Obama admin: Detainees do not have Constitutional rights

[RabidMongoose]

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?

Roosevelt did some horrible things like also the Japanese internment camps. That doesn't excuse Bush, especially for acts more than 50 years later. Times are significantly different. Hell, the Geneva Conventions weren't even in existence at the time.

Bush did a horrible thing that we already knew was wrong and unconstitutional. He knew it as well.

 

[palehorse]

NOTE: I'm merely playing devil's advocate here guys... don't freak out on me.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 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.

There was no majority opinion - only a plurality. However, while a plurality said that Hamdi's right to due process was 'limited', what GWB did was well beyond what he tried to impose upon Hamdi. The 'limitations' were those related to evidence, etc. as under war/battlefield circumstances.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 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.

2 of them were US citizens, but I don't recall what the majority opinion exactly stated in regards to the US citizens...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

2 of them were US citizens, but I don't recall what the majority opinion exactly stated in regards to the US citizens...

Ex Parte Quirin only speaks to the validity of using military tribunals to try people, it doesn't make any claims as to the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Regardless this is a silly exercise. Roosevelt doing something wrong in no way excuses Bush doing the same thing.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

2 of them were US citizens, but I don't recall what the majority opinion exactly stated in regards to the US citizens...

Ex Parte Quirin only speaks to the validity of using military tribunals to try people, it doesn't make any claims as to the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Regardless this is a silly exercise. Roosevelt doing something wrong in no way excuses Bush doing the same thing.

My entire point was that Bush was not the first President, nor will he be the last, to test the limits of his powers during a time of war... Obama included.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: XMan
Text

I am shocked, shocked I tell you. How dare Obama shred the Constitution like this. You can cut the irony with a chainsaw.

You are looking for an issue when none exist!
If the detainees are NOT US Citizens then they have no constitutional rights!!....duh...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan
Text

I am shocked, shocked I tell you. How dare Obama shred the Constitution like this. You can cut the irony with a chainsaw.

You know what else is ironic? The fact that you people are now bashing Obama for (allegedly) taking the same positions you spent 8 years defending Bush for taking. You're basically just being partisan attack dogs at this point, you know that? Obama does something you SHOULD agree with...so you bash him for not being 100% different from Bush. But when he does something you don't agree with, you whine that he's NOT doing things the way Bush would. Do you guys even have a political philosophy any more, or is it just about beating the other team?

My god you've turned into such a fricken whiner, why? Do you take criticism of Obama's hypocrisy personally? We've endured 6 or 7 years of constant lamentations by you lefties regarding Bush's alleged acts of constitutionally aversive behavior. Your messiah campaigns on change then hopes to be merely twice as fiscally irresponsible as Bush and twice now this week appears to support other behavior you lefties assailed. Buck up pussy, you've got a rough 3 years and 10 months ahead of you.

7years and 3 months...

Obama's 2nd term would end in May of 2016?

Dude, lefty math saves the day yet again!

True!!
But you assesment that Obama is just aone term president is idiotic and moronic...
After Obama`s 2nd term you might have room to talk!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Stop it Obama! I'm about changed-out for the time being. This is change-overload.

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.

That sounds very familiar. Wonder where I've seen that before???

The problem is Bush deserved to be attacked!!
Obama does not at this time deserve to be attacked!
Cleaning up the mess the Republicans made will require a lot of time!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

They over simplify the issues because most of them are too young to vote or even comprehend the issues!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Stop it Obama! I'm about changed-out for the time being. This is change-overload.

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.

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.

Whats there to defend.....even the Republican knew that it would take time too try to undo the harm to our countrey that GWB did......
It`s moronic and idiotic to attack Obama when cleaning up the mess will take time and possibly even trying different ideas...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan
Text

I am shocked, shocked I tell you. How dare Obama shred the Constitution like this. You can cut the irony with a chainsaw.

You know what else is ironic? The fact that you people are now bashing Obama for (allegedly) taking the same positions you spent 8 years defending Bush for taking. You're basically just being partisan attack dogs at this point, you know that? Obama does something you SHOULD agree with...so you bash him for not being 100% different from Bush. But when he does something you don't agree with, you whine that he's NOT doing things the way Bush would. Do you guys even have a political philosophy any more, or is it just about beating the other team?

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?

What's so hypocritical about it? Why would anybody think they should have any Constitutional Rights when they are iinterned in a Foreign Country?

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.....

As long as they abide by the Geneva Convention I'm fine with it.

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.

So you think....any cold hard fatc..or can you see into the future??

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Stop it Obama! I'm about changed-out for the time being. This is change-overload.

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.

That sounds very familiar. Wonder where I've seen that before???

The problem is Bush deserved to be attacked!!
Obama does not at this time deserve to be attacked!
Cleaning up the mess the Republicans made will require a lot of time!!

There is no time limit on "Deserving to be attacked." If someone takes actions that people disagree with, they will be attacked.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Zebo
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.

Link please I am sure that you are leaving quite a bit out...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 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.

All this is unproven dribble....
I think the most logical reason why it was left intack is because Obama has not come around to dealing with ht yet...nice try though....
Obama can`t correct all the wrongs that GWB instituted immediately!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Stop it Obama! I'm about changed-out for the time being. This is change-overload.

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.

That sounds very familiar. Wonder where I've seen that before???

The problem is Bush deserved to be attacked!!
Obama does not at this time deserve to be attacked!
Cleaning up the mess the Republicans made will require a lot of time!!

There is no time limit on "Deserving to be attacked." If someone takes actions that people disagree with, they will be attacked.

But you shouldn`t disagree out of ignorance!!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: 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.

Why do some of the extremists here consider anything? Perhaps I'm not being clear. It's apparent to anyone who comes here often, as I know you do!, that the left wing contingent is far more rabid than the right. At least as far as the pool of folks we have available to us here.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy
god you people are dumb. nobody ever thought that constitutional rights would be extended to US prisoners held in other countries. The reason why people argue for constitutional rights in Guantanamo is because the US exerts sovereign control over it, and because the detention there is indefinite.

This is just an example of people who are too ignorant and too stupid to understand the issues trying to make a thread about things they don't understand.

so it is about political geography and not about people ahhh you libs are so compassionate! What a dumb explanation. :roll:

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?

Wow did you really post that? you need to think about this from another angle. I'll give you a hint it has nothing to do with borders on a map.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
left wing contingent is far more rabid than the right. At least as far as the pool of folks we have available to us here.

What forum are you reading?

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: 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

I can find articles indicating it doesn't work.

And if it's so effective, then why do I find this:
"In an interview with AP on February 14, 2008 Paul Rester, chief military interrogator at Guantanamo Bay and director of the Joint Intelligence Group, said most of the information gathered from detainees came from non-coercive questioning and "rapport building," not harsh interrogation methods."

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 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.

Um, yeah? I read your links. Here's a quote from one:

"In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to reexamine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture," or otherwise circumvent human rights laws and treaties.

Still can't find anything that says "Obama supports extraordinary rendition to foreign countries for the purpose of torture," which is what you claim he supports. I posted links (and apparently you did too) and quotes explicitly stating that he and his administration and the CIA under his authority are against that practice.

So, one last time, can you point out any quote or position of the Obama admin that says transporting prisoners to foreign countries for torture is a policy they are in favor of?

As to whether or not I believe their public statments, wtf else are we supposed to discuss here? How about actions though? He ordered Guantanamo closed and ordered the closure of CIA blacksites. That's on our earth, not the parallel universe you live in.

If you want to have a conversation on what you imagine they are saying in private, I'll not be engaging with that hypothetical, thanks.