Meet the new boss....yeah, yeah, by now you should know what comes after

[sciwizam]

Glenn Greenwald

It's now apparent that the biggest sham in American politics is Barack Obama's pledge to close Guantanamo and, more generally, to dismantle the Bush/Cheney approach to detaining accused Terrorists.
...

...

...
Apparently, what the Bush administration did that was so terrible, the heinous "shredding of the Constitution" they perpetrated, wasn't about the fact that they imprisoned people indefinitely with no charges -- but that they did it in Cuba rather than somewhere else. Who knew that such grave Constitutional transgressions -- such severe denial of fundamental rights -- could be fixed so easily with a little change of scenery?

Since we haven't heard anything in the news about this issue, thought I would share this recent post by Greenwald. Above is only the start and end, read the whole article on Salon.

I find it disheartening that none of this, DOJ appealing a ruling about Bagram Detainees' (rendered from somewhere else) right to Habeus review which flies against Obama's speeches during the campaign's about "rule of law and respecting habeus corpus", is more prominent in the news.

 

[blackangst1]

Pretty much. There's still 3 years left for....change.

 

[bamacre]

Spencer Ackerman notes that, the day before the ruling, the administration leaked that they were creating "new procedures" for Bagram detainees which are very similar to Guantanamo's "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" -- the very Bush/Cheney system the Boumediene court rejected as unconstitutional. This means that, at best, the Bagram detainees will now languish in prison for still more years with no habeas review while the Obama DOJ spends years litigating whether its "new system" is a sufficient Constitutional replacement for habeas review. Ackerman quotes David Remes, the legal director of the non-profit Appeal for Justice law firm who represents 19 Guantanamo detainees, as saying: "It?s another stall. And one I would have expected from the Bush administration but not the Obama administration."

Wow.

The Obama administration has been absolutely terrible when it comes to civil liberties. :thumbsdown:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Spencer Ackerman notes that, the day before the ruling, the administration leaked that they were creating "new procedures" for Bagram detainees which are very similar to Guantanamo's "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" -- the very Bush/Cheney system the Boumediene court rejected as unconstitutional. This means that, at best, the Bagram detainees will now languish in prison for still more years with no habeas review while the Obama DOJ spends years litigating whether its "new system" is a sufficient Constitutional replacement for habeas review. Ackerman quotes David Remes, the legal director of the non-profit Appeal for Justice law firm who represents 19 Guantanamo detainees, as saying: "It?s another stall. And one I would have expected from the Bush administration but not the Obama administration."

Wow.

The Obama administration has been absolutely terrible when it comes to civil liberties. :thumbsdown:

Yup, they would be crucified by the right as soft on communism, terrorism, homeland security, patriotism, Americanism, and every other right winged demigod without which you are a piece of shit worthless pansy if they did honor the enemy's rights.

As long as the fascist pig right is there to scream "TRAITOR" to every move to honor the Constitution you can be sure those moves will be locked away in red tape.

Let the call for Constitutional protections come from the right, from the assholes that destroy them.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Wow.

The Obama administration has been absolutely terrible when it comes to civil liberties. :thumbsdown:

He has been the exact same as the previous administration.


Anyone pretending the previous administration was better, is a complete partisan tool.


Anyone claiming the current administration is better, is a complete partisan tool.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Let the call for Constitutional protections come from the right, from the assholes that destroy them.

Originally posted by: OCguy
He has been the exact same as the previous administration.

Yeah, and if either one of you two can find a post by me defending the previous administration's policies regarding civil liberties, post away.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Let the call for Constitutional protections come from the right, from the assholes that destroy them.

Originally posted by: OCguy
He has been the exact same as the previous administration.

Yeah, and if either one of you two can find a post by me defending the previous administration's policies regarding civil liberties, post away.

Oh, I wasnt attacking you. It was more like an add-on to your post.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Oh, I wasnt attacking you. It was more like an add-on to your post.

Understood. I just assumed the previous administration's attacks on civil liberties was so obvious that it didn't need mentioning.

Of course, it gets mentioned every time Obama's is.

It's weird really, years ago, if you mentioned "Clinton" you got attacked for it by the Left. But it's fine to bring up the disaster that was Bush. Doesn't bother me, if you got something bad to say about Bush, say it, we should never forget.

 

[GoPackGo]

Who here misses Bill Clinton?

After the last ten years I think I do.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Who here misses Bill Clinton?

After the last ten years I think I do.

He was too busy getting BJ's to do any real damage to our country.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Who here misses Bill Clinton?

After the last ten years I think I do.

 

[halik]

Heard that in NPR - it's very shady. Go change...

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Who here misses Bill Clinton?

After the last ten years I think I do.

He was too busy getting BJ's to do any real damage to our country.

:thumbsup:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Who here misses Bill Clinton?

After the last ten years I think I do.

He was too busy getting BJ's to do any real damage to our country.

Too bad he did more to pay down the debt, balance the budget, and set the country on the right path than any R president in the last 30 years.

Before you mention that he had a R congress doing that, don't forget that those same "Republicans" (who are nothing more than left-of-left democrats) wanted to *SPEND* that surplus and Clinton blocked it.

Your heroes are false.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Who here misses Bill Clinton?

After the last ten years I think I do.

Considering the disaster that happened under Bush and the one that is happening under Obama. I'd have voted him in for his 5th term last november if I could.

 

[Genx87]

I actually like this from Rachel Maddow.

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

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Who here misses Bill Clinton?

After the last ten years I think I do.

He was too busy getting BJ's to do any real damage to our country.

Too bad he did more to pay down the debt, balance the budget, and set the country on the right path than any R president in the last 30 years.

Before you mention that he had a R congress doing that, don't forget that those same "Republicans" (who are nothing more than left-of-left democrats) wanted to *SPEND* that surplus and Clinton blocked it.

Your heroes are false.

Exactly. We don't disagree here. But I also think the fact his sex scandal broke when it did stopped things like UHC and other stuff from going through which WOULD have caused the deficit to skyrocket and spending to increase. He was knocked down and put in his place and became a pretty good President.

Hopefully the same happens to Obama before he tries to ram every massive spending liberal program he can think of through.

Clinton was MUCH more conservative than Obama is though. Any coincidence the debt and stuff was paid down and we had a balanced budget?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Ahh...Slick Willy. Man, I miss those days. He was always good for a laugh, was actually very likable and charismatic, and wasn't nearly as radical as our current administration.

Every time I see a Bill Clinton story, I just have to grin and think up my best Bill Clinton impression.

 

[alchemize]

But...he doesn't torture them! So really only 98% of the constitution is shredded. Change.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Pretty much. There's still 3 years left for....change.

I'm 99% sure he's saving guantanamo and iraq pullout for early 2012 so he can use it as a campaign issue (or he won't allow his opponent to use it against him). Think about it. October Iraq pullout, crowd loves him again, reelection in the bag.

 

[ayabe]

No shit.

What Obama needs to get through his head is that no amount of bone throwing to the GOP is going to either get their support or get them off his back. It's just not going to happen...on any issue.

Letting the GOP frame the closure as "bringing terrorists to the heartland" etc was his first mistake.

Bottom line, every detainee we have hard evidence on needs a speedy trial, a sentence if convicted, and needs to be in a federal/military prison that's in the US.

The rest, which constitute the vast majority of the people we have in custody, need to be sent home.

It's a settled matter, habeas corpus applies. His kowtowing on this is just not acceptable.