Military limiting Guantanamo detainee access to lawyers

[waggy]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/07/military-limiting-guantanamo-detainee-access-to-lawyers/?hpt=hp_t3&hpt=hp_bn2

The Obama administration has begun limiting the legal rights of terror suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba, telling a federal judge Tuesday the government alone should decide when the prisoners deserve regular access to their counsel.

In a 52-page filing, Justice Department lawyers said they have started restricting when Guantanamo prisoners can challenge their detention in a Washington-based federal court. If approved, any relaxing of the rules would be made on a case-by-case basis at the exclusive discretion of military officials, not by the courts.

/snip


wow..Thought the dems were all for giving them rights and allowing them a full trial? (btw i thought that was silly to begin with) so now they reversed course?

So how do people who voted against bush becuase of stuff like this feel?

where are the 100's of threads if it was bush?

bitch when its a Republican but whimper when its a dem.

 

[Nintendesert]

Whatever dude, Obama closed Gitmo.

 

[waggy]

Whatever dude, Obama closed Gitmo.

he did? last i read it gut a few million dollars worth of improvements..

 

[PokerGuy]

Obviously, you're wrong OP, obummer promised us he'd close gitmo. Besides, he and the dims would never ever support removing basic human rights.

</sarcasm>

The whole concept of keeping people locked away without any trial or proof of guilt is BS and un-American. It was terrible when GWB did it, it's terrible now. There's just more hypocrisy now because the people doing it always complained about the previous admin doing it.

 

[waggy]

Obviously, you're wrong OP, obummer promised us he'd close gitmo. Besides, he and the dims would never ever support removing basic human rights.

</sarcasm>

The whole concept of keeping people locked away without any trial or proof of guilt is BS and un-American. It was terrible when GWB did it, it's terrible now. There's just more hypocrisy now because the people doing it always complained about the previous admin doing it.

pretty much.

IF this came out while any R was in power this thread would already be 5 pages. now? its dying because it does nto fit in with the forum.

I find it really funny. where are all the people who complained about bush doing it? lol

 

[NikolaeVarius]

he did? last i read it gut a few million dollars worth of improvements..

Considering its a Navy Base that happens to house a prison, I would be amazed if a Navy Base didn't get an upkeep and improvement budget.

Anyway, the decision to close Gitmo got stonewalled and was effectively shut down, can't reall blame Obama for not being able to force his exec order through.

 

[PokerGuy]

can't reall blame Obama for not being able to force his exec order through.

haha, a dimlib apologist. Yes, you can and should blame him for not keeping his promises. If he couldn't do it then he should not have promised to. Regardless, how does not being able to close it down mean you have to actually take away more basic rights (the right to access to your lawyer)?

Face it, there is no justification for this hypocrisy.

 

[BoomerD]

Obviously, you're wrong OP, obummer promised us he'd close gitmo. Besides, he and the dims would never ever support removing basic human rights.

</sarcasm>

The whole concept of keeping people locked away without any trial or proof of guilt is BS and un-American. It was terrible when GWB did it, it's terrible now. There's just more hypocrisy now because the people doing it always complained about the previous admin doing it.

Access to a lawyer isn't a HUMAN right. It's guaranteed by the US Constitution...but IMO, those Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens.

 

[Theb]

So how do people who voted against bush becuase of stuff like this feel?

Like I'm being pissed on and told it's raining.

 

[nageov3t]

we still have people there?

I assumed Obama killed them all with drones.

 

[DominionSeraph]

IF this came out while any R was in power this thread would already be 5 pages.

And it would mostly be R's cheerleading on how their candidate was standing up to the commie Jew bastards of the ACLU and how he's championing for the victims of terror.

As a practical matter, access to a lawyer has no use when the lawyer can't do anything. If the detainee isn't going to be prosecuted anytime soon and no motion the lawyer can file will have any effect on the detainment, maintaining access to a lawyer is just a wasted overhead. And that's what this is about:

"The dispute thus before the Court, though important, is quite narrow," said the government in its legal filing. "The only question presented is whether detainees who have neither current nor impending habeas petitions are entitled to" challenge continued access to counsel.

404, meaningful news not found.

 

[Jhhnn]

haha, a dimlib apologist. Yes, you can and should blame him for not keeping his promises. If he couldn't do it then he should not have promised to. Regardless, how does not being able to close it down mean you have to actually take away more basic rights (the right to access to your lawyer)?

Face it, there is no justification for this hypocrisy.

And he would have known that Congress would prevent the shutdown of Gitmo how, exactly? Ouija board?

It's remarkable how the usual ravers who were all gung-ho to break Terrarist! balls 10 years ago are now all up in mock outrage that the place hasn't been closed down.

Guess what? It was obvious to some of us from the beginning that the place could never be shut down until the last detainee dies of old age. That's because the methods used violate our own laws- no case can be made against many of them other than in a kangaroo court. yet the authorities have determined them to be dangerous, and simply refuse to let them go, because they can get away with it. Had they been brought onto American soil, many would already have been released for lack of admissible evidence. Some would even have been released in this country because we can't send them home where they'd be tortured, and nobody else will take them.

Which of you wingnuts really want them to have a fair trial, anyway, with that being one of the possible outcomes? Speak up!

It was shameful from the beginning, and Obama has been complicit. It's not like this was his brainchild, at all, either, but rather that of his predecessor who used Gitmo to enormous domestic political advantage.

So, uhh, tell us what else he's really supposed to do, anyway? Lay it out- offer alternatives that are realistic & politically acceptable.

 

[Sonikku]

Didn't Obama say he was going to end the prison thing there? Oh right, he's a LIAR.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Didn't Obama say he was going to end the prison thing there? Oh right, he's a LIAR.

He ordered the prisons closed. Congress/House effectively prevented him from being able to do anything.

The presidents powers are not absolute.

 

[mchammer187]

haha, a dimlib apologist. Yes, you can and should blame him for not keeping his promises. If he couldn't do it then he should not have promised to. Regardless, how does not being able to close it down mean you have to actually take away more basic rights (the right to access to your lawyer)?

Face it, there is no justification for this hypocrisy.

So Romney is a liar if he wins the presidency and the democrats still control the senate after this election cycle and Obamacare does not get repealed?

I am certainly disappointed in Obama over this Gitmo stuff but that said he is still light years ahead of the Bush administration and he has taken major steps toward closing Gitmo even if it has not gotten done.

 

[boomerang]

So Romney is a liar if he wins the presidency and the democrats still control the senate after this election cycle and Obamacare does not get repealed?

I am certainly disappointed in Obama over this Gitmo stuff but that said he is still light years ahead of the Bush administration and he has taken major steps toward closing Gitmo even if it has not gotten done.

Ah, the old judge those you support based on their intentions rather than results. Always a recipe for success.

 

[mchammer187]

Ah, the old judge those you support based on their intentions rather than results. Always a recipe for success.

No I judge them based on choices you have even if they are tough choices. You can judge me all you want but I will readily admit that I'll vote for a pragmatist rather than an ideologue any day.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, the old judge those you support based on their intentions rather than results. Always a recipe for success.

Take the challenge- offer an alternative to the lasting clusterfuck inflicted on us all by the Bush Admin & Congress.

Or do you think that Obama ever had the power to close Gitmo w/o Congress & severe political repercussions? Should we bring the detainees into the US & subject them to trial under existing law, live with whatever consequences arise?

It's easy enough to be critical of the whole thing, no doubt, but when you have no viable alternatives, you're just talking trash.

 

[Matt1970]

There aren't many people who think closing Gitmo was a good idea. Obama was looking for world approval at the time.

 

[CycloWizard]

This is just the latest entry in a litany of DOJ filings which prove that it has no interest in justice for anyone.

 

[hal2kilo]

You can count this liberal as being extremely displeased with the way Gitmo has been handled.

Not only this but basically anything to do with the Justice Department. Why was there no house cleaning of the Pat Robertson college of Law crowd. If and probably when Obama's reelected, there had better be a house cleaning of the Bush leftovers otherwise, I'm confused as to why the Attorney General is a political appointment. After all, the whole point of winning an election is to be able to shape your administration into your political point of view.

Sometimes I think the Obama administration purposely let the Fast'n'Furious bullshit to get so big was to cover up all the other crap this pathetic justice department isn't getting done. Holder is an total failure IMO.

 

[PokerGuy]

And he would have known that Congress would prevent the shutdown of Gitmo how, exactly? Ouija board?

Very simple: don't make promises you can't keep. Don't make promises and say you're going to do things that you KNOW you can't do. That's called lying, and it's exactly what obummer did.

So, uhh, tell us what else he's really supposed to do, anyway? Lay it out- offer alternatives that are realistic & politically acceptable.

So uh, I'm not the one who promised to do something -- he was. It's up to him to figure out how to do it, or he should not have promised it.

This thread isn't about closing gitmo down, it's about taking away more fundamental rights from the detainees. That's bad enough in itself, but made ten times worse when those who whined about it and said it was shameful during the GWB years are now not only doing the same thing -- they're going further. Hypocrites and liars.

 

[PokerGuy]

So Romney is a liar if he wins the presidency and the democrats still control the senate after this election cycle and Obamacare does not get repealed?

If a politician promises something he knows he can't deliver, then he's a liar. If he promises something thinking he can deliver, but then fails to do so, then he should be held accountable for breaking his promises. Remember HWB and "read my lips, no new taxes"? He broke his promise and was held accountable for it.

and he has taken major steps toward closing Gitmo even if it has not gotten done.

No, he hasn't. He's even gone beyond just breaking his promise to close it and is now complicit in taking away even more basic rights from detainees. If it was GWB or anyone with an "R" doing it, the dimlibs would be screaming. When it's their sock puppet doing it, all is well.

 

[Texashiker]

Whats sad, indefinite detention is one of the things the founding fathers did not want us doing.

Right to a speedy and fair trial, access to legal counsel, access to impartial jury, access to evidence, ability to present opposing evidence,,, should be a basic human right.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You know guys, I have to wonder. Do you know ANYONE who has been taken to either of these places for any reason? I don't have one friend, family member, even an acquaintance who has been detained at any of these places or not been allowed representation or the right to contact a lawyer or their family. I mean if this is such a problem then why aren't people disappearing?

I'm not saying it is right to have these laws but if they aren't using them to silence the masses than why is everyone so adamant that this is some huge problem?