On military tribunals; meet the good cop, same as the bad cop

[MadHound]

Back in August 2007, candidate Obama unequivocally rejected military tribunals:

"I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America's courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
<http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php>

Yet here we are, a year and a half later, and President Obama is now embracing military tribunals (albeit with "reforms"), and even possibly indefinite detentions (albeit under the auspices of the Geneva Convention).

So what happened to restoring the rule of law? What is wrong with letting the U.S. justice system take care of these cases the old fashioned way, via the court system? Not only are these tribunals skirting the edges of constitutionality, but they are a black eye on the face of American justice. Didn't we have enough of this type of extra legal behavior from the Bush administration?

On top of that, sad to say, there are people who, while thinking that military tribunals were an outrage under Bush, are now embracing them under Obama. I'm sorry, but that's hypocritical. Just because Obama has dressed them up, and instituted a few reforms does not make them any more palatable or legal.

Sadly, it seems as though these tribunals are going to become reality. And the erosion of our judicial system, our Constitution proceeds apace. And thus we get to watch as our justice system, our Constitution continue to be trashed, only now it is being done by the good cop, which somehow is supposed to make it all better. What bullshit.

[Mari333]

1. k nr for the flip flop nt

[Adelante]

2. He rejected the Military Commissions Act when he voted against it in 2006

But he never, to my knowledge, rejected military tribunals. He opposed the Bush version, which he rightly called politically motivated, improperly used, structurally sloppy, and unproductive, and which he is now revising. It may not make you happy, but he is not acting against his own principles balancing national security and justice. It's an exaggeration to say they won't be tried in the US court system, some detainees will be tried in federal court and some will be tried in a military court, depending on the circumstances of the case. It's not as black and white as you are trying to make it.

[MadHound]

3. Umm, it was the Military Commissions Act which set up the legal framework for military tribunals

Since he voted against the MCA in 2006, by extension he rejected military tribunals. Now he is embracing military tribunals, albeit a "kinder, gentler" version of these kangaroo courts.

Democrats and the left, along with most of the thinking public rightfully rejected the military tribunals, due to the fact that they are unjust and unconstitutional. Yet now we're supposed to embrace them because Obama has? Sorry, but I can't justify that sort of illegality even if Obama has supposedly instituted "reforms".

What is wrong with moving all terrorist cases to federal court? After all, that has served us well in past terrorist cases. Why must we set up this travesty of justice, a military tribunal? Are you down with kangaroo courts? Are you OK with having detainees right to a fair and speedy trial denied, time and again(after all, slipped into Obama's announcement about these tribunals was the fact that he is going to delay prisoners' court dates another 100 plus days, on top of the previous delays, both under Obama and Bush. Some of these people have been in prison, without a hearing, for over six years). Are you happy with prisoners continuing to be held indefinitely in your name?

Over two hundred people are being denied justice, and now suddenly it's all supposed to be OK because it's a Democrat who is denying them justice? Sorry, but I can't go that far into hypocrisy, a real shame that you and many others around here can.

[Adelante]

7. No, he voted for an alternative bill in 2006

So he did not reject military tribunals, which actually have been used in wartime throughout American history. They are as legal as the legal framework underpinning them - and that is what Obama's objection was and is and why he is making these changes. I'm fine with your opinion - and I would like to see as many cases as possible in civilian courts - just don't mangle Obama's opinion to support yours. And, please, spare me the sanctimony.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

4. Hopefully, your thread will go better than the one yesterday

The OP was called a Freeper numerous times by the usual suspects.

[MadHound]

5. We'll see, or at least I'll check back later

I'm out of here shortly, going to go plant my Mom's flower garden.

By the by, let me compliment you on your sig line and picture. Been meaning to do that, but haven't gotten around to it. Nice one, and sad to see you catch so much shit for it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

6. Thank you

I think the reactions to my sig line say more about the "offended," than me. Somebody was actually (quite randomly) praising Thatcher the other day. It was a true :wtf: moment.