Obama Issues Executive Order Institutionalizing Indefinite D

[steve74baywin]

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/p ... -detention

Administration Also Announces It Will Use Military Commissions For New Terrorism Cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – President Obama today issued an executive order that permits ongoing indefinite detention of Guantánamo detainees while establishing a periodic administrative review process for them. The administration also announced it will lift the ban on bringing new military commissions charges against detainees that don’t already have ongoing cases in the substandard system.

The American Civil Liberties Union has long called for Guantánamo to be shut down and opposes the indefinite detention of prisoners there, some of whom have been imprisoned by the U.S. without charge or trial for nine years. The ACLU has also long called for an end to the illegitimate military commissions and for the government to prosecute terrorism suspects in the federal criminal courts.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“The best way to get America out of the Guantánamo morass is to use the most effective and reliable tool we have: our criminal justice system. Instead, the Obama administration has done just the opposite and chosen to institutionalize unlawful indefinite detention – creating a troubling ‘new normal’ – and to revive the illegitimate Guantánamo military commissions.

“While appearing to be a step in the right direction, providing more process to Guantánamo detainees is just window dressing for the reality that today’s executive order institutionalizes indefinite detention, which is unlawful, unwise and un-American. The detention of Guantánamo detainees for nine years without charge or trial is a stain on America’s reputation that should be ended immediately, not given a stamp of approval. Moreover, the procedures for providing more process are flawed as they vest too much discretion and power in the Secretary of Defense, essentially asking the fox to guard the hen house.

“Even with recent improvements, the military commissions rules are inadequate under established criminal law and international law. Where credible evidence exists against Guantánamo detainees, they should be charged and prosecuted in our federal courts, which have a proven record of prosecuting terrorism suspects and are the only way to provide the fair and reliable outcomes that Americans deserve.

“The only way to restore the rule of law is to put an end to indefinite detention at Guantánamo and the broken commissions system, and to prosecute terrorism suspects in federal criminal courts. Today’s announcement takes us back a step when we should be moving forward toward closing Guantánamo and ending its shameful policies.”

This is one of those things that people mentioned to me months after he was elected and said he was undoing this junk from the Bush days.

This is just too sad, tell me now we have not become almost as bad as those our ancestors condemned?

[Lanval]

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/p ... -detention

Administration Also Announces It Will Use Military Commissions For New Terrorism Cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – President Obama today issued an executive order that permits ongoing indefinite detention of Guantánamo detainees while establishing a periodic administrative review process for them. The administration also announced it will lift the ban on bringing new military commissions charges against detainees that don’t already have ongoing cases in the substandard system.

The American Civil Liberties Union has long called for Guantánamo to be shut down and opposes the indefinite detention of prisoners there, some of whom have been imprisoned by the U.S. without charge or trial for nine years. The ACLU has also long called for an end to the illegitimate military commissions and for the government to prosecute terrorism suspects in the federal criminal courts.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“The best way to get America out of the Guantánamo morass is to use the most effective and reliable tool we have: our criminal justice system. Instead, the Obama administration has done just the opposite and chosen to institutionalize unlawful indefinite detention – creating a troubling ‘new normal’ – and to revive the illegitimate Guantánamo military commissions.

“While appearing to be a step in the right direction, providing more process to Guantánamo detainees is just window dressing for the reality that today’s executive order institutionalizes indefinite detention, which is unlawful, unwise and un-American. The detention of Guantánamo detainees for nine years without charge or trial is a stain on America’s reputation that should be ended immediately, not given a stamp of approval. Moreover, the procedures for providing more process are flawed as they vest too much discretion and power in the Secretary of Defense, essentially asking the fox to guard the hen house.

“Even with recent improvements, the military commissions rules are inadequate under established criminal law and international law. Where credible evidence exists against Guantánamo detainees, they should be charged and prosecuted in our federal courts, which have a proven record of prosecuting terrorism suspects and are the only way to provide the fair and reliable outcomes that Americans deserve.

“The only way to restore the rule of law is to put an end to indefinite detention at Guantánamo and the broken commissions system, and to prosecute terrorism suspects in federal criminal courts. Today’s announcement takes us back a step when we should be moving forward toward closing Guantánamo and ending its shameful policies.”

This is one of those things that people mentioned to me months after he was elected and said he was undoing this junk from the Bush days.

This is just too sad, tell me now we have not become almost as bad as those our ancestors condemned?

I don't think so; the standard reading of Jefferson is that, though he was ideologically committed to radical states rights (and by extension the rights of the individual) before his election, after he was elected to the office of the President, he moved decidedly to the center, even while making broad changes to the government according to his beliefs; for example, he reduced the standing army, cut the budget and created a surplus as well as other government reducing moves.

Even so, Jefferson found it not only necessary, but beneficial to the new nation to maintain many aspects of the Federalist government put in place by Washington and Adams. What he seems to have realized is that ideology is easy, practice is hard. Sometimes ideology needs to give in to practicality. You can argue that Jefferson's change wasn't an act of compromise in the service of the greater good of the nation, that in fact he was co-opted by the wealthy elite into turning on his ideals, but no ONE then or now argues that seriously.

The simple fact is that it's easy to come up with broad, ideology-based statements when you're not responsible, but once you take charge you often find that things are not as simple as they appeared from the outside, nor were your simplistic answers to complex problems grounded in reality. That would seem to be the case here; simply put, Obama found out that it's easy to take Bush to task for some of the things he did, but not all of them were issues that presented better viable options.

I don't like the detentions at Guantanamo Bay, but neither do I like some of the other things are government has done in the service of keeping us safe (c.f. firebombing Dresden).

History will ultimately vindicate or revile those choices, but I suspect that Obama hasn't turned his back on his ideals; instead he's confronted with a complex situation that defies simple, sweeping gestures of the type that get you elected.

Best,

L.

[turk]

Woulda been interesting to try OBL in a federal criminal court.

[steve74baywin]

I don't think so; the standard reading of Jefferson is that, though he was ideologically committed to radical states rights (and by extension the rights of the individual) before his election, after he was elected to the office of the President, he moved decidedly to the center, even while making broad changes to the government according to his beliefs; for example, he reduced the standing army, cut the budget and created a surplus as well as other government reducing moves.

Even so, Jefferson found it not only necessary, but beneficial to the new nation to maintain many aspects of the Federalist government put in place by Washington and Adams. What he seems to have realized is that ideology is easy, practice is hard. Sometimes ideology needs to give in to practicality. You can argue that Jefferson's change wasn't an act of compromise in the service of the greater good of the nation, that in fact he was co-opted by the wealthy elite into turning on his ideals, but no ONE then or now argues that seriously.

The simple fact is that it's easy to come up with broad, ideology-based statements when you're not responsible, but once you take charge you often find that things are not as simple as they appeared from the outside, nor were your simplistic answers to complex problems grounded in reality. That would seem to be the case here; simply put, Obama found out that it's easy to take Bush to task for some of the things he did, but not all of them were issues that presented better viable options.

I don't like the detentions at Guantanamo Bay, but neither do I like some of the other things are government has done in the service of keeping us safe (c.f. firebombing Dresden).

History will ultimately vindicate or revile those choices, but I suspect that Obama hasn't turned his back on his ideals; instead he's confronted with a complex situation that defies simple, sweeping gestures of the type that get you elected.

Best,

L.

As to how much Jefferson's views changed and why will be hard to determine now.
It could be that he realized he couldn't change what the Federalist put in place. I heard he wanted the Declaration of Independence to be written differently, but in order for the slave states to ever agree it had to be the way it is now. Perhaps he just new he had to live with what was in place for now.
As far the the issue at hand, Detaining and Torturing, that is a simple human decency thing that there is not or never can be a justified reason IMHO.
As far as Obama realizing things now that he is in office, this comes to mind.
Here we have this guy that so many thought was worthy of being the president and he didn't know that there could be things he doesn't know and he campaigns about doing away with this stuff? It seems so many regular people keep saying what you said, how things are more complex, once you get in office they see how come things have to be that way. Well, I say, People think this guy is so great to be president yet he doesn't know that things are more complex so he goes around promising things he shouldn't? Doesn't seem like too smart of a guy to me. Or was he just saying what he new the people wanted to hear.
I don't think he turned his back on his ideals either, he just wasn't truthful to us.

[steve74baywin]

Woulda been interesting to try OBL in a federal criminal court.

I heard early on how they knew they did not have a case that could make it through the courts.

[Lanval]

I don't think so; the standard reading of Jefferson is that, though he was ideologically committed to radical states rights (and by extension the rights of the individual) before his election, after he was elected to the office of the President, he moved decidedly to the center, even while making broad changes to the government according to his beliefs; for example, he reduced the standing army, cut the budget and created a surplus as well as other government reducing moves.

Even so, Jefferson found it not only necessary, but beneficial to the new nation to maintain many aspects of the Federalist government put in place by Washington and Adams. What he seems to have realized is that ideology is easy, practice is hard. Sometimes ideology needs to give in to practicality. You can argue that Jefferson's change wasn't an act of compromise in the service of the greater good of the nation, that in fact he was co-opted by the wealthy elite into turning on his ideals, but no ONE then or now argues that seriously.

The simple fact is that it's easy to come up with broad, ideology-based statements when you're not responsible, but once you take charge you often find that things are not as simple as they appeared from the outside, nor were your simplistic answers to complex problems grounded in reality. That would seem to be the case here; simply put, Obama found out that it's easy to take Bush to task for some of the things he did, but not all of them were issues that presented better viable options.

I don't like the detentions at Guantanamo Bay, but neither do I like some of the other things are government has done in the service of keeping us safe (c.f. firebombing Dresden).

History will ultimately vindicate or revile those choices, but I suspect that Obama hasn't turned his back on his ideals; instead he's confronted with a complex situation that defies simple, sweeping gestures of the type that get you elected.

Best,

L.

As to how much Jefferson's views changed and why will be hard to determine now.
It could be that he realized he couldn't change what the Federalist put in place. I heard he wanted the Declaration of Independence to be written differently, but in order for the slave states to ever agree it had to be the way it is now. Perhaps he just new he had to live with what was in place for now.
As far the the issue at hand, Detaining and Torturing, that is a simple human decency thing that there is not or never can be a justified reason IMHO.
As far as Obama realizing things now that he is in office, this comes to mind.
Here we have this guy that so many thought was worthy of being the president and he didn't know that there could be things he doesn't know and he campaigns about doing away with this stuff? It seems so many regular people keep saying what you said, how things are more complex, once you get in office they see how come things have to be that way. Well, I say, People think this guy is so great to be president yet he doesn't know that things are more complex so he goes around promising things he shouldn't? Doesn't seem like too smart of a guy to me. Or was he just saying what he new the people wanted to hear.
I don't think he turned his back on his ideals either, he just wasn't truthful to us.

As compared to who, exactly? Which president are you pointing to that DIDN'T do something like this?

Lincoln? (who suspended habeus corpus)
Washington? (who put down a popular uprising against gov't taxation?)
Truman? (Who used the atomic weapon in part to one-up the Soviets prior to a negotiation)


Those are 3 of the most highly regarded presidents in history ~ your focus on Obama suggests a partisan dislike that has nothing to do with Obama's actions per se, and everything to do with your willingness to vitiate the man because you don't like him.

BTW, your conspiracy videos are silly, and for the most part not worthy of consideration. People who level arguments, but don't say who they are, what they want or where they get their information are far more dangerous and conspiratorial than any group they oppose.

L.

[Amskeptic]

As far as Obama realizing things now that he is in office, this comes to mind.
Here we have this guy that so many thought was worthy of being the president and he didn't know that there could be things he doesn't know and he campaigns about doing away with this stuff? It seems so many regular people keep saying what you said, how things are more complex, once you get in office they see how come things have to be that way. Well, I say, People think this guy is so great to be president yet he doesn't know that things are more complex so he goes around promising things he shouldn't? Doesn't seem like too smart of a guy to me. Or was he just saying what he knew the people wanted to hear.
I don't think he turned his back on his ideals either, he just wasn't truthful to us.

I think both Clinton and Obama are incredibly smart complex human beings who were both surprised and blind-sided by the simplistic excoriations of their opposition. Clinton was dogged by loud hypocrites like Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde and Newt Gringrich who deigned to judge his moral behavior in a new and public way when personal short-comings used to be considered private previously. In Clinton's book My Life, he writes that people with secrets are far more interesting than the liars who claim none. Obama has been especially dogged by people with incredibly suspect motives.

If you were to actually conduct a review of campaign promises versus actual decisions, Obama has stacked up quite well against prior Presidents. Most of his misses have been due to vehement opposition to every damn thing he has proposed, others have been due to realities that no candidate is privvy to until he has been briefed as President. If you think Obama was merely pandering to what people wanted to hear, you have already forgotten that shameful mess of pandering aka John McCain's campaign.

Most of all, I think you will agree that any young politician who finds himself in the Presidency these days, is apt to be bludgeoned by the new dark corporate oligarchy. Do honestly think Obama is stupid?
Colin

[turk]

Calm down L. Yr approaching the speed of hyperbole. We are allowed to make critical observations of the president, no matter how terrible or personal they might seem to his fans. BTW Steve has nothing personal against Obama that is implied in his criticism. It is a good question, and should be asked. Meaning, is he just naive or lying outright. I would put my bet on number two. That's what "got him elected". The people were willfully naive, mostly.

[ruckman101]

Who opposed trying the detainees in federal courts? Seems like that was a great first step towards closing Guantanamo. And I'm pretty sure the torturing has stopped.

neal

[Amskeptic]

Calm down Loonville. Yr approaching the speed of hyperbole. We are allowed to make critical observations of the president, no matter how terrible or personal they might seem to his fans. BTW Steve has nothing personal against Obama that is implied in his criticism. It is a good question, and should be asked. Meaning, is he just naive or lying outright. I would put my bet on number two. That's what "got him elected". The people were willfully naive, mostly.

This is a personally disrespectful reply to me. Adjust it.

[steve74baywin]

As compared to who, exactly? Which president are you pointing to that DIDN'T do something like this?
Lincoln? (who suspended habeus corpus)
Washington? (who put down a popular uprising against gov't taxation?)
Truman? (Who used the atomic weapon in part to one-up the Soviets prior to a negotiation)

Those are 3 of the most highly regarded presidents in history ~ your focus on Obama suggests a partisan dislike that has nothing to do with Obama's actions per se, and everything to do with your willingness to vitiate the man because you don't like him.

BTW, your conspiracy videos are silly, and for the most part not worthy of consideration. People who level arguments, but don't say who they are, what they want or where they get their information are far more dangerous and conspiratorial than any group they oppose.

L.

I don't think I pointed to any president that didn't do it?
Partisan dislike, yeah, because he is doing something I see so wrong that I wanted Bush to stop and be impeached for.

Evidently you haven't watched to many of my vids, almost all of them have information and resource pages.

The whole world needs a chill pill.
Whatever happened to calm debates.
Maybe I was wrong the other day, there is an unending supply of people who get bent easier than I am used.

[Lanval]

Calm down Loonville. Yr approaching the speed of hyperbole. We are allowed to make critical observations of the president, no matter how terrible or personal they might seem to his fans. BTW Steve has nothing personal against Obama that is implied in his criticism.

One at a time:

I already mentioned your pointless name-calling elsewhere. You can be replaced. And banned.

Critical observations are fine, but when you make assessments (right/wrong, good/bad) that HAS to be put in context. Whose "good/bad" version are you using? The Pope's? Bush Jr.'s? Andrew Bynum's? Just saying Obama sucks is worthless, because it doesn't offer any sense of "as compared to what?"

Anyone who rails against the gov't continuously, and one member of the gov't repeatedly clearly has a personal issue. Obama is no better or worse than the average president. But if we were to go by Steve's vision, everything Obama does is wrong/bad/evil. Am I to take that seriously? Bush was among the worst presidents every, and HE did a number of good things. Simply put, a monolithic and one-sided representation is self-evidently personal because it demonstrates the view of the person more clearly than the subjects they discuss. If you're not aware of that (which based on your own claims is likely) you should be.

L.

[steve74baywin]

As far as Obama realizing things now that he is in office, this comes to mind.
Here we have this guy that so many thought was worthy of being the president and he didn't know that there could be things he doesn't know and he campaigns about doing away with this stuff? It seems so many regular people keep saying what you said, how things are more complex, once you get in office they see how come things have to be that way. Well, I say, People think this guy is so great to be president yet he doesn't know that things are more complex so he goes around promising things he shouldn't? Doesn't seem like too smart of a guy to me. Or was he just saying what he knew the people wanted to hear.
I don't think he turned his back on his ideals either, he just wasn't truthful to us.

I think both Clinton and Obama are incredibly smart complex human beings who were both surprised and blind-sided by the simplistic excoriations of their opposition. Clinton was dogged by loud hypocrites like Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde and Newt Gringrich who deigned to judge his moral behavior in a new and public way when personal short-comings used to be considered private previously. In Clinton's book My Life, he writes that people with secrets are far more interesting than the liars who claim none. Obama has been especially dogged by people with incredibly suspect motives.

If you were to actually conduct a review of campaign promises versus actual decisions, Obama has stacked up quite well against prior Presidents. Most of his misses have been due to vehement opposition to every damn thing he has proposed, others have been due to realities that no candidate is privvy to until he has been briefed as President. If you think Obama was merely pandering to what people wanted to hear, you have already forgotten that shameful mess of pandering aka John McCain's campaign.

Most of all, I think you will agree that any young politician who finds himself in the Presidency these days, is apt to be bludgeoned by the new dark corporate oligarchy. Do honestly think Obama is stupid?
Colin

All I can say on this one is, following the flow of conversation between L and I, he brought up a point about maybe Obama found out when he got into office that it was the best thing to. What L says had been said by many others before, many average people like us keep saying that. Well, don't ya thing the pres oughta know this too?

[airkooledchris]

I think it's the same for every president that has been elected to office in the last 20 years.

They are honest about their intentions, then they get to the office and they realize how difficult it is to actually DO anything about it.
I don't think many of them outright lied about it when trying to get elected, rather they start lying later on as to WHY they can't do anything about it (there's too many people making too much money off of ______ to do XYZ)

I think Busch was too stupid to lie, that was just the information he was given and we all know he only allowed himself to take in the data pre-filtered.
I think Obama is too smart to waste his time lying about anything, because it isn't productive and won't get him the results he wants.

I think they both bend their talking points to lash out at the other party for holding up their agenda's, as has every president from both parties in recent history.

In the end, you just have to hope that whomever is in office made decisions that didn't bankrupt the country or take away our personal freedom. Neither has done much better than the other, but I prefer the direction were heading than where we were. The thing nobody wants to admit is that a lot of people's opinions of presidents of times past depends more on what's happening in the world than what they actually did to effect it. Busch was in office when 911 hit, and when the economy crashed, were those his fault? no. Clinton was in office when we had all the money we could have needed, but was that a direct result of anything he did? no. Obama happened to be in office when we killed OBL, but did he 'do' it? no. - but that said, you change any of those situations around and put different presidents in charge of different era's and everyone's stupid talking points would just reverse.

[steve74baywin]

I think it's the same for every president that has been elected to office in the last 20 years.

I like your post Chris and it got me thinking.
Let's say Obama was honest on the Campaign.
The article says

NEW YORK – President Obama today issued an executive order that permits

He did a pro active step to continue.
This would mean he either is now for it or was forced into it.
If he was for it I guess he found out stuff he didn't know. This I do not think is likely.
He was probably forced too.
He did a pro active step to continue, although if he didn't issue that order would it still have continued?
Can the president really stop or give the okay on this? Not only is it probably not in his powers from a constitutional stand point, it probably isn't in his powers period.
So who does have the say on whether we do this or not?