in the convention is there a provision saying prisoners may be held forever without trial.

So maybe YOU should read the Convention, because the Constitution is explicit in the fact that foreign treaties we sign ARE the law of the land.

[LooseWilly]

76. I think it's meant to be a version of POW status, but for combatants representing a not-state.

Obama also seemed to mention something about working with the Congress to set up a framework of definitions and oversight, so that the President alone, as an individual, would not have sole power to determine how long said detainees are to be detained.

Presumably this means putting together a set of definitions for hostilities (initiation, cessation, and what all else) with a non-state to be legally binding in parallel with those definitions with regards to hostilities with a state. To be legally sensical, this new set of legal definitions would also presumably include provisions requiring a declaration of war from the Congress before initiating hostilities with a non-state entity.
Exactly how such definitions can be worked out so as delineate a difference between "war" and mere "law enforcement activities" I must confess I have no idea... but it does seem to be an interesting and internally logical approach to prevent the release of "hostiles" due to limitations of the courts.

It could, of course, be argued that just releasing these jokers that can't be prosecuted, and presuming that they can be swept up the next time they show up on a battlefield, might be a simpler solution... and I personally have no objection to that approach either... but the Senate's fold in the face of political pressure on the subject suggests that everyone in the country is too terrified to accept a simple solution... in essence the politically more expedient solution is to try to "re-invent the wheel".

I'm personally feeling very detached on the issue at this point. Obama's new fangled solution is reasonable enough that I can live with it, depending on the details of the "newly invented wheel" that his office and Congress come up with.

[Garbo 2004]

60. Lots of things regarded as Constitutional law are not specifically in the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't specifically require the Miranda warning, for example.

Constitutional law is a body of law that emcompasses more than the Constitution itself. For example, it also includes precedential law, decisions by courts (not necessarily only by the SCOTUS).

Federal grand jury indicted Osama Bin Laden in June 1998 for conspiring to attack US citizens abroad. According to your reading of the Constitution, the DOJ/Federal Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. (A superceding indictment in Nov 1998 included indictment for the US embassy bombings in Africa.)

[Clio the Leo]

61. Key word there is "embassy" and....

.... the indictment for the 1995 truck bombing took place on a US operated training facility.

Of course the problem with all of this is, we're dealing with hypothetical prisoners who may never even be held in this hypothetical preventative detention scenario .... so finding a parallel case is virtually impossible.

Unless, of course you know who the President was talking about, in which case, like Obama, I'm all ears.

[Garbo 2004]

64. Indictments not just specifcally Khobar towers (not American soil) or embassies

(which are considered Am soil). "Conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad" covers a lot of territory.

[Clio the Leo]

78. And you and I both know that indictments ....

.... dont establish legal precedents. ;)

[Garbo 2004]

89. The indictments followed existing US law...which you said was not applicable. nt

[vaberella]

73. Clio can you make this it's own thread please!!! Because I think this is so important to consider.

nt

[LooseWilly]

77. I think you are the only other person I've come across who also heard that detail.

I was surprised on Rachel and even Keith when they had guests on and the lot of them collectively missed the notion of holding those indefinte-detainees as POWs.

You didn't mention that Obama also said that he was intending to work with the Congress to establish a system of oversight, so that the power to determine whether or not to hold in detention wouldn't be the power of a single individual (i.e. the President).

I think this is a very creative solution on Obama's part to avoid releasing detainees that are not "try-able", but who still declare personal loyalties to organizations actively hostile toward the US. I also think that, intellectually, it is a legitimate way to view these individuals, as POWs.

My personal concern is about the forthcoming details of the collaboration with the Congress... specifically how they will define "initializations of hostilities" with a non-state group, how they will define "cessation of hostilities" with a non-state group... and especially whether or not there will be some sort of clause to acknowledge those who are... "rehabilitated"?

[guyton]

24. Obama said his job is to protect the american people ...

I'd counter that his #1 job as president is to protect and defend the Constitution.

Without that as his top priority, we're really not all that worthy of protecting.

[snowdays]

62. George Bush's mantra was the same--I am protecting YOU--.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. The ONLY sworn duty of a President

is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The President's job is not 'keeping us safe' it is keeping the Constitution safe. Without that document, there is no USA, nothing to protect, and that is that.

[DemReadingDU]

33. MSNBC video link

May 22: Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley talks with Countdown's Keith Olbermann about whether President Obama can find a constitutional way to deal with Guantanamo detainees who cannot be prosecuted in the U.S. judicial system.
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=a46f95de-dd22-4b46-8517-55852ac492e7

[tech3149]

38. As mentioned in a thread earlier today "preventive detention"

is pretty much the same as criminalizing thought crimes. As far as I know we don't have any "precogs" that could enforce rules against potential criminals with any level of accuracy. I've had many bad thoughts about the things I'd like to see done to those that took our country down the toilet. Fortunately, I have the self restraint not to act on those thoughts. If "preventive detention" were applied to me, I'm pretty sure I'd never see daylight again.

[ShortnFiery]

46. Yes, and don't forget what happens to those pesky thought criminals?

[Clio the Leo]

47. Except no one is going to be detained for "thinking" and I challenge you to find ANYONE.

.... being held through preventive detention (IF it ever happens) that is being held soley for that reason.

[ShortnFiery]

49. Preventative Detention? Arresting a slew of non-violent protesters ahead of the GOP Convention?

:eyes: By the time, significant numbers of American Sheple decide to wake the fuck up, our Bill of Rights will be "down the memory hole."

[Clio the Leo]

51. And those protestors are in Gitmo now? NT

[ShortnFiery]

52. No, but we're on a slippery slope. You know that, don't you?

The very next time a Republican lands in the White House, WE ALL will be potential "detainees." :nuke:

[Clio the Leo]

54. nah, 'cause I'll rip that Obama sticker off of my car and they'll never know the difference. :-) NT

[ShortnFiery]

59. Right. I hope that thought keeps you warm at night but I'm not so complacent. NT

[snowdays]

63. Turley made the same arguments when Bush was Pres. Now some want

to throw him under the bus when Pres. Obama follows in his footsteps.

[vaberella]

75. I call your attention to post #19. n/t

[invictus]

79. K&R

[lamp_shade]

84. Well... he often "tries" to destroy it but he hasn't been very convincing to most here. Remember:

Turley is very good at constitutional law, but he knows squat about politics. His opinions are for the most part irrelevant.

[paulk]

85. that's a mighty slippery slope

don't you think?

Where politics trumps the Constitution?

[Occam Bandage]

94. Turley's beliefs about the Constitution are skewed.

Remember, he thought that the Congress had a Constitutional mandate to impeach Bill Clinton. Despite his credentials, he has a shakier grasp of that document than most DUers do.

[paulk]

111. it's not about Turley

[Occam Bandage]

113. Politics only trumps the Constitution here under Turley's idiosyncratic belief system. nt

[mmonk]

87. There's one more to the list Turley doesn't mention.

The government would like to keep as much as possible in the dark so to speak in regards to the American people.

[snowdays]

88. Feingold Plans Hearing on Obama's Detention Policy***

I am glad to see there will be an open process on this.
X-posted.


Forum Name General Discussion: Presidential
Topic subject Feingold Plans Hearing on Obama's Detention Policy
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8427711#8427711
8427711, Feingold Plans Hearing on Obama's Detention Policy
Posted by flpoljunkie on Sat May-23-09 09:53 AM

Feingold Plans Hearing On Obama's Detention Policy

Sen. Russ Feingold plans a hearing in June about President Obama's plan to seek "prolonged detention" without trial for some of the Guantanamo detainees. In a letter to Obama, Feingold writes that while he appreciates Obama's "good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional."

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/feingold_plans_hearing_on_obamas_detention_policy.php

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

May 22, 2009

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to convey my appreciation for your speech of May 21 on security and values, but
also to express several concerns, particularly about your intention to design a system for what
you called "prolonged detention."

On many fronts, your speech confirmed your commitment to defending our country while
reversing the previous administration's numerous attacks on the rule of law. I was particularly
pleased by your forceful rejection of torture, an issue on which you have backed up your
campaign rhetoric with sustained action, beginning on your second day in office. I also welcome
your acknowledgment that the state secrets privilege has been overused, as well as your
commitment to reform. As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee is currently considering
legislation on this matter, which I hope your administration will now support. I also look
forward to briefings on your administration's use ofthe privilege thus far, in keeping with your
commitment to "voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why."

In addition to these substantive matters, I was encouraged by your stated commitment to working
with the judiciary and Congress as co-equal branches of government on issues of national
security. This respect for our constitutional system stands in strong contrast to the approach of
the previous administration. In light of the principles you have put forth, I look forward to full
and open discussions between your administration and Congress on policy and legal matters. I
also welcome your stated appreciation for congressional oversight and for the need for Congress
to have full access to classified programs and information. As you know, the previous
administration established numerous obstacles to effective oversight and I welcome your
commitment to tearing down what remains of those obstacles.

In the spirit of an open, productive dialogue between your administration and Congress, I wish to
layout my concerns related to the disposition of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I strongly
supported the decision you made in January to close the detention facility at Guantanamo and
continue to do so. The facility has been used as a recruiting tool by our enemies, and allowing it
to remain open would pose an unacceptable threat to our national security. I look forward to
considering your administration's plan for closing the facility, and I welcome your decision to
bring suspected terrorists, like Ahmed Gailani, to justice.

Among the issues Congress must consider carefully is any resumption of the use of military
commissions. Like you, I voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I agree with you
with regard to that statute's many flaws, but it is not clear to me that those flaws can be fixed, or
that the other options in the current federal criminal justice and courts martial systems for
bringing the detainees to justice are insufficient or unworkable. If Congress is to fully consider
your proposal for military commissions, therefore, it will need access to the same information
your administration is currently reviewing, including detailed, classified information on
individual detainees and the extent to which other options are available.

My primary concern, however, relates to your reference to the possibility of indefinite detention
without trial for certain detainees. While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a
statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain
individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them
adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional.

While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other
forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence
against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial
is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently
invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically
criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a
system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely
without charge or trial.

You have discussed this possibility only in the context of the current detainees at Guantanamo
Bay, yet we must be aware of the precedent that such a system would establish. While the
handling of these detainees by the Bush Administration was particularly egregious, from a legal
as well as human rights perspective, these are unlikely to be the last suspected terrorists captured
by the United States. Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the
temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist
such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing
policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention
facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores
or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security. Worse, those policies a~d
legal precedents would be effectively enshrined as acceptable in our system of justice, having
been established not by one, largely discredited administration, but by successive administrations
of both parties with greatly contrasting positions on legal and constitutional issues.

I do not doubt your good faith efforts to wrestle with these complex issues, and I am confident
that you would seek to use any new authorities carefully andjudiciously. But, as I know you
appreciate, fundamental changes to our constitutional system cannot be considered in the context
of individual presidents or administrations. Whatever new regimes you and the Congress choose
to enact will likely remain in place long after your administration has ended, to be used, or
abused, by future presidents.

I appreciate your efforts to reach out to Congress on this important issue. In that spirit, I intend
to hold a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June
and ask that you make a top official or officials from the Department of Justice available to
testify. I recognize that your plans are not yet fully formed, but it is important to begin this
discussion immediately, before you reach a final decision. I will be sending formal invitations in
the coming weeks and look forward to hearing the testimony of your administration.

I thank you for this opportunity to convey my views and look forward to continued collaboration
as we return our country to the rule of law while aggressively targeting al Qaeda and its
affiliates.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator
cc: The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General of the United States

[Occam Bandage]

93. Military tribunals are legitimate courts. Have been for decades. Turley's talking out his ass.

As he always does.

[grantcart]

95. Right the guy thought that Clinton should have been impeached

He is an impressive gadfly however.



Here is a clue: go to ACLU, Human Rights Watch and see how their reaction to the President's speech was 90% supportive and 10% concern, but their concern on the prolonged detention was very very muted. They have evidently decided to actually wait and get the details before making a serious statement.

[vaberella]

99. Wasn't it because there were reps from the ACLU at the meeting with O before speech.

That's the shit with Turley, GC. Turley opens his mouth full of shit and then he has to stand down for a while. I remember when he went on KO's show or it was RM's show and said that Pelosi was a liar and totally involved and that everything was misleading-blah blah blah.

Now I was supporting Pelosi from the beginning. Then little by little and person by person came out and said that the CIA was lying. The CIA themselves said they were mistaken and that she wasn't informed 3 of the said 4 meetings they claimed. And at the fourth meeting she wasn't given anything beause of Bob Graham (who was there also I believe). I mean this is all BS and then Turley is standing there saying she's a liar and basically she's also an accompolice to all of this. Yet, when nothing has been settled yet I'm to believe that what O is doing is unconstitutional?


GC can you make this post it's own thread and quote comments from the ACLU because we need more positive posts not great posts like yours in shitty threads lambasting the Pres with no facts.

[Hieronymus]

96. I agree with you. Turley is sticking to the Constitution.

[NYC_SKP]

97. Turley? TURLEY???

:rofl:

[mkultra]

103. the rules as stated in the GC are that the are POWs, until reviewed by a tribunal

then they can be reclassified.

[MasonJar]

112. He probably cannot try them because they have been tortured by

the Bushista, so I say try them anyway and let them go if there is not enough valid evidence. This is our national soul that is being jeopardized and our rule of law and our Constitution and our treaty obligations. Those are far more important than a few terrorists being freed. In fact if we, as America, act according to the Constitution and the rule of law, my bet is that terroristic threats against us will diminish. The ones Obama should be trying of course he refuses to: the torturers and the planners of illegal war and torture. I am disappointed in Obama for not being the man he said he was and I believed he was. He seemed to choose poor advisors and yet now it seems that they are actually of like mind with him...the only other answer is that they lead him by the nose and I find that too incredible to countenance.