"Obama Takes Bush Position On Habeas Corpus"

[bamacre]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/026320.html

Pardon the right-wing source.

Talk about another 180 degree turn. At least some people on the left are speaking up. But where do people turn? And how in the hell can we spread "freedom and democracy" around the world (Afghanistan anyone?) when we act like hypocritical bastards at home? Say one thing, do the opposite.

 

[JSFLY]

This topic has been discussed in a previous post:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

I disagree with Obama on this issue, and I urge my fellow lefties to speak up if they feel the same way. We can not let Obama take for granted that we'll always have his back no matter the issue at hand.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/026320.html

Pardon the right-wing source.

Talk about another 180 degree turn. At least some people on the left are speaking up. But where do people turn? And how in the hell can we spread "freedom and democracy" around the world (Afghanistan anyone?) when we act like hypocritical bastards at home? Say one thing, do the opposite.

Maybe a better way to look at it is that you're just wrong and Obama has decided accordingly.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/026320.html

Pardon the right-wing source.

Talk about another 180 degree turn. At least some people on the left are speaking up. But where do people turn? And how in the hell can we spread "freedom and democracy" around the world (Afghanistan anyone?) when we act like hypocritical bastards at home? Say one thing, do the opposite.

Maybe a better way to look at it is that you're just wrong and Obama has decided accordingly.

Maybe Obama reads these forums and is also sick and tired of the Republican nutjob whiners.....

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/026320.html

Pardon the right-wing source.

Talk about another 180 degree turn. At least some people on the left are speaking up. But where do people turn? And how in the hell can we spread "freedom and democracy" around the world (Afghanistan anyone?) when we act like hypocritical bastards at home? Say one thing, do the opposite.

Maybe a better way to look at it is that you're just wrong and Obama has decided accordingly.

Maybe Obama reads these forums and is also sick and tired of the Republican nutjob whiners.....

Perhaps Bush was a reader of these forums and was also sick and tired of the Democrat nutjob whiners.....

Of course my theory relies on Bush being literate. Pffft, oh well.

 

[StageLeft]

If olberman and his lapdog are criticizing Obama, you know he's been REALLY naughty.

 

[palehorse]

This should be interesting...

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here have any idea how we would go about applying U.S.-based rules of habeas corpus to foreign fighters who were picked up on foreign battlefields and held prisoner in NATO-run prisons on that same foreign soil?

Maybe this decision has always just been the easiest one they could come up with...? Perhaps both Bush and Obama simply decided that the political heat is worth being able to avoid the legal and logistical nightmares that would result from a change in this policy?

IOW, maybe they're just taking the easy way out...?

Like I said, it will be interesting to see this debate unfold on P&N...

 

[NoStateofMind]

I have to say it ..... I TOLD YOU SO! You lefties and righties think you have it figured out each election year then find out you've been bent over a barrel. Get used to it.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I have to say it ..... I TOLD YOU SO! You lefties and righties think you have it fiured out each election year then find out you've been bent over a barrel. Get used to it.

Yep. Bill Maher, as big a blowhard as he is, had it right during the 2000 election campaign.

"You can either vote for Bore or Gush"

 

[Double Trouble]

Change you can believe in

 

[Fern]

I don't see a problem (aside from the obvious flip-flop from 'campaign rhetoric).

Maybe he's gonna treat them as POWs (aside from shooting them for not being in uniform).

And, as usual, I disagree with the typically uninfomed vapid 'talking heads'. The extension of HC/Constitutional rights to foreigners outside the USA in the case of GITMO was a contorted and suspect SCOTUS case involving some BS as concerns the US lease of Cuban terrority, hence that would not seem to apply here no matter how bad Rachel and company would like otherwise.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't see a problem (aside from the obvious flip-flop from 'campaign rhetoric).

Maybe he's gonna treat them as POWs (aside from shooting them for not being in uniform).

And, as usual, I disagree with the typically uninfomed vapid 'talking heads'. The extension of HC/Constitutional rights to foreigners outside the USA in the case of GITMO was a contorted and suspect SCOTUS case involving some BS as concerns the US lease of Cuban terrority, hence that would not seem to apply here no matter how bad Rachel and company would like otherwise.

Fern

The problem is that these people were taken by the US government in other countries and not engaged in combat, then taken to Afghanistan. The ruling referred to wasn't talking about fighters captured in Afghanistan (which might qualify as POWs), but these three.

Consider if China wanted to hold you indefinitely, and were taken there and held with no charge. I don't think you would be pleased, yet that is effectively what is happening here. The difference is that you live in the nation doing the taking.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights, rather the concept is that ALL people have these rights, and the Constitution is the means by which rights we already have are protected.

Considering the nature and the scope of the ruling, I have to say Obama is wrong here. Taking people prisoner from around the world and locking them in a black hole without a legal reason is wrong. It's the definition of tyranny.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Taking people prisoner from around the world and locking them in a black hole without a legal reason is wrong. It's the definition of tyranny.

:thumbsup:

Obama shows further proof that he's no different than others before him, no matter how much he tries to sell the whole "change" BS.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Taking people prisoner from around the world and locking them in a black hole without a legal reason is wrong. It's the definition of tyranny.

:thumbsup:

Obama shows further proof that he's no different than others before him, no matter how much he tries to sell the whole "change" BS.

He's different, the system he's working within isn't.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/026320.html

Pardon the right-wing source.

Talk about another 180 degree turn. At least some people on the left are speaking up. But where do people turn? And how in the hell can we spread "freedom and democracy" around the world (Afghanistan anyone?) when we act like hypocritical bastards at home? Say one thing, do the opposite.

Maybe a better way to look at it is that you're just wrong and Obama has decided accordingly.

Maybe Obama reads these forums and is also sick and tired of the Republican nutjob whiners.....

Perhaps Bush was a reader of these forums and was also sick and tired of the Democrat nutjob whiners.....

Of course my theory relies on Bush being literate. Pffft, oh well.

All things considered, Bush was literate. Saying things like that just makes you sound like a whiner with no real argument.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Taking people prisoner from around the world and locking them in a black hole without a legal reason is wrong. It's the definition of tyranny.

:thumbsup:

Obama shows further proof that he's no different than others before him, no matter how much he tries to sell the whole "change" BS.

He's different, the system he's working within isn't.

The only way he's "different" is the color of his skin. Underneath, he's the same slimy politician as every other one, no matter how much he promised to be different. He did a complete 180 on his campaign promises, just like every other politician does when it's convenient.

Anyway, Hayabusa hit the nail on the head. I don't care what your party or ideology, grabbing people and locking them up without any trial or judicial process is wrong.

 

[heyheybooboo]

There is quite a significant difference between the Bush detention policies and what (it appears) Obama is trying to do.

I don't know what to do with the Bad Guys at Bagram but somebody (the US or the 'Stans) needs to come up with a plan.

The 'Bush Position' on detention was held as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - and since the detainees at Bagram are essentially under the 'effective control' of the US (regardless of sovereignty) Obama has a really big problem here.

How many 'detainees' are there at Bagram?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't see a problem (aside from the obvious flip-flop from 'campaign rhetoric).

Maybe he's gonna treat them as POWs (aside from shooting them for not being in uniform).

And, as usual, I disagree with the typically uninfomed vapid 'talking heads'. The extension of HC/Constitutional rights to foreigners outside the USA in the case of GITMO was a contorted and suspect SCOTUS case involving some BS as concerns the US lease of Cuban terrority, hence that would not seem to apply here no matter how bad Rachel and company would like otherwise.

Fern

The problem is that these people were taken by the US government in other countries and not engaged in combat, then taken to Afghanistan. The ruling referred to wasn't talking about fighters captured in Afghanistan (which might qualify as POWs), but these three.

Consider if China wanted to hold you indefinitely, and were taken there and held with no charge. I don't think you would be pleased, yet that is effectively what is happening here. The difference is that you live in the nation doing the taking.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights, rather the concept is that ALL people have these rights, and the Constitution is the means by which rights we already have are protected.

Considering the nature and the scope of the ruling, I have to say Obama is wrong here. Taking people prisoner from around the world and locking them in a black hole without a legal reason is wrong. It's the definition of tyranny.

"All people have these rights"?

That's news to me (and the SCOTUS too).

A US citizen has these rights when dealing with the the US government (but not a foriegn country's government when abroad), foreigners on US soil have (some of the Constitutional) rights when here.

These people are neither.

During WWII etc we held many POWs in many different countries (including here) at various prison camps, none had the right of HC. That's why I mention POWs.

If one wishes to view this as a criminal matter, that's a whole 'nother ballgame and one, IMO, in which we are on thin ice.

You say that they are "not engaged in combat", the Obama admin say they are "enemy combatants". Either I'm unfamiliar with some nuanced difference in these seeming similiar terms, or the Obama admin disagrees with you and they were, at least allegedly, engaged in combat (to some extent).

You'll note the article correctly refers to the lawyers as 'human rights lawyers", not 'civil rights lawyers'. There is a difference.

You say:

Consider if China wanted to hold you indefinitely, and were taken there and held with no charge. I don't think you would be pleased, yet that is effectively what is happening here. The difference is that you live in the nation doing the taking.

Yeah, and my Constitutional rights wouldn't be relevent in China either. Presently there are several US citizens held in NK and Iran, we hear nothing of their Constitutional rights or HC. The US Constitution doesn't apply in such cases.

Under these circumstances (enemy combatants held in a foreign country by us) is the military subject to some Constitutional rules? AFAIK, that is an open question; we have no SCOTUS rulings on it.

Fern

 

[heyheybooboo]

Actually, Fern, the Supremes have ruled that regardless of sovereignty if a detainee is subject to 'effective control' by the US ...

""The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . .

Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive's power to detain. . . .

Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law. ""

 

[Fern]

^ That's the GITMO case.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't see a problem (aside from the obvious flip-flop from 'campaign rhetoric).

Maybe he's gonna treat them as POWs (aside from shooting them for not being in uniform).

And, as usual, I disagree with the typically uninfomed vapid 'talking heads'. The extension of HC/Constitutional rights to foreigners outside the USA in the case of GITMO was a contorted and suspect SCOTUS case involving some BS as concerns the US lease of Cuban terrority, hence that would not seem to apply here no matter how bad Rachel and company would like otherwise.

Fern

The problem is that these people were taken by the US government in other countries and not engaged in combat, then taken to Afghanistan. The ruling referred to wasn't talking about fighters captured in Afghanistan (which might qualify as POWs), but these three.

Consider if China wanted to hold you indefinitely, and were taken there and held with no charge. I don't think you would be pleased, yet that is effectively what is happening here. The difference is that you live in the nation doing the taking.

The Constitution doesn't give you rights, rather the concept is that ALL people have these rights, and the Constitution is the means by which rights we already have are protected.

Considering the nature and the scope of the ruling, I have to say Obama is wrong here. Taking people prisoner from around the world and locking them in a black hole without a legal reason is wrong. It's the definition of tyranny.

"All people have these rights"?

That's news to me (and the SCOTUS too).

A US citizen has these rights when dealing with the the US government (but not a foriegn country's government when abroad), foreigners on US soil have (some of the Constitutional) rights when here.

These people are neither.

During WWII etc we held many POWs in many different countries (including here) at various prison camps, none had the right of HC. That's why I mention POWs.

If one wishes to view this as a criminal matter, that's a whole 'nother ballgame and one, IMO, in which we are on thin ice.

You say that they are "not engaged in combat", the Obama admin say they are "enemy combatants". Either I'm unfamiliar with some nuanced difference in these seeming similiar terms, or the Obama admin disagrees with you and they were, at least allegedly, engaged in combat (to some extent).

You'll note the article correctly refers to the lawyers as 'human rights lawyers", not 'civil rights lawyers'. There is a difference.

You say:

Consider if China wanted to hold you indefinitely, and were taken there and held with no charge. I don't think you would be pleased, yet that is effectively what is happening here. The difference is that you live in the nation doing the taking.

Yeah, and my Constitutional rights wouldn't be relevent in China either. Presently there are several US citizens held in NK and Iran, we hear nothing of their Constitutional rights or HC. The US Constitution doesn't apply in such cases.

Under these circumstances (enemy combatants held in a foreign country by us) is the military subject to some Constitutional rules? AFAIK, that is an open question; we have no SCOTUS rulings on it.

Fern

Well said Fern. Agree 100%.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Taking people prisoner from around the world and locking them in a black hole without a legal reason is wrong. It's the definition of tyranny.

:thumbsup:

Obama shows further proof that he's no different than others before him, no matter how much he tries to sell the whole "change" BS.

He's different, the system he's working within isn't.

See last part of sig.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Fern
"All people have these rights"?

That's news to me (and the SCOTUS too).

A US citizen has these rights when dealing with the the US government (but not a foriegn country's government when abroad), foreigners on US soil have (some of the Constitutional) rights when here.

You again are missing the point. Do all people have these rights? Yes, they do. Perhaps not from a legal standpoint, but it is not our constitution nor our government that gives us these rights. Our constitution acknowledges that these rights are given to us by a creator, and that they are inalienable. Now if we believe that, and I hope that we still do, then from a moral and a political view, these people do have these rights. And if we want to lead the world by example, than we damn sure ought to recognize these rights of non-Americans when we deal with them. And if we want to lead the world by force, then we will fail anyway.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Fern
"All people have these rights"?

That's news to me (and the SCOTUS too).

A US citizen has these rights when dealing with the the US government (but not a foriegn country's government when abroad), foreigners on US soil have (some of the Constitutional) rights when here.

You again are missing the point. Do all people have these rights? Yes, they do. Perhaps not from a legal standpoint, but it is not our constitution nor our government that gives us these rights. Our constitution acknowledges that these rights are given to us by a creator, and that they are inalienable. Now if we believe that, and I hope that we still do, then from a moral and a political view, these people do have these rights. And if we want to lead the world by example, than we damn sure ought to recognize these rights of non-Americans when we deal with them. And if we want to lead the world by force, then we will fail anyway.

Fair enough. If you're going to use natural law as your argument, however, we should stop talking in terms of the constitution.

Is it legal? Possibly. Moral? No.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Fern
"All people have these rights"?

That's news to me (and the SCOTUS too).

A US citizen has these rights when dealing with the the US government (but not a foriegn country's government when abroad), foreigners on US soil have (some of the Constitutional) rights when here.

You again are missing the point. Do all people have these rights? Yes, they do. Perhaps not from a legal standpoint, but it is not our constitution nor our government that gives us these rights. Our constitution acknowledges that these rights are given to us by a creator, and that they are inalienable. Now if we believe that, and I hope that we still do, then from a moral and a political view, these people do have these rights. And if we want to lead the world by example, than we damn sure ought to recognize these rights of non-Americans when we deal with them. And if we want to lead the world by force, then we will fail anyway.

So you think we (and every other country) has always been wrong during war time? POWs didn't get HC and trials/due process.

Do you think they should have?

Fern