Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
Once again the new Adminstration is subjected to criticism by those that grossly oversimplify issues. The OP and many others in this thread seem to have hopelessly confused the concept of basic human rights with Constitutional rights. GWB denied many of basic human rights through such things as his absurd redefinitions of torture.
If any of the critics can point to a single instance where Obama EVER said that foreign persons captured in a war zone in a foreign country and detained in that country are entitled to Constitutional rights I'd love to see it.
If any of the critics can point to a single instance where Obama EVER said that foreign persons captured in a war zone in a foreign country and detained in that country are entitled to Constitutional rights I'd love to see it.
You realize Guantanamo specifically does not fit that definition right? The question in this case has always been about where you draw the line between human rights and the ability of a country to conduct a war. Not only is Guantanamo sovereign US territory (unlike Bagram), but the people housed there were in no war zone. It was pretty much impossible for the government to articulate a military necessity for the denial of habeas corpus in that situation, and that's why the USSC smacked them down on the issue over and over and over again. I bet you if someone attempted to put forward a similar lawsuit on Bagram they would lose, because here the government CAN articulate such a position. Then again, I'm sure that would just be another case of the librul USSC trying to help out Obama in this situation.
EDIT: That's not to say that there aren't problems with Bagram. There are lots of them, and the detainee abuse that has been most likely taking place there can have no justification. I would love for the new administration to address that, because it's wrong.
You guys can't seem to decide. In half the threads he's sending us careening towards communism, and in half the threads he's JUST LIKE BUSH LOLCHANGE.
It's almost like a group of half a dozen people on here are determined to attack him no matter what he does. Interesting.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
Would it really have mattered? If this article came out 6 months ago all hell would have broken loose here and everyone knows it.
No idea? Maybe back with Clinton? George H.W. Bush? When Bush did things I didn't like, I called him out on it. (note: this was nearly constant) When he did things I did like, I said so. This just happened so infrequently that it didn't come up much.
In this case some people here screech hysterically about Obama when he does things they don't like, and then when he does things that they do like HE'S JUST LIKE BUSH. Incoherent.
Actually there are some people out there who can take things issue by issue. Now i've only seen a couple of these special people on this board, but they exist. Check out the Pakistan strike threads, and you will see me giving :thumbsup: to Obama.
I dont think people are attacking Obama, I think we are laughing at the fact that many of the liberals that got their rocks off attacking Bush for every little thing, are now stuck defending Obama for the same actions. It is actually a rather cool social experiment.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Of course it's about geography. The US Constitution doesn't apply to lands not under it's jurisdiction. Civics wasn't really that hard, was it?
But they are only the same things to people that don't understand what they are talking about. (this could apply equally well to both sides) Tell me what you think would happen if someone put up a lawsuit challenging the ability of the government to hold people at Bagram, do you honestly think the USSC would rule the same way as they did in relation to Guantanamo? I sure as hell don't. Do you think the USSC would be shifting rationale in that situation in order to help out their good friend Obama? Of course not.
The USSC certainly realizes that the tradeoff between civil liberties and security is a continuum, not a light switch. Obama has never been for (and never could be for) ALL CIVIL LIBERTIES ALL THE TIME, his concept of where they fall is just notably farther towards civil liberties than Bush/Cheney's was.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,929
- 2,931
- 136
Are you and I reading the same post? XMan didn't criticize Obama for this, he was just pointing out the hypocrisy of those that bashed Bush (ZOMG TRAITOR IN CHIEF!!!) and called for his impeachment, but now they are silent. Actually, after reading over some more of the thread, I didn't see any of "us people" criticizing Obama for this. Could you point out the posts bashing Obama for taking this position, besides the people criticizing Obama and the left for being hypocrites?
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,929
- 2,931
- 136
Yea, good thing there wasn't a group of lefties around here like that for the last 8 years. And who are "you guys" by the way? I seem to remember you, and several others getting annoyed when those of us on the right would lump all of the Bush bashers into one big group, now you're doing it. Interesting.
I specifically qualified my statement at the end with "a group of half a dozen people". How this would lump all the people together is beyond me, unless you think that opposition to Obama exists in 6 or fewer people.
Ah, so you are only against Guntanamo due to the technicality of it's location? So now that we are adding another prison in Afghanistan, where detainees are probably going to be treated worse than at Guantanamo where the Red Cross and Amenesty International were up the governments ass all the time, you are OK with it?
That doesnt pass the smell test.....
Seeing how Obama is sticking with "enemy combatants" instead of "Prisoners of War", I think they are going to get the same treatment as under GWB. Again, here you are defending the same policies that kept you up tossing and turning at night before Jan 2009.
But isn't "enemy combatants" just a term to work around the Geneva Convention rights for POWs?
You say this:
This is from the article, however. Is this really the spirit of the Geneva Conventions?
"The situation in Bagram is so far from anything like meeting the laws of war or the human rights treaties that we're bound to," she told the BBC.
And this...
"The US military considers Bagram detainees unlawful combatants who can be detained for as long as they are deemed a threat to Afghan national security. "
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Obama also supports renditions i.e. the practice of kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries to be tortured
And you hear nothing about appealing the civil liberties that Bush stole from us now that these laws are in Obama?s back pocket.
Black Bush through and through - but maybe worse because least the Republicans left us with the Second Amendment which Obama will attack before his first term is out.
And you hear nothing about appealing the civil liberties that Bush stole from us now that these laws are in Obama?s back pocket.
Black Bush through and through - but maybe worse because least the Republicans left us with the Second Amendment which Obama will attack before his first term is out.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter