President Roosevelt held 425,000 enemy combatants in US prison camps without access to an attorney or the legal process.
President Obama hasn't interned a single one and is the only politician who is actually doing something about eliminating the mess Bush left at Gitmo.
And yet President Roosevelt (who despite his internment of West Coast Americans of Japanese descent remains my favorite President) is the progressive while Obama is accused of being right of center!
So it seems some people are suggesting that the US should now take the position that there would never again be indefinite detentions. Let us say that a ground war erupts in Korea. Let's say that 10,000 North Korean troops make their way to an American base and surrender. Are people suggesting that we would have to offer attorney's for each of the 10,000 and that there are no circumstances where it is possible that indefinite detentions could possibly exist.
Like the President I am for closing Gitmo. Like the President I would like to regularize those inmates into the civilian legal system. Does that mean that there are no circumstances that would allow for indefinite detention - of course not and 95% of the country would agree.
If the evidence of Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the kind that would not be admitted into a civilian or a military court do rational people think that this self described enemy combatant should then be given a pass out. No fucking way.
Oh and for the record agreeing to the theoretic possibility that a principle like indefinite detention which was used hundred of thousands of times without controversy is actually not the same as agreeing with Cheney on torture.
President Roosevelt's record of indefinite detention for enemy combatants can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8425161