Obama to indefinitely imprison detainees without charges

[kage69]

It was un-American when Bush did it, it's still un-American when Obama does it.

We're supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard than China, Iran, etc.

Yep, pretty straight forward really... I'd be surprised that this was due to Obama's own personal desires here though, more likely that he is listening to a consensus of military/intelligence recommendations. Regardless, Obama's stock is falling.

Too funny to see all the bushbots making 'dear leader' comments, it's like they honestly think people can't remember 8 years of them sucking GOP ass, no matter the issue. I wish I could say I recall seeing any Bush voters take him to task over anything a mere year after being in office.

I'll leave it at that. Wouldn't want to interrupt others from their gleeful circlejerk.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So it's wrong to detain people attacking your country until the conflict ends?

Fern

Are you really saying that we have the unilateral right to lock up anyone, without any evidence or trial, forever? Because without a fair trial, no one knows who is innocent or guilty.

Since we are at war with an idea (AKA war on terror), we will never win, so it will be a "forever war". How long have we had a "war on drugs", and how well is that working?

So basically, declare war on a thought, declare anyone you like a member of said war, and lock them up forever. Brilliant! Why didn't we think of this a long time ago?

 

[bamacre]

Heh... I love this stuff... on the issue of imprisoning detainess without charges, the OP is (rightfully) horrified of the potential govt abuses, but mention the threat of Islam, and it's OMG 9/11 and run to mama gubment's apron strings for protection. The transparency of the disconnect is only rivaled by its opacity to the disconnected.

 

[Robor]

It was un-American when Bush did it, it's still un-American when Obama does it.

We're supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard than China, Iran, etc.

:thumbsup:

 

[Double Trouble]

As a conservative, I find it very ironic that lots of right-wing neocons have no faith in government to run things like healthcare etc (correctly so IMO), but have complete faith and trust in that same government to make decisions about liberty and justice without any oversight or accountability.

Personally, I think indefinite detentions without charges or trial, torture etc etc are all un-American and fly in the face of everything that makes this country great. Obama is taking to some of the worst aspects of the Bush admin.....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As a conservative, I find it very ironic that lots of right-wing neocons have no faith in government to run things like healthcare etc (correctly so IMO), but have complete faith and trust in that same government to make decisions about liberty and justice without any oversight or accountability.

Personally, I think indefinite detentions without charges or trial, torture etc etc are all un-American and fly in the face of everything that makes this country great. Obama is taking to some of the worst aspects of the Bush admin.....

I agree. I don't understand how people can appeal to the Constitution as "conservatives" then reject the principles it represents.

I therefore suggest an elegant "solution".

If it's wrong to release them, and it's wrong to keep them forever, I suggest we get one of the "let's shoot them all, they are all terrorists" people and let him do just that.

Now shooting people who haven't been tried is murder, so after he accomplishes his task he's immediately seized and tried. Since he will have murdered all these people in public view, he can have his trial, be convicted and executed.

He can then have a patriots funeral and the problem is solved. Maybe he'll have 72 virgins of his own.

So who is going to step up to the plate for his country?

 

[nobodyknows]

One well placed suicide bomber whould do the trick

 

[Fern]

Are you really saying that we have the unilateral right to lock up anyone, without any evidence or trial, forever? Because without a fair trial, no one knows who is innocent or guilty.
-snip-

They have military tribunals; a trial.

They have a right to "Due Process" (IIRC as per the SCOTUS ruling).

We have plenty of people her in the USA in proson for life, presumably because they pose a threat if released. I see nothing wrong with these people in prison for life, I see nothing wrong with military tribunals.

If the military tribunals are somehow defect, fix those.

Fern

 

[PJABBER]

I agree. I don't understand how people can appeal to the Constitution as "conservatives" then reject the principles it represents.

I therefore suggest an elegant "solution".

If it's wrong to release them, and it's wrong to keep them forever, I suggest we get one of the "let's shoot them all, they are all terrorists" people and let him do just that.

Now shooting people who haven't been tried is murder, so after he accomplishes his task he's immediately seized and tried. Since he will have murdered all these people in public view, he can have his trial, be convicted and executed.

He can then have a patriots funeral and the problem is solved. Maybe he'll have 72 virgins of his own.

So who is going to step up to the plate for his country?

I think there was a survey done to see who would volunteer to personally execute convicted terrorists. Maybe it was done as a joke, but there were so many people that wanted to sign up that it was pulled, lest it become the impetus for legislation.

Families of victims should be allowed to participate as a matter of course, should they want to. But I doubt many would want to pull the switch themselves.

Acts meant to cause mass civilian casualties should, like spying, be death penalty eligible. In WWII, if I am not mistaken, certain enemy combatants condemned to death were used for lethal hand to hand combat training for elite forces. They might appropriately serve the same purpose these days.

 

[Fern]

As a conservative, I find it very ironic that lots of right-wing neocons have no faith in government to run things like healthcare etc (correctly so IMO), but have complete faith and trust in that same government to make decisions about liberty and justice without any oversight or accountability.

Might as well ask the converse: How can liberals who have enormous faith in the US government and want it to run health care etc not have faith that the government tribunals are fair & correct about these people being terrorists and sentencing them to life in prison?

Personally, I think indefinite detentions without charges or trial, torture etc etc are all un-American and fly in the face of everything that makes this country great. Obama is taking to some of the worst aspects of the Bush admin.....

"indefinite detentions without charges or trial" - weren't they subject to military tribunals? Didn't SCOTUS rule that these people in GITMO have 'due process' rights (Under the labored decision that found GITMO is soveriegn US territory) and hasn't that been complied with? (Honest question btw)

Fern

 

[Fern]

When does this conflict end?

IDK, but then I've never know when any one of them would.

Why can't we look at it as life in prison when found quilty by a military tribunal?

Maybe we can consider a policy to send them back to their country of origin when that country is functional and substantially free of terrorism (i.e., responsible enough).

Fern

 

[hal2kilo]

When does this conflict end?

This/

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Vic
When does this conflict end?

This/

Will it end any sooner by recycling combantants back into battle?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Will it end any sooner by recycling combantants back into battle?

Fern

Question ------------------ big space ----------------------------------- Fern dodging

 

[palehorse]

Craig:

Are you for, or are you against, military tribunals and sentencing for foreigners captured in the GWOT by our military?

 

[Ozoned]

bump for specific effect, please click here

 

[werepossum]

bump for specific effect, please click here

LOL!

Honestly though and politics and campaign promises aside, what else can he really do?

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd like to hear the thoughts on this topic from some of the resident lefties who were so vocal against their opposition to Bush regarding this issue. I wonder, will their criticism of Obama sting as much as their criticism of Bush? We'll see.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Far better that we never held any of them and killed them on the field than that we soiled our honor by allowing Bush to commit these crimes. Bush has destroyed the one thing this nation had, a place of honor and decency in the world. He's a big piece of shit on our history.
============
Thank you, Corn, for pointing this thread out to me in another.

It would have been far better that we never held these people and that if they really were enemy combatants that we killed them on the battlefield, or if captured, treated them as criminals subject to our legal system. Instead we tortured them and thereby tainted any chance forever, to do what should have been done. Now we have folk we can't try and whom if we release, may try to kill us again and even succeed.

You understand what would happen to any President who sought to let them go. He or she would be attacked by the opposite party as a traitor and a killer of Americans. It would be played as a huge political issue. Therefore, because one party would act like swine and gleefully destroy the other if they tried for justice, we won't apparently see any justice and wouldn't you be right there to support them? We will therefore have one party reduced to scum by the scum of the other party. Obama, in doing what he did, reduced himself to scum. Obama has spoken and said he is a moral coward. It's really fucking sad. Remember, Corn, for my truth I paid everything I had. For me Obama is chump change.

 

[Moonbeam]

LOL!

Honestly though and politics and campaign promises aside, what else can he really do?

He could fucking man up and let them go just like we did with OJ. It is better to lose an election to greater shit than become shit yourself to win. Let Americans get a spine or let the country fall. Fuck an America that is shit.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
Criticizing Bush - right on schedule, at the end of his presidency after he got two terms.

There's more to just criticizing, there's criticizing when it's justified.

If it'll make you feel better:

That darned Obama, I'm opposed to all his policies to greatly increase secrecy in government, to sell out to the corporate interests, to neglect the environment, to put cronies in power, to support the torture and indefinite detention of people, to support the corrupt politicization of Washington, to erode the barrier between Church and State. Darn him!

Hm, doesn't sound right somehow.

it sounds exactly like Obamas administration.

 

[Craig234]

Craig:

Are you for, or are you against, military tribunals and sentencing for foreigners captured in the GWOT by our military?

I'm not locked into an answer on this. I'm for justice.

In the past, wars had the practice of prisoners, held for a year or maybe even 3 until a war ended, and they were then returned to their nation, win or lose, and were free, when things went well.

There were some exceptions that did no credit to the nation who did not do this, such as Stalin's execution of Polish officers.

We did not typically try and sentence those men. They were at war, they were imprisoned, and freed. An exception was the Nuremberg trials for the leaders.

But we're in a very different situation now. Those wars lasted shorter than the current conflicts. People are held prisoner under conditions that can last decades, life sentences in effect.

We need solutions that don't take people defending their homeland from foreign invasion and put them in jail for indefinite periods. That's not just a tribunal issue, it's a foreign policy issue.

While we figure that out, while there are some tribunals that can be argued to be a good solution, on the one side you have our criminal justice system, the other you have 'kangaroo court' tribunals that allow the flimsiest of evidence to excuse holding almost anyone indefinitely. 'Good' military tribunals run the higher risk of deteriorating into those kangaroo courts. So it's not just 'which is better', it's also that the criminal trials help prevent the deterioration into kangaroo courts.

We have done pretty well with criminal trials for some other situations - the world trade center truck bombing, and so on.

Find me a solution that has justice, and isn't subject to deterioration into kangaroo courts. In the meantime, I'm not seeing why criminal trials aren't our best solution for people over life sentence 'prisoner of war'.

If the process had a reasonable end - like they could be freed within a year or so as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts wind down - I'd be more open to a tribunal approach for a shorter term detainment.

 

[Craig234]

it sounds exactly like Obamas administration.

No, it doesn't. It's not as different from Bush as I'd like - and I've criticized Obama in those areas. But more of those difference from Bush are better under Obama than Bush.

 

[werepossum]

He could fucking man up and let them go just like we did with OJ. It is better to lose an election to greater shit than become shit yourself to win. Let Americans get a spine or let the country fall. Fuck an America that is shit.

Um, I'm no fan of Obama's but considering he just won an election promising NOT to detain people indefinitely without trial, I hardly think it's fair to accuse him of changing his position (which he has already proved to be politically viable) just for politics.

These people are combatants at best. In every war we've had, captured combatants (including those captured by civilian authorities, like those Nazi saboteurs) have been judged either as either ordinary combatants, or as spies, saboteurs or agents. If the latter, they are typically executed or sentenced to long terms in military prisons. If the former, they are held until the conflict ends or until exchanged in a formal prisoner swap. Why should this be different?

 

[Moonbeam]

Um, I'm no fan of Obama's but considering he just won an election promising NOT to detain people indefinitely without trial, I hardly think it's fair to accuse him of changing his position (which he has already proved to be politically viable) just for politics.

These people are combatants at best. In every war we've had, captured combatants (including those captured by civilian authorities, like those Nazi saboteurs) have been judged either as either ordinary combatants, or as spies, saboteurs or agents. If the latter, they are typically executed or sentenced to long terms in military prisons. If the former, they are held until the conflict ends or until exchanged in a formal prisoner swap. Why should this be different?

Where is the difficulty in answering this questions yourself. Suppose you were detained as an enemy combatant forever even though you are innocent? These folk are all innocent because they have never been proven guilty. And they have also been tortured by fearful fuck heads.