Stein said:

I'm just wondering if any super Obama supporters feel a little bit deceived?

---

THC Titan said:

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.

---

lonestar2004 said:

but Obama ran against this shit!!

trust me its more offensive....

---

THC Titan said:

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".

---

THC Titan said:

Nonetheless, if you supported Bush's curtailment of peoples' rights

---

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"

---

johnm214 said:

They got to dispute whether they were combatents, that's it.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

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.

---

---

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.

---

johnm214 said:

Source for the constitution not applying to them?

---

Quote:

The constitution means what it says and does not limit itself to citizens.

---

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.

---

johnm214 said:

THC Titan said:

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.

---

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.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

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

---