Indefinite Detention
 

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some
I'm not liking this at all. No, I do not have a better plan, but incarcerating people without a trial or review goes contrary to everything that our judicial system is based on. Innocent until proven guilty, a fair trial and so on.
Bush according to many, broke the law by keeping these people at Gitmo for so long. Obama apparently wants to rewrite existing, or write new legislation so that this can be done "legally." Whaaat?

I can't get behind Obama on this one, but don't have a better solution. He inherited a mess, but he's keeping it going.

I dunno - Based upon what he said during the election, it would seem that he would be morally obligated to release those detainees who are not going to be tried. Politically and realistically he cannot. This seems like a very tight line to walk. I'm very surprised at this decision.

I see no other decision Obama can make without risking his image. As I said earlier, if a released Gitmo prisoner does commit a terrorist act on the United States, Obama is screwed.

Not to mention the fact that the potential terrorist could have initially been innocent.

So that same potentially innocent person is going to be incarcerated for...... ever???? That is on Obama, not Bush. I'm still amazed that the press isn't going crazy over this.

Media probably won't say anything. I'm sure their agenda sides with it.

From the moral standpoint, this is a situation where justice does and will not exist. Innocent lives were completely ruined and these prisoners will probably never be accepted back into mainstream society, which means they could follow paths that will lead to even more deaths. No punishment can undo what has been done even if the "guilty" are brought to justice. This also assumes the "guilty" (CIA or whoever) were guilty because I would not be surprised if they had bad information to begin with.

If a man of his conviction does something that appears contrary to his conviction then we should at least acknowledge the possibililty that he would prefer the burden of appearing to go back on his word rather than take the easy way out and explain his reasoning when so doing would make matters even worse.

Obama gets the benefit of the doubt from me on this one.

I agree with that but it seems that no one is going to take the risk of being wrong.

The fact that he is rewriting law to incarcerate "indefinitely" without a trial is troubling. This is potentially worse than the previous administrations decision.
He wants to close Gitmo, so he can abide by his pledge, but at what cost? What other implications of these "new laws" are there? This goes against the original principles of America justice. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it seems like a new legal precedent is being set.

uh i think the current thinking is military tribunals

...and?

And plus, you know, an, uh, act of terror gets commited. Which isn't usually, like, loosening the tops of salt shakers.

It's on Obama AND Bush. And if anyone is still incarcerated without trial under the next president, it will be on them as well.

huh?

Man, if I burn the house down, my wife is gonna be pissed. Oh, and also, the house thing.

Not anymore - This is his baby now. Rewriting the laws is 100% on Obama and the ramifications or benefits are also Obama's alone.

The ramifications and benefits of Obama's actions build on the ramifications and benefits of Bush's. Each are responsible for their own, and both are responsible for the sum. Obama will still be responsible for what he does after he hands the reins to the next president.

I stand by my previous post. As far as rewriting the laws and the rights violations that may ensue - thats all on Obama.

And as far as incarcerating them for years without trial while claiming that law was irrelevant and the rights violations that DID ensue, that's all on Bush. And the end result is on both of them.

Yes that would be correct. Seems to me that Obama is doing virtually the same thing, without the ridicule and outcry from those who did just that to Bush. Interesting indeed.

Hey, if I light a bobcat's tail on fire and throw 'im in your livin' room, and hand you a shovel and a shotgun, but ya ain't supposed ta hit 'im with it, ain't nobody but your momma gonna come cryin' when you throw a bucket of water on 'im and cook 'im for supper. /Dr. Phil

I actually saw a bobcat once! They are pretty big ya know!

And also WITH the ridicule and outcry of those who did just that to Bush. As mentioned pretty prominently in the originally posted article.

You mean this???
Where is the ridicule or outcry? Get real.

Oh God this is just getting more entertaining by the day.

Here's one:


And another:


The ACLU has a strongly worded rebuke and a less strongly worded (or at least less strongly headlined) one.

Russ Feingold says it's unconstitutional.

TPM? is that actually a legit source of original congressional documents?

Feingold was the source. TPM happened to have the archive I found it on. And since I was looking for people who didn't like Bush and also don't like Obama's detention proposal, I don't see that it matters that much. Are you suggesting that TPM faked the Feingold letter? Unlikely, but even if true, it just puts TPM on the list opposing indefinite detention.

No none of that. I was just curious since people as of late have gotten their panties all in a wad if the source of a link comes from some place other than the Congressional Record. I for one was just curious and I have never heard of TPM.

Sorry HM, I thought I replied last night when I was reading this thread. I saw the Maddow piece when it aired, but not the Olberman one. The Feingold letter was wonderful.

Thanks for the links.

Ah, sorry.

TPM is a liberal blog, and if I found something through them, I'd try to link to their sources rather than their editorials, if possible. If I couldn't find corroboration, I'd either drop it or put in a strong caveat. If their sources are scans of primary documents on their site, I have no reason to distrust those.

So TPM isn't a source of congressional documents, but I'd say that whatever is in their archive of primary source documents is legit.

I hadn't seen that Feingold letter till your link -- he was spot-on. :thumb: Thanks for the link!

TPM is a liberal blog

I divide the blogs by liberal vs. conservative, but more by well-reasoned vs. self-congratulatory attention-whoring yap dogs. TPM is on the well-reasoned side. Plus they do real reporting, and you have to respect that.

Okay, that need to be someone's user title.... And no, I'm not volunteering. :lol:

I do. Which can be a bit of an issue when they actually have a scoop, and there are no corroborating links yet, but I'd still prefer not to use a blog as backup for an argument.

But yes, TPM's Josh Marshall is a journalist, as well as a blogger, and he does do real reporting.

The Gitmo no one talks about
 

Interesting article and I must admit that I am very surprised where I read it.

more here

I'm against indefinite detention, but I'm not sure what the limit should be, so they should be detained until I decide what the finite length should be.:dunce:

Here we go again. But this time we have shiny new name aren't you :)




Amazing how he condemns in the one and yet does EXACTLY the same thing.

Wow.

You know what kind of worries me a little, we are setting the bar for other countries and non nation players to treat us if captured.

Clip is from May 2009 and HM linked to it in post #26

Well, it's an indefinite video.

I thought it again apropos as the Senate voted Tuesday to keep the provision.
WTF.

Here is how the vote broke down.
Link

Quote:

...captured within the United States, "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R)said.

Are you OK with this Lamp?

I really think it is just a battle between Congress trying to maintain control over the disposition of terrorists, where ever they are captured, and the Executive branch wanting to have exclusive rights to what happens to them. The old military vs. law enforcement argument. Just a guess. Anyway it still has to go to Committee to be reconciled.