Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely

[AAjax]

President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges. The move, which was controversial when the idea was first floated in The Washington Post in May, has sparked serious concern among civil liberties advocates. Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold "combatants" without habeas corpus -- a legal term literally meaning "you shall have the body" -- which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect's detention.

Great, and so it go's on. Republicans, Democrats... what difference does it make? They disregard the rights of the people, lie and generally leave the place a mess.

To hold someone without charge is wrong and downright un-American in my book.

 

[Genx87]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: AAjax
President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges. The move, which was controversial when the idea was first floated in The Washington Post in May, has sparked serious concern among civil liberties advocates. Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold "combatants" without habeas corpus -- a legal term literally meaning "you shall have the body" -- which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect's detention.

Great, and so it go's on. Republicans, Democrats... what difference does it make? They disregard the rights of the people, lie and generally leave the place a mess.

To hold someone without charge is wrong and downright un-American in my book.

I agree completely. Holding someone indefinitely without any charges or trial is wrong, no matter who's doing it or what supposed justification they have. It was wrong when Bush was doing it, it's wrong when Obama does it. I hope Obama's followers are willing to stand up and complain as loudly about Obama's violating human rights as they were when Bush was accused of doing it.

 

[Atreus21]

What is a prisoner of war?

 

[SAWYER]

lol@burying the story on page 23. Shouldn't that have been a front page splash?

 

[Corn]

I wonder if the forum's copy-n-paste macro lovers will start referring to Obama as their traitor-in-chief? I'm gonna guess no.

 

[waggy]

ain't this old news? seems we had this thread a while ago. wich oddly died really fast..seems some don't want to comment on it.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely

That's not to say that he's going against Congress or his existing powers.

In a statement to Baker, the Justice Department said, ?The administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress [and] is not currently seeking additional authorization.?

Great, and so it go's on. Republicans, Democrats... what difference does it make?

Not much, apparently.

To hold someone without charge is wrong and downright un-American in my book.

I can't say I feel any better about indefinite detention, it goes against the spirit of every law that came before it. I wonder when these people will be released... when the war ends? Or will we be afraid of them radicalizing and corrupting people abroad? If that's the case their detention would be truly indefinite. Personally, I think we've forgot what America is all about during the war on terror.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

[LunarRay]

A POW (enemy combatant) can be held subject to common article 3 until the end of the War. (as I understand it)

I think, however, that since that used to apply to folks in uniform (spies were or could be shot) and these folks don't have a common uniform nor are they a citizen from a country we are at war with - we are at war in a country but not with a country, I wonder on what basis a decision to avoid Article 3 courts can be made? Seems sort of extra-judicial to me.

 

[Elias824]

They are prisoners of war and should be held untill the war is over, its nothing that hasn't been done before. The problem here is that the war may go on forever, and I dont think anybody wants them back anyways. There just isnt some rosy solution to this one.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Elias824
They are prisoners of war and should be held untill the war is over, its nothing that hasn't been done before. The problem here is that the war may go on forever, and I dont think anybody wants them back anyways. There just isnt some rosy solution to this one.

Well that's fine and all, so where is the declaration of war? War without declaration is like detention without charge, neither has a definable end.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: AAjax
Well that's fine and all, so where is the declaration of war? War without declaration is like detention without charge, neither has a definable end.

That is the problem, and our mistake, in dealing with terrorism. It has neither a beginning nor an end. It is a constant.

 

[xenolith]

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. " U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corn
I wonder if the forum's copy-n-paste macro lovers will start referring to Obama as their traitor-in-chief? I'm gonna guess no.

Why? Did he start a false war like your hero?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Just as wrong as when Bush decided to do it.

I am really sorry to hear Obama do this. Angry is more like it.

 

[sciwizam]

Ummm..I think it is the exact opposite. He is now backing off the preventative detention issue.

Link

The Obama administration has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects and will instead rely on a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to continue to detain people indefinitely and without charge, according to administration officials.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
Ummm..I think it is the exact opposite. He is now backing off the preventative detention issue.

Link

The Obama administration has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects and will instead rely on a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to continue to detain people indefinitely and without charge, according to administration officials.

Am I missing something? How is it the opposite if he is going to continue to detain them indefinitely without charges?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: sciwizam
Ummm..I think it is the exact opposite. He is now backing off the preventative detention issue.

Link

The Obama administration has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects and will instead rely on a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to continue to detain people indefinitely and without charge, according to administration officials.

Am I missing something? How is it the opposite if he is going to continue to detain them indefinitely without charges?

Nevermind, I just woke up, not really running on all my mental cylinders.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: sciwizam
Ummm..I think it is the exact opposite. He is now backing off the preventative detention issue.

Link

The Obama administration has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects and will instead rely on a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to continue to detain people indefinitely and without charge, according to administration officials.

Am I missing something? How is it the opposite if he is going to continue to detain them indefinitely without charges?

Nope, you're not missing anything, it's not the opposite.

 

[alphatarget1]

Black Bush!

 

[moparacer]

That picture in the link is very telling.....He even took a page out of GWs book this morning rambling on about the "failure to comply with UN resolutions.

bwahahaha lefties having serious deja vous right about now...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
A POW (enemy combatant) can be held subject to common article 3 until the end of the War. (as I understand it)

I think, however, that since that used to apply to folks in uniform (spies were or could be shot) and these folks don't have a common uniform nor are they a citizen from a country we are at war with - we are at war in a country but not with a country, I wonder on what basis a decision to avoid Article 3 courts can be made? Seems sort of extra-judicial to me.

They are not POW's, they are Enemy Combatants, and thus are not protected by any convention and thus have no rights as viewed under United States law.
I've been a vocal opponent of Obama, but in this case he got it right. Anyone intent on doing harm to this nation and the people of this nation deserve nothing. They need to be flogged for information then shot and thrown into a hole.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: LunarRay
A POW (enemy combatant) can be held subject to common article 3 until the end of the War. (as I understand it)

I think, however, that since that used to apply to folks in uniform (spies were or could be shot) and these folks don't have a common uniform nor are they a citizen from a country we are at war with - we are at war in a country but not with a country, I wonder on what basis a decision to avoid Article 3 courts can be made? Seems sort of extra-judicial to me.

They are not POW's, they are Enemy Combatants, and thus are not protected by any convention and thus have no rights as viewed under United States law.
I've been a vocal opponent of Obama, but in this case he got it right. Anyone intent on doing harm to this nation and the people of this nation deserve nothing. They need to be flogged for information then shot and thrown into a hole.

enemy combatants? thats just another name for POW. These people should be tried or released back where they were picked up. Not held for as long as the goverment likes.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: moparacer
That picture in the link is very telling.....He even took a page out of GWs book this morning rambling on about the "failure to comply with UN resolutions.

bwahahaha lefties having serious deja vous right about now...

Not really. Obama's record on civil liberties in regards to the war on terror has been terrible from the very beginning. It's now slightly less awful as he is no longer seeking preventative detention powers, but that's like saying it's better to be punched in the face 4 times instead of 5.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: LunarRay
A POW (enemy combatant) can be held subject to common article 3 until the end of the War. (as I understand it)

I think, however, that since that used to apply to folks in uniform (spies were or could be shot) and these folks don't have a common uniform nor are they a citizen from a country we are at war with - we are at war in a country but not with a country, I wonder on what basis a decision to avoid Article 3 courts can be made? Seems sort of extra-judicial to me.

They are not POW's, they are Enemy Combatants, and thus are not protected by any convention and thus have no rights as viewed under United States law.
I've been a vocal opponent of Obama, but in this case he got it right. Anyone intent on doing harm to this nation and the people of this nation deserve nothing. They need to be flogged for information then shot and thrown into a hole.

enemy combatants? thats just another name for POW. These people should be tried or released back where they were picked up. Not held for as long as the goverment likes.

No it's not. A prisoner of war is someone that is allied or fighting for a flagged nation. A terrorist/Enemy Combatant is someone that has no recognized nation that they are fighting for. They are fighting for a person or an moral/religious cause.