Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
IT IS POPULAR WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT VOTERS, THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC VOTING BLOC.

IT WOULD PISS OFF THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT OBAMA ANYWAY.

THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.

You're ignoring the (very real) possibility that such news would reduce voter turnout among that group thus hurting Obama (and the Dems) in the next election.

In short, if your base is demoralized and fails to turn out you're screwed as a politician.

Fern

 

[OCGuy]

Yes we can!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 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.

The SCOTUS has already ruled that the congressional resolution passed in the wake of 911 amounts to a legal declaration of war.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Hey Eski,

I thought the SCOTUS already ruled that Habeus Corpus applied to those enemy combatants held at GITMO (I argued it was a convoluted and tortured decision at the time.)

Hence my recollection means this article mis-states the case (no hearings, no HC).

Can you confirm my recollection?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
IT IS POPULAR WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT VOTERS, THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC VOTING BLOC.

IT WOULD PISS OFF THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT OBAMA ANYWAY.

THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.

You're ignoring the (very real) possibility that such news would reduce voter turnout among that group thus hurting Obama (and the Dems) in the next election.

In short, if your base is demoralized and fails to turn out you're screwed as a politician.

Fern

Yes such a thing is possible, but it's an awfully huge stretch to say that a newspaper is burying massively popular decisions by the president in order to help him out. I think we both know that Exman didn't realize that this horrible detention scheme is actually quite popular in America as a whole, and so he called 'librul bias'.

As for the Guantanamo deal, yes. In Boumediene v. Bush the USSC said that Guantanamo detainees had a right to challenge their detention in court. I'm not exactly sure what Obama might be doing here that's different or why Boumediene wouldn't apply. It very well may still apply... as rawstory isn't exactly the best journalistic source.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
IT IS POPULAR WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT VOTERS, THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC VOTING BLOC.

IT WOULD PISS OFF THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT OBAMA ANYWAY.

THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.

You're ignoring the (very real) possibility that such news would reduce voter turnout among that group thus hurting Obama (and the Dems) in the next election.

In short, if your base is demoralized and fails to turn out you're screwed as a politician.

Fern

Yes such a thing is possible, but it's an awfully huge stretch to say that a newspaper is burying massively popular decisions by the president in order to help him out. I think we both know that Exman didn't realize that this horrible detention scheme is actually quite popular in America as a whole, and so he called 'librul bias'.

As for the Guantanamo deal, yes. In Boumediene v. Bush the USSC said that Guantanamo detainees had a right to challenge their detention in court. I'm not exactly sure what Obama might be doing here that's different or why Boumediene wouldn't apply. It very well may still apply... as rawstory isn't exactly the best journalistic source.

There are other sources if you google