Rachel Maddow on Indefinite Detention

[gorfle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

I am getting sick of this. This is not the Change I was hoping for.

To my mind, until and unless Congress issues a FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR, the United States of America should have to treat EVERY SINGE PERSON THEY ARREST under the normal, traditional DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Period.

All of these sly, sneaky attempts to build a system outside of the due process of law, started by George Bush and now seemingly propagated by President Obama are a TRAVESTY of American values.

The idea that you can INDEFINITELY INCARCERATE someone because of crimes that they MIGHT COMMIT IN THE FUTURE is an abomination. It totally flies in the face of "Guilty until proven inncocent in a court of law."

Now it's "Maybe guilty of something but we can't reveal the secret evidence and anyway you might do something bad in the future so we are going to lock you up for as long as we feel like it."

If this is where we are, where the President of the United States can create a separate "legal regime" outside of the traditional rule of law, than I am extremely disappointed.

The Change I wanted was a complete REPUDIATION of the policies of George W. Bush.

Lately it seems that we are just going to CONTINUE the policies of George W. Bush.

Which sends the message to me, "Change? Nah, actually we're totally cool with what Bush was doing."

And that fucking sucks.

[billyoc]

1. That's why it's call the Bush-Obama Doctrine.

You'll get used to it.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Way to go. Blame the current president for the fucking mess he inherited.

And then, since he hasn't extricated us out of this mess single-handedly to suit your timetable, we'll start calling everything:

The Bush-Obama doctrine.

Bullshit.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[NYC_SKP]

4. I'm sorry that you just don't get it, and that you have to lower yourself to profanity

to fail in making a point.

[spoony]

60. You mean like "fucking mess" and "bullshit"?

And you've yet to explain why Obama is obliged to continue the mistakes and misdeeds of the former administration.

[NYC_SKP]

63. It's one thing to direct profanity toward Bush and another to direct it toward a DU member.

If it wasn't a fucking mess, Obama could get out of it more expeditiously.

For your enlightenment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8428065

:patriot:

[gorfle]

5. This is not a matter of time tables.

This is not a matter of time tables.

President Obama's speech in the link was a clear opportunity to repudiate the actions of GWB. It was a direct discussion of those policies, and President Obama had a choice. His choice was to either repudiate those past actions or to propagate them. He chose the latter.

This is not about time tables. He could have remained silent on the issue for another 6 months and that would have been fine with me. I'm totally willing to give the President as much time as he needs to do THE RIGHT THING.

But once he breaks his silence, as he did, and MAKES POLICY DECISION THAT SUCKS, well I'm going to call him on it.

He campaigned on CHANGE. I expect and demand change. Yes, he inherited this mess. It is his job to CHANGE this mess. It is why I and a whole lot of other people voted for him.

Watch the video. WATCH THE VIDEO.

Tell me that President Obama's stated policy concerning indefinite detention for not people's past actions but out of fear of their future actions IS SOMETHING YOU SUPPORT. Watch the video and tell me that.

[Mari333]

6. amen nt

[man4allcats]

100. Self Delete

[NYC_SKP]

8. I support it, yes. Bush left us in a nearly inextricable pickle, a mess, a quagmire.

Bush interred people who have been trained as terrorists and are outspoken in their hatred of America and that they are willing to give their lives to do us harm.

There is no place to send them, and nothing upon which to try them because torture was used in exacting confessions, and/or they've not done anything but threaten us.

Until the administration figures out what to do with these individuals, they need to remain incarcerated, indefinitely, which means it is unknown when or if they'll be released because it's such a big fucking mess.

Can't send them anywhere, can't release them.

Or would you release them?

What would you do with them?

Always criticism without alternative solutions or ideas....

[magellan]

38. Bush** also interred & tortured a lot of innocent people

...and released them, and some of them have wound up classified as "returned to the battlefield" by the DoD for making anti-American statements to their media. What does Obama plan to do about them? What would YOU do? Because you and Obama can't have it both ways. You can't continue to detain people for the same thing you aren't willing to round others up for.

The so-called hard cases should be tried and either sentenced on the basis of sound evidence or repatriated. We either do the hard work of ensuring we aren't radicalizing hordes against us by following the law, or we continue down the road of lawlessness -- and suck up the blowback.

[gorfle]

49. I would use the standard due process of LAW.

What would you do with them?

I DID provide alternative solutions. THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

There is no declaration of war by Congress. My position is that until and unless there is a declaration of war by Congress every person that is arrested for any reason should be subject to the same due process of law as any other criminal.

If they have fucked up their criminal cases against these people then yes, RELEASE THEM, just as we do with any other criminal who's case the prosecution fucks up.

If these people have committed crimes, then there should be CLEAR PUBLIC EVIDENCE to their crimes. Otherwise, SET THEM FREE.

[Usrename]

72. I don't think it is all that complicated.

Let a jury decide.

Isn't the presumption of innocence fundamental to American identity?

What happens, historically, to regimes that go down this path of denying basic human rights to certain classes of people?

Get a grip. It isn't all that complicated, really. Follow the law. Be an American. Stand up for liberty.

Land of the free, home of the brave is turning into the land of the unjustly imprisoned, home of the cowardly minions.

[man4allcats]

101. Bush, Hitler and other Fascists have always believed the ends justify the means.

They do not.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." - Sir William Blackstone 1723-1780

[man4allcats]

87. I agree completely.

The fact that Bush pulled crap of similar magnitude is one reason I bought and still continually wear an Impeach Bush and Cheney bracelet and occasionally still wear an Impeach Bush and Cheney T-shirt. Obama is way over the line on this one - way over.

[Orsino]

131. It's a matter of political capital.

He does not yet possess enough to end our wars.

[JamesA1102]

12. Well said nt

[EFerrari]

19. Except the OP doesn't do that. The OP holds Obama responsible

for HIS OWN POSITIONS.

[Better Believe It]

37. Obama can't end the trashing of our Bill of Rights and Constitution? But he promised he would!

Bull shit!

Yes he can!

[kentuck]

7. It was my understanding from listening to the speech..

that the President said there were different classifications of prisoners at Guantanamo. The ones that would be under "indefinite detention" would be those whom we had reason to believe were conspiring to attack us again but that we did not have the proof at the present time to convict them? So the question would be, do you turn them loose? And to whom? Or do you keep them in "indefinite detention"? It is not a simple solution, in my opnion.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Exactly. Criticism without offering solutions is just so much usless drama.

Thanks for being sane.

:patriot:

[Usrename]

73. The solution is simple. Stand up and be an American.

This groveling has got to end before we all wind up without any liberty.

Don't you trust a jury to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused detainee?

If not, why not? Isn't that the American way? What's wrong with having a presumption of innocence?

This is so simple a child can understand it.

[EFerrari]

22. Holding a person because you don't have evidence of a crime?

How did that get to be such a popular idea?

Holding Bush's torture victims because their torture taints the case is an obscenity.

Yes, there is a simple solution. You process those people through the courts. Their cases will be thrown out, as they should be. Finito.

[kentuck]

29. But you hold them indefinitely until that is done?

??

That is "indefinite detention". So where is the disagreement?

[EFerrari]

31. No, you don't hold them indefinitely. You process them.

[kentuck]

35. How long should it take to "process" them?

Do you hold them until that "process" is completed? That is indefinite detention.

[EFerrari]

36. No, it's not indefinite detention. It becomes "definite"

as soon as the case is brought.

/oops

[kentuck]

39. And what specifically is Obama's position?

Does he want the cases resolved?

[EFerrari]

41. When he claims that there are cases that cannot be brought

and argues for "prolonged" detention of those individuals, let alone preventive detention of future detainees, he seems to believe that is a kind of resolution, doesn't he?

In fact, it isn't a resolution but a deferral of resolution because it defers judicial process.

And rather than bash Obama, I want to point out that he seems to be getting preciously little help or support from other high level elected Democrats. That's not a good position from which to formulate solutions, let alone, carry them out. Finally, last night some of our crazy uncles in the Senate and some Congressional Weenies spoke up:

Willingness by some Senate Dems to work with Obama on transferring Guantanamo detainees to US
By DAVID ESPO , Associated Press
Last update: May 23, 2009 - 11:18 AM


WASHINGTON - With President Barack Obama showing the way, some Senate Democrats are signaling a willingness to permit transferring suspected terrorists from Guantanamo to U.S. prisons despite a high-profile vote to the contrary.

Most notably among them is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who spent the week sending out confusing signals on just where he stood.

"We are wanting and willing to work with" the president to come up with a solution to the detainee controversy, the Nevada Democrat said Thursday — a statement that conspicuously left open the possibility that some detainees would eventually be incarcerated in U.S. prisons.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/45912307.html

[ChiciB1]

86. I TOTALLY AGREE!! Making Excuses For NOT Bringing ANY Of Them

to trial IS NOT due process!!! I can't understand all the apologists on this either! Given MORE time is going to do WHAT???

This isn't what I VOTED for either! This IS NOT what I thought MY country was about either!

Get in my face, call me names and say what you will, I'm NOT going to argue about how I feel! My "gut" tells me something isn't right and mouthing words these past months hasn't made me feel better!

FLAME AWAY! Some of us feel DEEPLY about this, and suffice to say and I've said it many times here before... if this was BFEE doing this, I wonder how many HOWLS there would be!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. This is not what I voted for either, ChiciB1

Holding people indefinitely without due process is a violation of the entire Anglo-American legal tradition since the Magna Carta (14th century).

Period.

And as a Constitutional lawyer, Obama should know this and say so fearlessly, without being intimidated by the right-wing scaredy cats and/or warmongers.

I did not vote for abject, groveling "compromise" with evil.

[ChiciB1]

119. Well Said... AND THANK YOU For Joining Those Of Us Who Feel This Way... n/t

[Mythsaje]

138. Go back two years and look at DU journals...

You don't HAVE to wonder.

[gorfle]

50. It is simple, in my opinion.

We cannot set a policy whereby our government puts people in prison FOR WHAT THEY MIGHT DO.

Either they have committed crimes, and can be prosecuted like any criminal by due process, or they haven't.

These "special" methods for dealing with "enemy combatants" should be reserved for ONLY times where Congress has issued a declaration of war. No declaration of war, everyone goes through the standard justice system.

[Raineyb]

95. Exactly!

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for some. Unless it's personality rather than substance that's motivating them.

[bvar22]

107. Help me out here.

Please direct me to the part of The Constitution that describes the different classes of prisoners you (and Obama) are talking about.
I seem to have missed that part.

Or has The Constitution become just another quaint document like the Geneva Conventions.

I am not surprised that Obama has chosen to defend the Imperial Presidency.
I AM surprised that anyone on DU would support it.

Clue: The Unitary Executive is an extreme Right Wing concept.

[Mari333]

10. hurray for Rachel

for choosing the Constitution over a political party.

heres a good definition for the uninformed and why its a dangerous precedent to set (indefinite incarceration with no crime having been committed)

(1) What does "preventive detention" allow?

It's important to be clear about what "preventive detention" authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans"). That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants."

Once known, the details of the proposal could -- and likely will -- make this even more extreme by extending the "preventive detention" power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a "combatant." After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based -- namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain "dangerous" people even when they can't prove they violated any laws -- there's no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly "dangerous" combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.




http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/index.html

setting this kind of precedent means that the US govt, if it wanted to, could hold anyone they wanted, you or me, for as long as they want, if they 'think' we want to commit a crime.
its bullshit and Obama is just appeasing the rabid neofascist right.

[JamesA1102]

13. Wow what a total misrepresentation of what the President said

Amazing wow people can pass judgement on a policy that has been written or implemented yet.

[Mari333]

16. the fact that its even considered is reprehensible

again , my donations will go to the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU.

[JamesA1102]

18. How consevative of you...

passing judgement on a policy that hasn't been formed yet and might never be implemented.

[Mari333]

42. Im not the one playing Bush lite here. nt

[JamesA1102]

45. Yes you are!

When you condemn something blindly, that is exactly like Bush.

[Mari333]

47. no, when you hold people for crimes they didnt commit for

and indefinite period of time that is like Bush.

[JamesA1102]

58. But your condemning the President for something he hasn't done yet

either and something that he might not do. So you're guilty of doing what you're denouncing.

[Mari333]

64. I am criticizing what he said

just as Rachel Maddow is doing. Thats called patriotism. I critique all politicians. Thats what a good citizen does.

[JamesA1102]

67. And I'm criticizing what you said.

Condemning a policy that is not formed yet and may never be implemented is wrong. Not only is it closeminded and judgemental it is hypocritical since you are doing exactly what you accuse the president of doing. A good citizen doesn't jump to conclusions without all the facts so they can beat their chest in self-rightous indignation, that's what people like Rush and Hannity do. A good citizen keeps an open mind and patiently weighs all the information before passing judgement.

And just because Rachel Maddow does it doesn't make it right either. Ms. Maddow has had it in for the President since day one. Which is probably why her ratings are tanking.

[Mari333]

77. so we should all just shut up about Obama's speech

and not critique it. I see. so how will he know we disagree with it. will he read our mind? will some magic fairy tell him?
you are making not a whit of sense.
click.

[JamesA1102]

80. Critique it, all if it fairly and not

cherry pick one passage, distort it and then condemn it. And not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[EFerrari]

118. What you are calling cherrypicking is in fact getting to the heart of

the matter. That's not cherrypicking, it's the opposite of cherrypicking.

[JamesA1102]

125. Bull

That is just obfuscation. You're beginning to sound like Cheney call torture enhanced interrogation.

[EFerrari]

127. Nope. Apparently you missed school the day they taught

your class how to identify the main idea in any text.

[JamesA1102]

130. That's the problem it was not the main idea

And it is just a distortion and cherrypicking to say that it is.

[EFerrari]

132. LOL.

[ChiciB1]

88. IF He Hasn't DONE It Yet... Then Why Even "Talk" About It As An Issue???

Does it mean HE WON'T be implementing this? Which fact seems more plausible?? And I hardly think this is a CONSERVATIVE position, I'm a LIBERAL and agree with the OP! The ACLU isn't CONSERVATIVE either, it's about FAIRNESS, and THEY have represented people of EVERY STRIPE!!

[JamesA1102]

128. Well if it is about Fairness and not

demagoguery then shouldn't we wait until the policy is formed before passing judgement on it. And shouldn't we also note that the President said 'when and if' so there is a possibility that no GitMo detainees even fall into that category making this all a mute point in the first place.

[ChiciB1]

91. No NEED To Say Anything IF You Aren't Going To Implement...

Again, he DIDN'T have to SAY anything, and that he DID say it MUST mean some sort of intent! You DON'T just say things and then expect people not to believe you. Or perhaps we've come to a point in this country where what a POTUS says is inconsequential!

But then again, I WILL have to admit... he has said many things that I voted for and has since changed his mind about. Yeah, you have a point, he said it... but perhaps he doesn't REALLY mean it! I UNDERSTAND now!

[JamesA1102]

129. You distort as good as Rush

All I'm saying is that we should wait until the policy is formed before passing judgement on it.

[ChiciB1]

133. And ALL I'm Saying Is I'm SICK Of Waiting!! I Don't Give A Flying Whatis Who

it is!!! Do tell, what ARE you waiting for and WHY do you keep calling people out who di agree with your position as some kind of "whack job?"

THIS I AM NOT!!!!

[JamesA1102]

135. You're tired of waiting for something he hasn't done yet?

And something that he may not do?

What I'm waiting for is people to at least wait until all the information is in until passing judgement.

And I never called you or anyone else a whack job. People will just have to assess the logic & intelligence of your arguements and decide for themselves.

[glitch]

92. Agreed. And the National Lawyers Guild. nt

[EFerrari]

23. You need to start a list of all the human rights orgs and all the legal scholarrs

that agree with Rachel. And then, you need to either go read or go listen to that speech again.

The time to object to such a plan is before it is implemented and victimizes people, not after.

[JamesA1102]

33. You need to wait until the policy is formed

before passing judgement on it. That is the time to object to it not before.

[EFerrari]

34. Wrong. The idea was presented and it's unacceptable to

a society that pretends to live under the rule of law.

[JamesA1102]

46. Cons love to condemn ideas without

even trying to understand them.

[EFerrari]

53. That's immaterial to this discussion, just as your trying to smear

respondents with the OT claim of conservatism.

[JamesA1102]

57. Not of conservatiism

But acting like conservative by blindly passing judgement before all the facts are in.

[EFerrari]

115. Smeaing someone by calling them a conservative is not an argument. n/t

[glitch]

84. President Obama began the discussion by presenting the idea.

Waiting for a bad idea's implementation to "pass judgement" on it is ludicrous.

The fact that the idea involves the lives of people who continue to be imprisoned illegally and have never been proven guilty of any crimes for which they are supposedly imprisoned makes the idea itself, let alone its implementation, indefensible.

[JamesA1102]

124. Why don't you a least wait until the policy is fully formed

before denouncing it. That's what an open minded person would do.

[glitch]

136. The act it supports is indefensible no matter how the policy is designed to implement it.

A policy designed with "our values" to LEGALLY support the illegal evisceration of Habeas Corpus done by Bush/Cheney. Think about that.

[JamesA1102]

137. The policy is not formed yet so your judgement on it is

premature. You're jumping to a conclusion based on no facts.

[SandWalker1984]

105. Never wait until the concrete sets to make changes......

You can't fix a problem once it becomes set in concrete, so now IS the time to voice our objections to the preventative detention idea being floated by Obama. The White House is obviously running up a trial balloon to see if we react to it.

If the Republicans had been much more vocal about the actions of Bush & Cheney, how much of their madness could have been prevented?

I agree with Rachel on this one.

[JamesA1102]

126. False analogy

Government laws and policies are not set in concrete and are changed all the time. And Rachel grossly distorted what the President said as well as ignoring that before any policy is implemented Congress will have to vote on it.

[gorfle]

51. Exactly right, Mari n/t.

.

[TankLV]

61. Yep. Everytime.

Obama is WRONG on this one...BIGTIME!

[Mermaid7]

120. 'Preventive Detention' sounds very similar to...

Preemptive Strike,

as in 'Shock n Awe'.

Anyone 'awed' anymore?

[jgraz]

11. OK, who else read this as "Rachel Maddow *in* Indefinite Detention"?

And who else believed it for just a teeny tiny fraction of a second?

[NYC_SKP]

14. raises hand just a little...

:hide:

[mrs_p]

15. me

[Berry Cool]

55. Me too...

MSNBC: "You're in detention, young lady! Report to the library this Saturday morning at eight, and don't expect to come back until we TELL you you can come back!"

Rachel: "But...but why??"

MSNBC: "We saw you laughing at that note Olbermann passed to you with the dirty cartoon of Joe Scarborough on it."

Rachel: "But--but--I didn't draw it! Keith drew it! I can't help it if he passed it to me! I didn't even know what it was! I thought it was just a wadded-up ball of paper like he always throws at the end of his show!"

MSNBC: "Sure you did. Now take this slip home and have your parents sign it. And don't forget, eight o' clock sharp. Olbermann will be there too. Now, where's that damn David Shuster? We think he wrote 'For a good time call Norah' on a stall in the Boys' Room."

[Radical Activist]

104. I thought something happened to her show.

It will happen eventually. MSNBC will betray us like like they did with Donahue. It's only a matter of time.

[JitterbugPerfume]

17. These people seriously want to harm us

Rachel did not give any insight as to how to deal with them.

Sometimes I find her way to self righteous.

[lamp_shade]

21. Sometimes, yes.

[EFerrari]

24. What people are you talking about and how do you know?

ACLU, Amnesty International, Center for Constitutional Studies, Turley, Greenwald and John Meacham all agree with her. In fact, I haven't heard anyone in the field who doesn't agree with her yet.

[JitterbugPerfume]

48. It is not an easy problem

and the solution wont be easy .

I respect all of those organizations , ACLU just got a donation from me a couple of days ago.

There are people who wish us harm after the Bush years with their torture and hatred and how our Government deals with it is crucial .

They (Bush) created this mess and there is no good way to deal with it. Some of those prisoners are to broken to fix , and that is more than a pity , it is a crime. Rumsfeld , Cheney and their ilk should pay.

[EFerrari]

54. I'm not claiming it's easy but look at what the standard has become.

There have always been people who wish us harm. We live on Earth.

The difference is that now our government is telling us that it's reasonable to imprison people for their wishes. What is that, exactly? When did we sink so low?

[JitterbugPerfume]

56. I don't know how we have sunk so low

all I mean to say is that torture breaks peoples body, spirit and mind and now we must deal with it. Truthfully it breaks my heart and I don't have any answers. They need a lot of rehabilitation and I do not know if it can even be done. Maybe some of them will require care for the rest of their life.

that is all

[ChiciB1]

94. AND, Who Will Be Holding Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & All The Rest

accountable?? Now, that's something I'll believe when I SEE it!!!

Yes, THEY ARE the real criminals... so WHY appease them??? Why let THEM skate???

[ChiciB1]

93. You Can Add David Isakoff To The List Too! I Heard Him Say That He

thinks Obama is wrong on this one too! No, I can't find a link, I'm, "techie" challenged but I KNOW I heard it... maybe on the ED show, not sure!

And I may have spelled his name wrong too! But that's "minor" considering the consequences of this issue!

I'll Google the spelling, but that's just for my satisfaction.

[EFerrari]

116. Thanks, I'll see if I can find his comments.

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Rachel is not the president and isn't even an elected official

It is not her job to come up with ideas for dealing with the Gittmo detainees.

[waiting for hope]

66. And as a pundit on a cable news show ...

"Rachel did not give any insight as to how to deal with them." ...... WTF? Is that her job? The last time I looked she doesn't hold any elected office, nor is she in law enforcement. She's commenting (which all "news" people do these days, rarely is the news reported straight) on a statement Obama made - many are criticizing him:

US: Drop Plan for Detention Without Trial

CCR Guantánamo Attorneys Comment After President’s Speech

ANALYSIS: Obama’s plan breaks with US legal tradition


And as to her being "self righteous" ... really, if holding our elected officials feet to the fire in order to do the right thing is self righteous, then in using Obama's words:

To make a point about how Americans can disagree with their government without being unpatriotic, the senator quoted Mark Twain, who famously said, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

When laws or leaders in government fail to live up to the ideals of America, Obama said, the dissent of ordinary Americans "may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism."

Barack Obama: I will never question others' patriotism

I would call Rachel a patriot.

[ChiciB1]

97. Amazing How We ALWAYS Agree "waiting for hope." You're So Much Better

than I regarding research and actual quotes and information. THANK YOU!

:hi: :hug:

[waiting for hope]

122. You are quite welcome ChiciB1 ..

:hug:

[tan guera]

74. if you're worried about someone harming you

I would suggest you stay off the highways, especially this weekend, on New Year's Eve and on Fridays. Oh heck, just stay off the roads, cuz you might get killed by someone.

Is someone one here thinking they're immortal?

[bvar22]

108. "Wanting to harm us"...

is NOT against any law....yet.

If I were put in jail for every time I "wanted" to harm someone, I'd never see daylight.
How many times have you "wanted to harm someone".

It happens to me everyday on DU.
This place has become infested with "Centrists" who actually like the idea of an authoritarian Executive...as long as it is their guy.

[gorfle]

109. Precisely

This place has become infested with "Centrists" who actually like the idea of an authoritarian Executive...as long as it is their guy.

And the problem here, of course, is once you give these powers to your government what will you do when it is no longer your guy in power?

[geek tragedy]

20. Declarations of war are IRRELEVANT to the ability

to detain armed combatants.

I don't know where people are getting the weirdo idea that you can't have POW's in civil wars or in fights like the Korean or Vietnam wars.

[jgraz]

25. False choice. A declaration of war is extremely helpful in determining POW status

The fact that you can have POWs without a formal declaration of war does not render it irrelevant.

In this case, we are talking about preventative detention of people that do not, in any way, fit the criteria for POWs under Part I, Article 4 of the Geneva Convention.

[Badgerman]

30. Completely bass-ackwards, the facts re....

Firstly you mix armed combatants, a coined term to apply to this issue, with prisoners of war. I'll come back to this.

Secondly, the Korean and Vietnam wars, even the invasion of Grenada(remember that little highlight)were acknowledged by all parties to fall under the Geneva treaty and other parallel treaties and agreements dealing with human rights and treatment of prisoners. As for civil wars here there is a complete lack of understanding about the nature of such things. Civil war is an internecine fight, it is generally accepted that the rules of the pre-existing government are the source of dealing with prisoners, granted that flips and flops depending on the viewers take on who the 'good' guys are. But no matter which side is considered the 'good', the world acknowledges the 'good' guys laws rule the day. Exceptions of course are in the cases of 'cleansing' and genocide.

Now back to the first issue as promised. There is no clear accepted legal definition of 'armed combatant' that would make it a unique category. As I said it is a coined phrase of convenience to avoid the term criminal or prisoner of war. Why was that done? To negate the jurisdictions of both civil law and international treaties such as the Geneva Convention.

Your declaration of claiming that someone is claiming you 'can't have POW's' is therefor completely and unarguably wrong: it is a poorly stuffed 'Straw man' at best, and a 'Red Herring' at the least.

The argument that the prisoners are POWs hinges on their being an acceptance that a war exists. The world, nor we to my knowledge ever declared that organized unaligned groups seeking any nations destruction, and not having any recognizable base at a physical location is the problem that is the fundamental stumbling block in this. The closest thing would be a Jame's Bond thing, a 'CHAOS' like creature that even in the fiction books are called criminal organizations. The truth is, history does not make room or acknowledge 'wars' other than those between sovereign powers. Even the American Indian wars were against the various tribes who were known as 'nations'. Geronimo was treated as a criminal when he left the reservation and headed home to fight. Why a criminal? Because although an Apache, he was not the tribes acknowledged leader. Bin Laden is a Saudi, but at least publicly is not acknowledged as speaking for Saudi Arabia...he is a criminal. The Iraqi's and the Afghani's on the other hand when captured were acting for a recognized ruler of their country, remember the taliban with Omar was in charge, we went to war with Afghan, therefor all Afghanis captured are POW's and automatically covered by all treaties etc. ONLY al Qaida members are not covered by those treaties and agreements because they are criminals, they represented no sovereign nation, and they broke the laws of several countries within the confines of those countries; hence, the bombers of Madrid are subject to the laws of Spain, the bombers of Britain the laws of Britain, and of course, the hijackers and all leaders and co-conspirators are subject to the laws of the USA.

Why can the military then be used to fight and capture those who are criminals? Because there are no constitutional restraints against there use outside our nations boundaries, they cannot except by presidential declaration of martial law, be used within our boundaries...remember even Lincoln followed this. But having the military capture a criminal, does not put that person under the jurisdiction of the military justice system, Geronimo was brought back for trial.

I hope that helps in some way to clarify the muddled waters of Swamp Cheney.

[gorfle]

52. I'm saying the way it SHOULD BE.

Declarations of war are IRRELEVANT to the ability to detain armed combatants.

I don't know where people are getting the weirdo idea that you can't have POW's in civil wars or in fights like the Korean or Vietnam wars.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the current travesty of justice that currently prevails.

What I'm saying is that it should not be that way.

The government has figured out how to enjoy all the power grabs permitted in times of war WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO DECLARE WAR.

This is very convenient for the government, eh? How nice.

[Mythsaje]

26. Now, let's see if I get this straight.

They haven't done anything wrong. But they might, particularly after being detained, tortured, and pissed off beyond all reason.

So, we're going to hold them as long as we feel they might pose a danger in the future, which could, conceivably, be for the rest of their lives.

And people--alleged "liberals" and/or "progressives" are okay with that? Huh.

Hell of a pickle, eh?

If they're not actually guilty of anything, maybe we should just bring them here, help them find a job, and keep them on a permanent watch list. Assign an agent to be their permanent watch dog. Yes, I know that's a radical solution, but it could also go a long way toward making up for what's been done to them.

Indefinite detention is certainly easier. But it's hard to argue that it's more just.

[EFerrari]

28. If it was decided these people should be drawn and quartered

and their limbs scattered to the four winds just in case, I half expect some people would be fine with it.

:wtf:

[Mythsaje]

40. By "some people" I presume you're not just talking about Republicans...

THEY, obviously, would have no problem with it.

[neverforget]

114. I actually had a conversation with a right winger who was okay with

shooting the prisoners in the back of the head because they were "guilty". Of what she didn't know, just that they had been caught by our military and therefore that equaled guilt. Unbelievable.

[Senator]

27. We Should Call This What It Really Is -- Paranoid Detention

The other labels concede the lie that this is "about them" (and their "threat"), rather than the truth that it is about us (and our fear).

Obama has adopted the core bushcheney/beltway paranoia -- about how to treat "evildoers" on both sides of the permanent "war on terra."

---

[kentuck]

32. or "Reality".

We don't know if they are dangerous or not? They were left by George W Bush and Dick Cheney. They could be innocents picked up off the street? We don't know?

But there needs to be some type of honest jury to decide. That is the way our system works. If they are innocent, we have no reason, legally or otherwise, to keep them. Pay their way back home - with reparations. That would seem like the fair way to do it to me.

[Senator]

43. A little reality -- at long last -- would be nice.

But beyond the certainly-true specific realities you cite, what Obama and the rest of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy needs is a large dose of psychological and historical reality.

We'd dealt fairly successfully with global terrorism long before cheney scurried into his bunker to obsess over every 1% threat he could imagine. One and a half successes by terrorists in multiple decades is hardly cause for permanent national alarm.

What the paranoid detention suggestion (and all his other waronterra actions) betrays is that it was too audacious a hope to think that Obama was not the creature of the beltway that he has appeared to be all along -- that somehow taking the oath would transform him into a voice of reason, as opposed to a voice of continued fear-based rationalization.

The notion that our founding principles, our Constitution, and the treaty promises our greater generations made have suddenly become "quaint" and have now failed us -- that we must create "special purpose entities" rather than abide by their collective wisdom and experience -- is the core "non-reality" that will continue to eat like an acid through our social fabric.

---

[TankLV]

62. THEN HAVE A FUCING TRIAL ALREADY OR RELEAS THEM ALL!!!

WE fought a REVOLUTION over THIS BASIC CONCEPT!

A President is not a KING or DICTATOR!

START THE FUCKING CIVILIAN TRIALS ALREADY!

If they don't have "the goods" on these PRESUMED INNOCENT persons, THEY SHOULD GO FREE!!!

NO IF ANDS OR BUTS...

[Mermaid7]

121. Paranoind Detention-perfect name! NM

[leftofthedial]

44. But he has a cute dog!

And his wife's arms are just amazing.

Besides, his policy is NOT identical to bush's. It's, umm, err, worse.

[quaker bill]

65. Rule of law

should come first. Evidence for both sides should be fully declassified. If the intelligence gained from these guys seven years ago was worth classifying, then it was worth acting on, seven years ago. If it was not worth acting on promptly, then it can and should be declassified. Civil trials should be pressed in every case worthy of such. Declassifying the "interviews" should include a full disclosure of all the "enhanced techniques" used, with the details presented to juries and made available to the press, all of it, to include the photos and videos.

It should be appaling, the more appaling the better. The truth may not be pretty, but it is the truth and we should deal with it fully and publicly.

That being said, what if Bush, Cheney and their minions have so clouded a case with their own criminal acts that a conviction which should fairly be obtained cannot be had? This outcome is certainly possible, perhaps even probable in at least a few cases.

Say you have someone who fully intends to kill as many of us as he can manage, and admits so freely. However, all the evidence of his past acts and plans is tainted by 4th ammendment violations such as torture. Do you just cut him loose? Are you prepared to take political responsibility for his future actions? Are you prepared to hand the Whitehouse, Senate, and House back to conservatives just because some violent dweeb we cannot convict (becaue of Bush and Cheney) straps on a bomb and goes to a mall?

Should the change we need on a thousand fronts fail politically because Bush and Cheney totally screwed up the cases against a few very angry men?

I think not. There has to be some rational, rule of law based approach, with judicial review and checks and balances, that avoids this consequence.

[jeanpalmer]

70. Let the prosecutors bring the cases

If they get thrown out because of torture, who will get blamed? I think it will fall back on Cheney and Bush. That's the preferred outcome. That's where the blame belongs.

Obama's approach only muddies the water. It puts the focus on him for not upholding the rule of law, just the kind of political outcome that works to the benefit of Republicans. Takes the monkey off their backs.

Without trials and disclosure of the facts, we'll never find out the facts of these cases. We'll never know whether theses prisoners are being held for criminal acts or for political reasons. I trust the law, no matter the outcome, as opposed to trusting any politician with the concept of indefinite detention.

[quaker bill]

79. you break it, you own it

If shutting down GITMO has the result of cutting loose someone who takes out a crowd at a mall, Bush and Cheney will not get the blame. Sure, some folks on this site will hold them accountable, but it will not be the mass sentiment. Politically, this would be vastly more powerful than anything "Willie Horton" had to offer, and I have no doubt the Republicans would use it in every race, just like they did 9/11, in 2002 and 2004. History shows that the public will readily buy this sort of stuff.

I strongly support prosecutions for anyone they do not intend to release. My guess is that we can convict at trial most of those who require long term incarceration, given all the evidence is declassified. However, I expect that there may be some where Bush and Cheney have so muddied the water, that the admissable evidence in a typical trial could be sparse. It might be a better approach to admit all the evidence, with testimony as to how it was obtained, and let a jury decide its credibility. This could undo some of the Bush / Cheney damage to the justice system.

However there could be some folks where there is more than reasonable proof that they would attack given the opportunity, some evidence that they have at least made an attempt, but insufficient admissable evidence of past crime to convict. To the extent possible, these folks should be repatriated to their home country, but failing this, long term detention while pending deportation, could be appropriate. This should not be at the President's sole discretion (as under Bush) but subject to judicial review with some sort of jury panel.

One very important aspect of our notion of "rule of law" is to place all the facts in front of the people, and then let them decide. We have a long way to go to get to this place.

[mmonk]

68. I hear his version is different like apples to oranges or so I hear

in GDP.

[Greyhound]

69. In the words of Mike Gravel,"You people scare the hell out of me".

I simply cannot believe that I'm reading supposedly intelligent, rational Americans trying to justify this abomination.

Did I wake up in some kind of Bizarro-World alternate reality? A former Constitutional scholar and nominally Democratic President is defending this?!?

I suppose that qualifies as change...:crazy:

[glitch]

85. I feel your pain.

Fear brings out the fascist in just about everyone. (that's why they use it)

[Greyhound]

123. And turns their minds off as well.

This will end badly, possibly so badly we will never recover.

There was a Nobel Peace Prize winner on Real Time last Friday that pointed out how this (any) crisis is an opportunity for significant change, and he and Congress are wasting it.

Damn, I just need to get enough $$ together to get the hell out, we are being herded over a cliff.

[quiet.american]

71. I'm sorry, but I truly think Rachel has this wrong.

Too emotional.

She needs to re-read and listen to what Obama said. There is a true opening in his words for all detainees to actually be released in the end. It's amazing that so many Ph.D.s are getting this wrong.

To hear Rachel tell it, Obama is creating a "legal regime outside of the traditional rule of law."

What he said:

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.

"Sly"? "Sneaky"?

No.

[tan guera]

75. Excuse me

Where is that opening for all to go free? Not in the above quote! It's very sly, sneaky and smooth. Obama has a way of speaking so that people believe what they WANT to believe; not necessarily what he said.

[skepticscott]

82. You are exactly right

The bottom line, hidden beneath a lot of flowery rhetoric, is that Obama is still advocating the imprisonment of certain people, even American citizens, without charge or trial, not because they have committed a crime, but because someone, or some group, somewhere, thinks they MIGHT conceivably commit a crime at some undefined time in the foreseeable future.

Instead of the usual presumption of innocence (even after being charged), such people would be subjected to a presumption of being guilty of some offense that has not yet been committed, and may never be committed. How exactly does someone defend themselves against that, no matter how much "oversight" is built into the process? How does someone prove that they wouldn't commit a crime in the future?

[mmonk]

83. Count me among the wrong and emotional. I guess it's been a lifelong trait.

Must be my genes.

[glitch]

90. Read your own bold. He wants to construct a legal framework for prolonged detention without trial

It's actually worse than she claimed IMO. He states he wants to construct a legal framework for a fundamentally illegal act.

Stating an intention to make detention without trial legal if it's done by the government should alarm anyone. It is neither necessary nor desireable to wait and see how that extremely wrong idea is implemented before raising alarms.

[skepticscott]

102. That's what too many people aren't seeing here

Reminds me of that line from The Phantom Menace:

Viceroy (in horrible faux Japanese accent): My Lord....is that legal?

Darth Sidious/Palpatine: I will make it legal...

[gorfle]

111. Sly, Sneaky, yes.

What President Obama is doing is proposing a new system of justice outside of our existing judicial system.

We ALREADY HAVE a "legitimate legal framework" for criminals. Use it.

Oh, but we can't. Why can't we? Because our existing legitimate legal framework doesn't allow for self-incriminating or coerced evidence like that obtained from, oh, say, TORTURE. Can't have that come fully to light now, can we? I mean heaven forbid any of these detainees end up in front of a public-record court of law and we find out that waterboarding was the tickle-me-elmo treatment of "enhanced interrogation" techniques used.

There is only one reason why Bush and now President Obama want a new, separate legal system to deal with these detainees. And that is so the details, such as the evidence and how it was obtained, can be kept secret.

"If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war..."

The United States has no business holding ANYONE indefinitely without an open and public trial for acts ALREADY COMMITTED. The United States has no business holding ANYONE indefinitely because of what they might do.

If the United States is at war, with the backing of a formal declaration of war from Congress, and you detect enemies who your intelligence leads you believe are the enemy and are engaged in the active planning and execution of acts of war, then kill or capture them and treat them as enemy combatants.

Otherwise, you've got two choices. Use your traditional legal system to prosecute people who have committed criminal acts, or open the door for an indefinitely-long state of war that the government can use at any time to indefinitely incarcerate anyone it pleases.

[ima_sinnic]

134. bingo!--in other words, it's just another way to cover up for Bushco's crimes

on the backs of people who have suffered unimaginably.

your post made clear to me what I hadn't perceived so clearly before--deep down I know this is sooo WRONG and so unnecessary on every level, but now I believe you have provided the true motivation.
It has nothing to do with "national security" or "people who are dangerous but without evidence that they are dangerous." He knows that their testimony would so enrage and shock the populace that the mobs would be out in force for the monsters of torture, and poor widdle Obama would be FORCED to actually see to it that he upholds his fucking DUTY of protecting the Constitutiion "from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC."

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Obama is now one of those enemies as long as he persists in this abominable idea and continues covering up for the traitors who should be hung from the gallows in the public square ***ASAP***

Thanks a lot for the "change." I REALLY wish I had voted for Nader this time. At least my conscience would be clear. I could be like those people who drove around in Massachusetts in 1969 with bumper stickers saying, Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Humphrey.

Next time, mine will say, Don't Blame Me, I Didn't Vote.

[EFerrari]

117. No, she's not wrong. We have a legal system. Now Obama needs to use it,

he doesn't need to create a new ad hoc legal framework. The one we have works fine.

[quiet.american]

139. Unfortunately, none of the replies to my post were convincing.

Like Paul Krugman who was drowning in self-professed despair just a few weeks ago, but is now starting to admit that maybe Pres. Obama knows what he's doing and the world is not at a financial end, what I see a lot of times from our own progressive/liberal side is that the immediate criticism comes from a place that doesn't factor in the politics of getting the thing done.

It's quite obvious that a real possibility exists within the president's words that prolonged detention will not be a viable option.

Yes, I could point it out, but even then, I doubt it would do much good. The real issue here is that many of us still don't trust Obama. And there's no talking anyone out of that.

And yes, you can go ahead with all the "so do you blindly believe everything he says; you're no better than a Freeper" comments.

The answer is no. In fact, until the field narrowed down to Clinton and Obama, he was not my first choice in the primaries; but he has earned my respect and trust.

And I still think Rachel's wrong on this one. (Yes, it's possible!)

[Syntheto]

76. It's not about Bush or Obama...

...It's about realpolitik as practiced by the American (and every other) government. Quick, name some viable country that doesn't have a form of secret police, special forces, or intelligence organization, and that's been around awhile.

There is not now, there has never been, nor will there ever be any such entity that has complete transparency, not New Zealand, not Tobago, not even Luxembourg.

This shtick about GWB being the antichrist who destroyed America's reputation is silly. When I was in the Navy and we visited Brest, France for the Bicentennial in 1976, the older folks who remembered D-Day were great, friendly and made us very welcome. The younger generation, people our own age, spit on us, because of the French government accepting kickbacks from Lockheed. At the same time, in the Gulf, we were told not to wear our uniforms ashore, as it offended the Muslim inhabitants, especially the Saudis. Not 2006, not 1996, not 1986, but ten years before that.

So,people of a certain age should know better when this stuff keeps getting trotted out. GWB will be as irrelevant as LBJ is now in a few years, so let's move on to the present set of circumstances. Last time I checked BHO was the President. The decisions made now are his responsibility, and will become part of his legacy.

[Hubert Flottz]

78. The Terra-ists have won...

They were able to turn the USA into a dictatorship with an sElected dictator.

Edit...they(The Terra-ists) provided more "CHANGE than the GOP...and it was all bad just like the changes the GOP brought about. I expected some changes for the good after the last election...it's what I voted for.

[thread-bear]

81. We need to return to the rule of law

Anyone who has studied history,knows anything about human nature,or realizes how unique and precious our constitution is can only be dismayed at the way this country is shredding it's protections. Obama will be here for the rest of his term. However,he has been getting some unbelievably bad advice. Those people need to be exposed for what they are. All of us are influenced by the people with whom we interact. The Belt-way is it's own little world. We need to campaign to remove these corrupt individuals from his advisers. In the end,tho,it is his responsibility. I understand people wanting to excuse his decisions. It is our responsibility,as much as his,to help him to be the leader this country desperately needs. The founding fathers risked their lives much more than any of us ever will to give future generations the freedoms we have today. A hundred years from now will your ancestors say the same about you.

[ChiciB1]

89. THANK YOU Gorfle For Your Post... You Have Another Vote From Me!!! n/t

[lovuian]

96. Obama talks a good game

but his ACTIONS says volumes

He is a Corporation man

He is got to get his act together

[Anderson.JeffreyB]

98. unfortunately Congress did declare war...on Aug 13, 1990

They also never declared an end to that war. So, for the purposes of my disability claim, I am a gulf war Veteran; Even though I deployed to Iraq in 2007. That said, I believe ANYONE in the custody of the US is eligible for protection under the US Constitution.

[NYC_SKP]

99. Interesting. Thank you for your service, JeffreyB!

And welcome to DU!

:patriot:

[Anderson.JeffreyB]

103. Thank you and your welcome

[EFerrari]

113. Welcome to DU!

:)

[MasonJar]

106. The USA should never detain anyone without due process. If the

former administration tortured the prisoners, then that evidence is inadmissable and perhaps even false. We know for sure some will admit to anything to stop being tortured. I would. Wouldn't you? We must try them asap on the evidence we have. If it is insufficient, we send them back to their native land free men. Even if they were not terrorists to begin with, they may become terrorists after how the USA has treated them. The Bushista created a lot of terrorists with its policy, many more than we have at Guantanamo. The only way to begin to reverse the stigma of Bush/Cheney/cabal's action is to treat these men with the respect of the law. We might send one terrorist out and save creating 100. It is the price we have to pay to return our country to a land of laws, a republic with a benevolent, yet strong, sensible Constitution. Any other avenue opens us up for a hideous future, one much more frightening than another possible terrorist attack. Rmember the famous saying about "I wasn't a_______, and so when they came for the _______, I said nothing." It ends with them coming for you.

[upi402]

110. Obama is worse than Bush on this

I like Johnathan Turley - he seems brilliant. Res ipsa loquitur.

[HughMoran]

140. Do you think Obama would have instituted this type of detention in the first place?

What do you mean by "worse"?