|
 lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 20 days
|
 Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! 
#10577794 - 06/26/09 04:55 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
White House Drafts Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects
The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.
Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.
After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president's January deadline.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603361_3.html?hpid=topnews
indefinite detentions without trials???
So instead of detaining them 'indefinitely' OUTSIDE of the United States, Obama wants to 'indefinitely' detain them INSIDE the United States?
"By any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure. This legal black hole has substantially set back America's ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism, and undermined our most basic values." Barack Obama
is this really "Hope and CHANGE"?
--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"
We have "reckless fiscal policies"
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better
Barack Obama
|
 Stein
Stranger
Registered: 07/02/03
Posts: 35,129
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: lonestar2004]
#10577817 - 06/26/09 05:00 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm just wondering if any super Obama supporters feel a little bit deceived?
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: Stein]
#10577859 - 06/26/09 05:08 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Naw, the power of self delusion is endless.
They'll just claim its ok to support obama so long as they can convince themselves they would otherwise have had to support McCain and that he was worse.
Never mind all the other choices they had, they'll just claim mccain is worse and justify their support for this bullshit.
And seriously, we need a serious national debate on what "war" is. You are not a POW just cuz the government has declared "war" on some intangible noun that describes the accusations against you. Your a POW if you are actually participating in a war.
Haven't we learned from the UK and their bullshit terror laws some years ago that resulted in such injustice? Haven't we learned from the authroitarian states around the world?
Look at israel, they get their ass pounded by rockets and they still give you a hearing and such very quickly.
Charge terror suspects with crimes, give them a trial, that's it. IF they actually are combatents in a war then keep them as POW's or try them for war crimes. It is immoral to do what this article describes.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 20 days
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: Stein]
#10577879 - 06/26/09 05:11 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
they seemed to have no problem with their "Dear One" increasing the amount of American troops in the middle east!
i doubt this will concern them...
--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"
We have "reckless fiscal policies"
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better
Barack Obama
|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: Stein]
#10577987 - 06/26/09 05:31 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stein said:
I'm just wondering if any super Obama supporters feel a little bit deceived?
I'm just a regular Obama supporter but I'm still disappointed and disgusted by this move.
It's worth looking back to the Bush administration, when critics of Guantanamo Bay claimed that the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" was horribly unconstitutional and defied international human rights law. It was also predicted, back then, that setting such a precedent would make it easier for future administrations to maintain the same policies and even take them further than we had seen during the Bush era.
That's not to completely shift blame to the Bush administration, because the prediction has sadly become a reality. Nonetheless, if you supported Bush's curtailment of peoples' rights, Obama's similarly-constructed arguments should not be any more offensive. I, for one, think they're terrible.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 20 days
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: THC Titan]
#10578028 - 06/26/09 05:39 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said:
Quote:
Stein said:
I'm just wondering if any super Obama supporters feel a little bit deceived?
It's worth looking back to the Bush administration, when critics of Guantanamo Bay claimed that the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" was horribly unconstitutional and defied international human rights law.
if you supported Bush's curtailment of peoples' rights, Obama's similarly-constructed arguments should not be any more offensive.
but Obama ran against this shit!!
trust me its more offensive....
--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"
We have "reckless fiscal policies"
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better
Barack Obama
|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: lonestar2004]
#10578045 - 06/26/09 05:43 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
but Obama ran against this shit!!
trust me its more offensive....
And Bush ran for "compassionate conservatism".
You can plainly read from the article that Obama's awkward justification for this policy is derived from Bush's own claims about the rights (or lack thereof) of "enemy combatants".
|
Visionary Tools
Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: THC Titan]
#10578302 - 06/26/09 06:32 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I don't like Obama or the criminals behind this, but Bush was the one to push through indefinite detention without trial. This would make more sense if the title was "Obama continues indefinite detention without trial"
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: THC Titan]
#10579557 - 06/26/09 10:47 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said:
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
but Obama ran against this shit!!
trust me its more offensive....
And Bush ran for "compassionate conservatism".
You can plainly read from the article that Obama's awkward justification for this policy is derived from Bush's own claims about the rights (or lack thereof) of "enemy combatants".
Your excuses are disgusting.
Obama is responsible for his own actions and bush's actions are totally irrelevant. Why don't you blame Abraham Lincoln while your at it? It wasn't Bush's fault, he was just falling in line with Lincoln.
Give me a break. Other president's actions have nothing to do with the merits of this. This false relativism is what's fucking up this country.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: THC Titan]
#10579617 - 06/26/09 11:04 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said:
Nonetheless, if you supported Bush's curtailment of peoples' rights
you mean the rights that were curtailed in the manner that the
detainees got trials and sentences? the ones where they arent
being held indefinately... this is far worse than bush and the sad
part, Dear Leader Obama said this is the kind of thing that was
supposed to end
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: Visionary Tools]
#10579631 - 06/26/09 11:07 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Visionary Tools said:
I don't like Obama or the criminals behind this, but Bush was the one to push through indefinite detention without trial. This would make more sense if the title was "Obama continues indefinite detention without trial"
except that bush didnt push it, they got trials, unless you can
show us where bush managed all this infinite trial less detention
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10579651 - 06/26/09 11:11 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
What sentences?
What trials?
They got to dispute whether they were combatents, that's it. Couldn't get witnesses, couldn't know the evidence against them, couldn't cross examine the witnesses against them, couldn't have an attorney representing them, couldn't debate whether they were POW's or not, et cet.
Far from a trial.
If they allowed them to know the evidence against them and to put on a case that they were POW's then it might resemble a trial. As it is they started the proceedings with it allready decided that they weren't POW's- how is that not a curtailment of their rights?
In any case it seems pretty ridiculous for THC Titan to make qualitative comparisons given we don't know what hte order actually will say, so in that sense I agree with your criticisms. The article, as usual in these cases, sucks.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: johnm214]
#10579683 - 06/26/09 11:20 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
They got to dispute whether they were combatents, that's it.
I guess you dont realize how it works with the military,
firstly, they're not US citizens and the constitution doesnt
apply to them, they certainly got the same thing anyone else
would have gotten, it's been this way since the founding
of this nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal
Quote:
A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial.
A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authority, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.
All U.S. Presidents have contended that the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizen combatants.
|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: johnm214]
#10579758 - 06/26/09 11:36 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Obama is responsible for his own actions and bush's actions are totally irrelevant. Why don't you blame Abraham Lincoln while your at it? It wasn't Bush's fault, he was just falling in line with Lincoln.
I already said Obama was responsible for extending the unconstitutional power of indefinite detention, no argument there, but to call the actions of a President who was in office just last year as "irrelevant" is remarkably ignorant. This whole issue of Guantanamo Bay and detainee issues in the War on Terror started under George Bush. Just because Obama was sworn into office doesn't revert the country to a clean, pre-9/11 slate. The same issues and problems have to be confronted, and Obama has generally chosen to follow the path laid out by his predecessor.
I dunno if you were making the Lincoln comparison in seriousness, but Abraham Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, allowing him to detain Confederate soldiers without trial. If it sounds familiar, it should, because that's almost identical to what Bush did (although in slightly different circumstances). For historians and people who seek to learn from history, even Lincoln's decisions 150 years old are still relevant, in the sense that we can analyze them.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: THC Titan]
#10580145 - 06/27/09 01:43 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
They got to dispute whether they were combatents, that's it.
I guess you dont realize how it works with the military,
firstly, they're not US citizens and the constitution doesnt
apply to them, they certainly got the same thing anyone else
would have gotten, it's been this way since the founding
of this nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal
Quote:
A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial.
A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authority, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.
All U.S. Presidents have contended that the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizen combatants.
Source for the constitution not applying to them?
The constitution means what it says and does not limit itself to citizens. Perhaps your thinking of extraterritorial habeous jurisdiction- a far cry from the applicability of the constiutiton. The reason their is no habeas jurisdiction outside the US in most cases for non citizens is precisely because of the constitution.
In any case, I have no idea what that quote is supposed to bear on this issue. They were not given the opportunity to demonstrate they were POW's, and that is wrong.
Quote:
THC Titan said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Obama is responsible for his own actions and bush's actions are totally irrelevant. Why don't you blame Abraham Lincoln while your at it? It wasn't Bush's fault, he was just falling in line with Lincoln.
This whole issue of Guantanamo Bay and detainee issues in the War on Terror started under George Bush. Just because Obama was sworn into office doesn't revert the country to a clean, pre-9/11 slate. The same issues and problems have to be confronted, and Obama has generally chosen to follow the path laid out by his predecessor.
so what?
This does not at all minimize the moral and legal issues. It is his actions and he owns them. Bush's actions have nothing to do with the merits of his conduct.
I dunno if you were making the Lincoln comparison in seriousness, but Abraham Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, allowing him to detain Confederate soldiers without trial. If it sounds familiar, it should, because that's almost identical to what Bush did (although in slightly different circumstances). For historians and people who seek to learn from history, even Lincoln's decisions 150 years old are still relevant, in the sense that we can analyze them.
No kidding. Hence the ridiculousness of excusing or minimizing conduct of one president based on another's actions.
Obama is no less culpable or detestable for his actions because of Bush's, and Bush is no less detestable for his because of Lincoln.
Yours is a particularly poor brand of moral relativism that endeavors to minimize conduct of one man so long as another has wronged similarly. How folks can claim to dislike bush and his deeds and then minimize the conduct of obama because of that man's conduct is beyond me.
If we somehow reelected bush again and he did the exact same shit wold he suddenly be a much better president by virtue of his and obama's presidencies? How long would it take for Bush to be a great president without changing a thing?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: THC Titan]
#10580466 - 06/27/09 04:36 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> And Bush ran for "compassionate conservatism".
I hate to repeat myself, but:
Quote:
Bush is the scapegoat used by most Obama apologists when pressed about the crap that Obama has done. As long as people continue voting for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils, we the People will continue to be slaves of our government. It takes a very small number of third party votes to break the chains of the two party system.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: johnm214]
#10580690 - 06/27/09 07:47 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Source for the constitution not applying to them?
the constitution, duh
the fact that every president has held that the constitution did
not apply to enemy combatants, the fact that the US supreme
court has not ruled otherwise although they have ruled that US
citizens deemed as unlawful combatants are to be given a
hearing to challenging their detention
"The Constitution requires jurisdiction — the Constitution requires that an American citizen who has the protection of the Constitution have some manner of vindicating his rights under the Constitution." Scalia
Quote:
The constitution means what it says and does not limit itself to citizens.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Constitutional_law
Quote:
Specific provisions of the Constitution protect the rights of the individual from interference by the federal and state governments. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights, were enacted in 1791 to provide a check on the new federal government. See The Bill Of Rights: U.S. Const. amendments I - X. The first eight amendments provide protection of some of the most fundamental rights of the individual. For example, the First Amendment protects the fundamental civil rights of free speech, press and assembly. See First Amendment Rights. Subsequent amendments have also broadened the protection afforded the rights of the individual. The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal. See U.S. Const. amend. XIII. The fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from abridging "the rights and immunities" of any citizen without due process of law. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as affording i]citizens protection fr[om interference by the state with almost all of the rights listed in the first eight amendments. The exceptions are the right to bear arms in the second Amendment, the 5th Amendment guarantee of a grand jury in criminal prosecutions, and the right to a jury for a civil trial under the seventh Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the equal protection of the laws. See Equal Protection. The right to vote is protected by the 15th Amendment ("right to vote shall not be denied... on account of race."), the 19th Amendment (guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of sex), and the 24th Amendment (extending the right to vote to those who are 18 years of age). See U.S. Const. Amendments XV, XIX, and XXIV
Quote:
They were not given the opportunity to demonstrate they were POW's, and that is wrong.
the supreme court says differently, would it have been just as
wrong to kill them as opposed to taking them prisoner or would
that have been OK since they wouldnt be needing a hearing
|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: johnm214]
#10580955 - 06/27/09 09:21 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
THC Titan said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Obama is responsible for his own actions and bush's actions are totally irrelevant. Why don't you blame Abraham Lincoln while your at it? It wasn't Bush's fault, he was just falling in line with Lincoln.
This whole issue of Guantanamo Bay and detainee issues in the War on Terror started under George Bush. Just because Obama was sworn into office doesn't revert the country to a clean, pre-9/11 slate. The same issues and problems have to be confronted, and Obama has generally chosen to follow the path laid out by his predecessor.
so what?
This does not at all minimize the moral and legal issues. It is his actions and he owns them. Bush's actions have nothing to do with the merits of his conduct.
Yes, his actions do, because Bush's actions and legal formulations are being adapted by the Obama administration. There is a direct, continuous link between Bush and Obama's detainee policies. Although Obama is responsible for not breaking from the terrible policies of his predecessor, which he promised to do, my point is simply that Bush opened the door, so to speak, to future legal arguments in favor of keeping prisoners without trial. This slippery slope was predicted years ago.
Quote:
Yours is a particularly poor brand of moral relativism that endeavors to minimize conduct of one man so long as another has wronged similarly. How folks can claim to dislike bush and his deeds and then minimize the conduct of obama because of that man's conduct is beyond me.
What are you trying to argue? I already said Obama is wholly responsible for the decision to continue the detainee policies. I said his decision to continue Bush's policies is disgusting and terrible. I never said Obama is not culpable.
People who approved of Bush's detainee policies really have no room to criticize Obama (except for hypocrisy) because his policies are very similar in practice. It's the same tired argument that we have to sacrifice individual rights to ensure national security. Same argument, different president.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: THC Titan]
#10581415 - 06/27/09 12:28 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said:
my point is simply that Bush opened the door, so to speak, to future legal arguments in favor of keeping prisoners without trial. This slippery slope was predicted years ago.
your point is incorrect, as was pointed out it's the way it's been
done for more than 200 years, what trial were the german and
japanese americans given and they were in fact citizens
bush didnt build the door, he was just one of dozens of
presidents to step through it
|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: Obama to sign an executive order allowing indefinite detentions without a trial! [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10581722 - 06/27/09 01:52 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
THC Titan said:
my point is simply that Bush opened the door, so to speak, to future legal arguments in favor of keeping prisoners without trial. This slippery slope was predicted years ago.
your point is incorrect, as was pointed out it's the way it's been
done for more than 200 years, what trial were the german and
japanese americans given and they were in fact citizens
bush didnt build the door, he was just one of dozens of
presidents to step through it
The Japanese were held during WW2 for what, 3 years, maybe? A despicable action, it has been more than twice that length of time for some of the people in Guantanamo Bay who still have not been released.
Let's be serious, we're talking about the War on Terror, here. I never said Bush was the first and only President to wield unconstitutional powers or torture innocent people. The doctrine of prolonged imprisonment without trial, torture, keeping prisoners outside the jurisdiction of U.S. criminal courts, and refusing to charge or release them, was endorsed by Bush in the last eight years to deal with international terrorists. Obama is literally dealing with the same prisoners, wielding the same power of extra-judicial punishment, and likewise having his power unchecked by proper oversight. He's using the same legal and rhetorical arguments as his predecessor, George Bush.
Clearly, when critics of Bush said that continuous, unchecked power by the executive branch regarding indefinite detention would be hard to retract in future administrations, they were at least somewhat correct. We see it happening, here.
P.S. The Washington Post has revised their story to reflect that any executive order about detainees won't be drafted until at least July. So, Obama hasn't actually signed such an order. Yet.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
High THC Strains 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
Psilocybeingzz
HagbardCeline
Anonymous
1 2 3 all )
Autonomous
Clean
carbonhoots
Ellis Dee