Obama admin: Detainees do not have Constitutional rights

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As long as they abide by the Geneva Convention I'm fine with it.

Slick Clinton came up with extraodinary rendition to get around your precious Geneva Conventions.

He was smart enough not to actually toe the ACLU line.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
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.

No I'm not. I'm stating that enemy combatants interned on foreign soil shouldn't be given Constitutional Rights.

But isn't "enemy combatants" just a term to work around the Geneva Convention rights for POWs?

You say this:

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As long as they abide by the Geneva Convention I'm fine with it.

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. "

Are we in charge of Bagram? If so then we should abide by the Geneva Convention even for Enemy Combatants and if we don't and Obama knowingly approves of this then he is wrong IMO.

On the other hand this thread was about affording those interned of Foreign Soil Constitutional Rights which Obama's Admin said it won't and him and those who supported him being called hypocrites because of that stance stance which is totally ridiculous.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As long as they abide by the Geneva Convention I'm fine with it.

Slick Clinton came up with extraodinary rendition to get around your precious Geneva Conventions.

He was smart enough not to actually toe the ACLU line.

Who are you really?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As long as they abide by the Geneva Convention I'm fine with it.

Slick Clinton came up with extraodinary rendition to get around your precious Geneva Conventions.

He was smart enough not to actually toe the ACLU line.

Weener pulls out a few more ""ass facts""

In the USA Reagan signed the first executive order authorizing the rendition of a known terrorist.

And it's quite a BIG leap from snatching up a known terrorist to rendering hundreds of people into covert overseas prisons for 'friendly' interrogation.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
nobody ever replies to my posts; I'm losing motivation.

More than likely what it means is that when Obama was briefed he was shown all the data we have obtained (terrorist plots, as well as data leading to the capture of the higher-ups) from torturing these Islamic terrorists.

Yes - he sees data that torture works, gets scary assed NSA briefings every morning, and is no different than Bush or any other modern callous politician.

Currently G-bay is near the bottom of my list of concerns; there seem to be legitimate benefits to it at the moment. There is currently no incentive to wrongfully detain a citizen like you or I; there are tons of checks and balances within the military that would have to be scrapped before something like this could occur.

There are stories of detainment centers being set up on military bases and I'm sure it's war gamed for massive USA unrest. Bottom of my list to be sure - but planned and capable. Individual rights means nothing anymore.

The chances of people like me rising up against the government from within (over frustrations with currently elected officials) are slim; were that many people that T/O'd about it they would gather behind a more conservative/libertarian candidate and elect him before reaching for their guns. So basically, while it's good to keep 1984 in mind when we see what's happening in our government, distopias like that will never happen for the same reason we will never attain to a Utopia. Particularly thanks to personal cam corders on every single cell phone in existence, and 1080P digital recorders (which can take 16+GB SD flash cards) that can be had for $80 on amazon.com. In other words, the dangers of the same abuse of power that occurred under Roman rule with provisions and laws like this is very unlikely to happen; whereas the benefits are currently real and known. Obama likely realized this and has lost interest in shutting G-bay down.

Sure keep telling yourself that.

There are five or six huge threats to USA stability which could have NYC looking like Baghdad this time next year. While remote they are there. A narco state next door spilling into USA. Total collapse of economy. Tax payer revolts. Global destabilization and world wars. Empires rise and fall and it's not pretty when they fall.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Constitutional Rights are guaranteed only to U.S. citizens. What Bush was doing were human rights violations (in the opinion of some, myself included) which are not the same thing at all.

exactly, especially in regards to the Geneva Convention.

Did terrorists join the convention???? Does any nation claim these pieces of poop?


;

Wrong question = Fail

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Yes - he sees data that torture works, gets scary assed NSA briefings every morning, and is no different than Bush or any other modern callous politician.

Actually, torture doesn't work. The men who spent careers learning proper interrogation techniques and teaching them to others all say torture doesn't work. The problem is that the CIA refuses to teach proper interrogation techniques. I've seen countless quotes and articles where the CIA directly admits that they don't wanna spend the time to properly train interrogators and that torture makes people feel good, so they'd rather stick with it. Even if it is significantly less effective and often yields results that actually hurt an investigation.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: Zebo

Yes - he sees data that torture works, gets scary assed NSA briefings every morning, and is no different than Bush or any other modern callous politician.

Actually, torture doesn't work. The men who spent careers learning proper interrogation techniques and teaching them to others all say torture doesn't work. The problem is that the CIA refuses to teach proper interrogation techniques. I've seen countless quotes and articles where the CIA directly admits that they don't wanna spend the time to properly train interrogators and that torture makes people feel good, so they'd rather stick with it. Even if it is significantly less effective and often yields results that actually hurt an investigation.

Does too. I quoted stories in various threads by x torturers saying it does from CIA, IRAQI and Saudi. Only those who have political motivation, state otherwise. Does not mean I think it's right.

I know it's fashionable to claim otherwise so people and politicians don't have to confront the Western mores and moral implications of a torture regime so rather than do that it's easier to dismiss it outright as ineffective but I don't buy it and neither does Obama, OBVIOUSLY.

here are a couple stories

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://in.ibtimes.com/articles/20071212/waterboarding-torture-cia-al-qaeda.htm">Former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou told U.S. news media that suspected al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaida agreed to cooperate after being subjected to the simulated drowning technique for less than a minute by CIA officials in 2002.

"It was like flipping a switch," </a>
And

3 Suspects Talk After Iraqi Soldiers Do Dirty Work

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Does too. I quoted stories in various threads by x torturers saying it does from CIA, IRAQI and Saudi. Only those who have political motivation, state otherwise. Does not mean I think it's right.

I know it's fashionable to claim otherwise so people and politicians don't have to confront to moral implications of a torture regime so rather than do that it's easier to dismiss it outright as ineffective but I don't buy it and neither does Obama, obviously.

here are a couple stories

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://in.ibtimes.com/articles/20071212/waterboarding-torture-cia-al-qaeda.htm">Former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou told U.S. news media that suspected al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaida agreed to cooperate after being subjected to the simulated drowning technique for less than a minute by CIA officials in 2002.

"It was like flipping a switch," </a>
And

3 Suspects Talk After Iraqi Soldiers Do Dirty Work

This has been gone over in many previous threads, your examples are not particularly good (as the question of cooperation has never been one of the arguments against torture), and your statement that "only those who have political motivation state otherwise" cannot be reasonably supported.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Obama also supports renditions i.e. the practice of kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries to be tortured

Really? Care to point out where he or his admin said they support extraordinary rendition? Because I can show that they stated they'd explicitly end that practice.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326

the extraordinary renditions program which was introduced by Bush 43 and clearly shut down under an executive order issued by President Obama in his first week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2009020500374.html

The former Clinton White House chief of staff flatly denounced as "torture" the CIA's previous use of waterboarding and said he would not allow secret prisons or the forced transfer of suspected terrorists to countries that condone torture.

Your turn. If you can't support that statement you need to say "Oops, that was a mistake, I misspoke."

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Thump553
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.

Try this to start with.

Over the last few years, this forum has been flooded with support for the rights (not necessarily human) of teh terrorists at Guantanamo. Now we see teh obfuscation among our resident lefties taking shape.

Uhh..Guantanamo is not a foreign country.

Would it really have mattered? If this article came out 6 months ago all hell would have broken loose here and everyone knows it.

Why, there's no reason they should have any Constitutional Rights when they aren't even on American Soil, they should be under the Laws of the country where they are interned or at least the Geneva Convention.

Oh, I don't think they should be given Constitutional rights there at all. I'm pointing out that, at least in the opinion of this Libertarian, these forums would have been calling for NEOCON rights bashers heads had this happened 6 months ago. I've been waiting to see just how calm this place gets once a liberal President took office. It's actually... peaceful for the most part.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen and he also wanted to create some sort of legal black hole where domestic or international law did not apply.

 

[JACKDRUID]

I completely disagree with Obama admin on this... Hate only creates hate... people there will only hate us more, and eventually create more threat to ourselves.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Thump553
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.

Try this to start with.

Over the last few years, this forum has been flooded with support for the rights (not necessarily human) of teh terrorists at Guantanamo. Now we see teh obfuscation among our resident lefties taking shape.

Uhh..Guantanamo is not a foreign country.

Would it really have mattered? If this article came out 6 months ago all hell would have broken loose here and everyone knows it.

Why, there's no reason they should have any Constitutional Rights when they aren't even on American Soil, they should be under the Laws of the country where they are interned or at least the Geneva Convention.

Oh, I don't think they should be given Constitutional rights there at all. I'm pointing out that, at least in the opinion of this Libertarian, these forums would have been calling for NEOCON rights bashers heads had this happened 6 months ago. I've been waiting to see just how calm this place gets once a liberal President took office. It's actually... peaceful for the most part.

Why would anybody even consider that those on foreign soil should be given Constitutional Rights.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

The name Padilla ring a bell?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zebo
Obama also supports renditions i.e. the practice of kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries to be tortured

Really? Care to point out where he or his admin said they support extraordinary rendition? Because I can show that they stated they'd explicitly end that practice.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326

the extraordinary renditions program which was introduced by Bush 43 and clearly shut down under an executive order issued by President Obama in his first week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2009020500374.html

The former Clinton White House chief of staff flatly denounced as "torture" the CIA's previous use of waterboarding and said he would not allow secret prisons or the forced transfer of suspected terrorists to countries that condone torture.

Your turn. If you can't support that statement you need to say "Oops, that was a mistake, I misspoke."

Try my post above yours. And if you believe their public statements I have some Florida property for sale. It's not in the swamps. Honest.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

Are you joking? Here's another example...It's only one of the most well known legal cases in recent memory under the US Supreme Court. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

Haven't you been paying attention?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

The name Padilla ring a bell?

You mean the mistake Bush made when he attempted to do the same thing that President Roosevelt did in 1942 with Ex parte Quirin, only to be later overturned and rectified -- still during Bush's terms as President?

That Padilla?

Perhaps he should have just had Padilla executed after a quick military tribunal... or was President Roosevelt an evil unconstitutional criminal mastermind as well?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

The name Padilla ring a bell?

You mean the mistake Bush made when he attempted to do the same thing that President Roosevelt did in 1942 with Ex parte Quirin, only to be later overturned and rectified -- still during Bush's terms as President?

That Padilla?

Perhaps he should have just had Padilla executed after a quick military tribunal... or was President Roosevelt an evil unconstitutional criminal mastermind as well?

Yeah that Padilla.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

The name Padilla ring a bell?

You mean the mistake Bush made when he attempted to do the same thing that President Roosevelt did in 1942 with Ex parte Quirin, only to be later overturned and rectified -- still during Bush's terms as President?

That Padilla?

Perhaps he should have just had Padilla executed after a quick military tribunal... or was President Roosevelt an evil unconstitutional criminal mastermind as well?

That's Taliban logic. The Evil West did this and that. We're nothing in comparison, just ask us.

Your contention is an unworthy one, and you know I call them as I see them. What was done is a disgrace and that someone else had to rectify it in no way absolves Bush or those who support him. A kinder, gentler Big Brother.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

Are you joking? Here's another example...It's only one of the most well known legal cases in recent memory under the US Supreme Court. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

The USSC also decided that Hamdi's rights to due process would be limited in nature.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
That's Taliban logic. The Evil West did this and that. We're nothing in comparison, just ask us.

Your contention is an unworthy one, and you know I call them as I see them. What was done is a disgrace and that someone else had to rectify it in no way absolves Bush or those who support him. A kinder, gentler Big Brother.

Why is Bush condemned for attempting to do to Padilla what President Roosevelt did to eight Germans in 1942?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The problem with GWB is that he wanted to deny Constitutional rights to a US citizen.

got link?

The name Padilla ring a bell?

You mean the mistake Bush made when he attempted to do the same thing that President Roosevelt did in 1942 with Ex parte Quirin, only to be later overturned and rectified -- still during Bush's terms as President?

That Padilla?

Perhaps he should have just had Padilla executed after a quick military tribunal... or was President Roosevelt an evil unconstitutional criminal mastermind as well?

That's Taliban logic. The Evil West did this and that. We're nothing in comparison, just ask us.

Your contention is an unworthy one, and you know I call them as I see them. What was done is a disgrace and that someone else had to rectify it in no way absolves Bush or those who support him. A kinder, gentler Big Brother.

Why is Bush condemned for simply attempting to do to Padilla what President Roosevelt did to eight Germans in 1942?

Where they Germans or American? Padilla is an American.
BTW FDR should be condemned for what he did to Americans of Japanese ancestry.