Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely

  1. #1
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Angry Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely

    Hope! Change!

    Fraud.

    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.

    Obama's decision was buried on page A 23 of The New York Times' New York edition on Thursday. It didn't appear on that page in the national edition. (Meanwhile, the front page was graced with the story, "Richest Russian's Newest Toy: An N.B.A. Team.")

    Rather than seek approval from Congress to hold some 50 Guantanamo detainees indefinitely, the administration has decided that it has the authority to hold the prisoners under broad-ranging legislation passed in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. Former President George W. Bush frequently invoked this legislation as the justification for controversial legal actions -- including the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.

    "The administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban," the Times' Peter Baker writes. "In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies."

    Constitutional scholar and Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald discussed the policy in a column in May. He warned that the ability for a president to "preventively" detain suspects could mushroom into broader, potentially abusive activity.

    "It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding," Greenwald wrote. "That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, 'preventive detention' allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally 'dangerous' by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they 'expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden' or 'otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans'). That's what 'preventive' means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be 'combatants.'"

    "Once known, the details of the proposal could -- and likely will -- make this even more extreme by extending the 'preventive detention' power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a 'combatant,'" Greenwald continues. "After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based -- namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain "dangerous" people even when they can't prove they violated any laws -- there's no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly 'dangerous' combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S."

    The Obama Administration appears to have embraced "preventive detention" in part because of problems with how Guantanamo prisoners' cases -- and incarceration -- were handled under President Bush. Military prosecutors have said that numerous cases could not be brought successfully in civilian courts because evidence was obtained in ways that wouldn't be admissible on US soil. The Bush Administration originally sought to try numerous detainees in military tribunals, but the Supreme Court ruled that at least some have the rights to challenge their detention in US courts.

    Baker notes that Obama's decision to hold suspects without charges doesn't propose as broad an executive authority claimed by President Bush.

    "Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of Congress," Baker writes.

    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.”

    “The position conveyed by the Justice Department in the meeting last week broke no new ground and was entirely consistent with information previously provided by the Justice Department to the Senate Armed Services Committee,” the statement added.

    Roughly 50 detainees of the more than 200 still held at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are thought to be affected by the decision.

    The Raw Story » Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely
    Good to see the rule of law is still not in force. What a joke.

    He's as bad as Bush with this shit.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  2. #2
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,487

    Default

    "Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of Congress," Baker writes.
    a distinction without a difference.


    Obama's decision was buried on page A 23 of The New York Times' New York edition on Thursday. It didn't appear on that page in the national edition. (Meanwhile, the front page was graced with the story, "Richest Russian's Newest Toy: An N.B.A. Team.")
    Typical.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  3. #3
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Thursday Sept. 24, 2009 06:25 EDT
    Victory on preventive detention law: in context

    (updated below - Update II)

    When Barack Obama gave his "civil liberties" speech at the National Archives in May, he advocated a new scheme of preventive detention for detainees whom he claimed "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people," and he unambiguously vowed to develop a new statutory regime, enacted by Congress, to vest him with the power of what he called "prolonged detention":
    I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. . . . But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees -- not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution. As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. . . . [i]f we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.
    Obama has now changed his mind about seeking a new law, and instead will continue to detain Terrorism suspects without charges under the current system (the one used by Bush/Cheney as well):
    The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.

    Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

    In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.
    Regardless of what motivated this, and no matter how bad the current detention scheme is, this development is very positive, and should be considered a victory for those who spent the last four months loudly protesting Obama's proposal. Here's why:

    A new preventive detention law would have permanently institutionalized that power, almost certainly applying not only to the "war on Terror" but all future conflicts. It would have endowed preventive detention with the legitimizing force of explicit statutory authority, which it currently lacks. It would have caused preventive detention to ascend to the cherished status of official bipartisan consensus -- and thus, for all practical purposes, been placed off limits from meaningful debate -- as not only the Bush administration and the GOP Congress, but also Obama and the Democratic Congress, would have formally embraced it. It would have created new and far more permissive standards for when an individual could be detained without charges and without trials. And it would have forced Constitutional challenges to begin from scratch, ensuring that current detainees would suffer years and years more imprisonment with no due process.

    Beyond that, as a purely practical matter, nothing good -- and plenty of bad -- could come from having Congress write a new detention law. As bad as the Obama administration is on detention issues, the Congress is far worse. Any time the words "Terrorism" or "Al Qaeda" are uttered, they leap to the most extreme and authoritarian measures. Congress is intended to be a check on presidential powers, but each time Terrorism is the issue, the ironic opposite occurs: when the Obama administration and Congress are at odds, it is Congress demanding greater powers of executive detention (as happened when Congress blocked Obama from transferring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.). Any process that lets Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein anywhere near presidential detention powers is one that is to be avoided at all costs. Whatever else is true, anyone who believes in the Far Left doctrines known as the Constitution, due process and what Thomas Jefferson called "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution" (i.e., jury trials) should consider it a very good thing that the Congress is not going to write a new law authorizing presidential preventive detentions. However bad things are now, that would have made everything much worse.

    All that said, in a practical sense, this is still an extremely incremental -- one might even say cosmetic -- development. After all, the Obama administration is continuing to assert the power to detain people without charges or trial based on the Bush/Cheney theory (accepted by several courts) that they already have implied statutory authority (under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force) to do so and therefore don't need a new law. It's true that the Obama administration, to its credit, is no longer relying on the theory that the President has "inherent authority" to detain Terrorism suspects without charges, but that makes no practical difference since they claim the same exact power based on the AUMF. And, according to the New York Times, Obama's decision not to seek a new detention law "applies only to those already held at Guantánamo . . . it remain[s] an open question whether the administration would seek legislation or establish a new system for indefinite detention of suspected terrorists captured in the future."

    So all one can really say about all of this is that while no improvements have been made, something that would have been extremely bad has been averted, at least for now. And while the administration continues to assert the power of indefinite detention even without a new law, at least detainees now have the right of habeas corpus review as established by the 2008 Boumediene Supreme Court decision, and thus far, 30 out of 38 detainees have won their habeas hearings and have had courts ordered them released (although 20 of the "winners" continue to remain imprisoned because we can't place them anywhere). Whatever else might be true, in our political culture, especially when it comes to Terrorism and civil liberties, blocking a new and terrible development -- even as it keeps very bad things largely in place -- is an important victory.

    * * * * *

    This leads to a more general point: when it comes to uprooting ("changing") the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and civil liberties -- the issue which generated as much opposition to the last presidency as anything else -- the Obama administration has proven rather conclusively that tiny and cosmetic adjustments are the most it is willing to do. They love announcing new policies that cast the appearance of change but which have no effect whatsoever on presidential powers. With great fanfare, they announced the closing of CIA black sites -- at a time when none was operating. They trumpeted the President's order that no interrogation tactics outside of the Army Field Manual could be used -- at a time when approval for such tactics had been withdrawn. They repudiated the most extreme elements of the Bush/Addington/Yoo "inherent power" theories -- while maintaining alternative justifications to enable the same exact policies to proceed exactly as is. They flamboyantly touted the closing of Guantanamo -- while aggressively defending the right to abduct people from around the world and then imprison them with no due process at Bagram. Their "changes" exist solely in theory -- which isn't to say that they are all irrelevant, but it is to say that they change nothing in practice: i.e., in reality.

    That's why I called yesterday's announced changes to the state secrets policy a "farce" (here's a Washington Times article today reporting on reactions, including mine). Yes, the changes they announced sound better in theory than what existed previously. It's nice that the DOJ claims it will voluntarily impose a higher burden on itself before asserting the privilege, will require the approval of the Attorney General, will avoid asserting the privilege only to avoid embarrassment over government wrongdoing, etc. But none of that would have altered the Obama administration's controversial, Bush-replicating assertions of the privilege. Not only the Attorney General, but the President himself, explicitly endorsed the specific assertions of the privilege that triggered the controversies in the first place: to block, in advance, lawsuits brought by victims of Bush's torture, rendition and illegal eavesdropping programs. This "new policy" would plainly allow the continuation of that conduct because the decision-makers now -- the DOJ -- are the same ones who asserted the privilege in the first place. So how, in practice, would this change anything?

    Most important of all, the central abuse is rooted in the ability of the Executive Branch to assert the secrecy privilege without any binding limitations imposed by Congress and enforced by courts. We're not supposed to have a system of government where we rely on the good faith of the Executive Branch to monitor itself. Without a law in place that limits the President's ability to have entire lawsuits dismissed on secrecy grounds, abuse is inevitable. The last administration proved that, and so has the current one. The institutional bias of the Justice Department is that it sees the world from the perspective of the Executive Branch and wants to win cases on its behalf, and the state secrets privilege is far too potent and tempting a weapon to leave in their hands in unfettered form, hoping upon hope that they will exercise it responsibly. The abuses were coming from the DOJ in the first place; how can the solution possibly be to trust that the DOJ will police itself responsibly in the future? Why shouldn't these abuses be curbed by an act of Congress and enforceable by courts? Yet again, the policy the Obama administration announced -- clearly designed to undermine the perceived need for a law to limit the privilege -- has pretty words in it, but it enacts no real changes.

    * * * * *

    In an excellent new article in The New York Review of Books this week, Gary Wills examines the underlying systemic and cultural reasons why, in the areas of civil liberties and national security, "the Obama administration quickly came to resemble Bush's." Wills makes the point I've been emphasizing for some time: as long as we remain a nation in a permanent state of war, devoted to imperial ends, maintaining our National Security State ensures that the core assaults on civil liberties will never end; at best, we can tinker with them on the margins with the types of pretty words that the Obama administration adores, but it will persist and grow on its own accord:
    But the momentum of accumulating powers in the executive is not easily reversed, checked, or even slowed. It was not created by the Bush administration. The whole history of America since World War II caused an inertial transfer of power toward the executive branch. The monopoly on use of nuclear weaponry, the cult of the commander in chief, the worldwide network of military bases to maintain nuclear alert and supremacy, the secret intelligence agencies, the entire national security state, the classification and clearance systems, the expansion of state secrets, the withholding of evidence and information, the permanent emergency that has melded World War II with the cold war and the cold war with the "war on terror"—all these make a vast and intricate structure that may not yield to effort at dismantling it. Sixty-eight straight years of war emergency powers (1941–2009) have made the abnormal normal, and constitutional diminishment the settled order. . . .

    Some were dismayed to see how quickly the Obama people grabbed at the powers, the secrecy, the unaccountability that had led Bush into such opprobrium. . . . .


    Now a new president quickly becomes aware of the vast empire that is largely invisible to the citizenry.
    The United States maintains an estimated one thousand military bases in other countries. . . .

    That is just one of the hundreds of holdings in the empire created by the National Security State. A president is greatly pressured to keep all the empire's secrets. He feels he must avoid embarrassing the hordes of agents, military personnel, and diplomatic instruments whose loyalty he must command. Keeping up morale in this vast, shady enterprise is something impressed on him by all manner of commitments. He becomes the prisoner of his own power. As President Truman could not not use the bomb, a modern president cannot not use the huge powers at his disposal. It has all been given him as the legacy of Bomb Power, the thing that makes him not only Commander in Chief but Leader of the Free World. He is a self-entangling giant.
    Wills' whole essay is highly worth reading. None of it excuses "how quickly the Obama people grabbed at the powers, the secrecy, the unaccountability that had led Bush into such opprobrium." But it does explain it and put it into context. Even if Obama were committed to undoing these policies -- just assume hypothetically that this were true -- the nature of America's imperial and militarized political culture would make that, as Wills says, "a hard, perhaps impossible, task." The President is powerful, but there are many other factions that wield great power as well -- the permanent Washington political class, both public and private -- and they are firmly entrenched against any type of "change" in these areas as one can imagine, as it's from those policies that their power and purpose (and profits) are derived

    That's why I keep quoting the 1790 warning of James Madison about what happens -- inevitably -- to a country when it chooses to be a permanent war-fighting state devoted to maintaining imperial power:
    Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied : and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
    Shouldn't we think about what that means? All of these subsidiary, discrete battles are shaped by this larger truth. We're a country that has been continuously at war for decades, insists it is currently at war now, and vows that it will wage war for years if not decades to come (Obama: we'll be waging this war "a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- ten years from now"). Exactly as Madison said (and as Wills this week emphasized), as long as we're choosing to be that kind of a nation, then the crux of the Bush/Cheney approach will remain in place. We can sand-paper away some of the harshest edges ("we're no longer going to drown people in order to extract confessions"); prettify some of what we're doing ("we're going to detain people with no charges based on implied statutory power rather than theories of inherent power"); and avoid making things worse ("we won't seek a new preventive detention law because we don't need one since we already can do that"). But no matter who we elect, the pervasive secrecy, essentially authoritarian character of the Executive, and rapid erosion of core liberties will continue as long as we remain committed to what Wills calls "the empire created by the National Security State."

    UPDATE: For more on the entirely cosmetic nature of the so-called "new state secrets" policy, see this excellent article from The Washington Independent's Daphne Eviatar.

    UPDATE II: Just as Eviatar did with the state secrets "change," The American Prospect's Adam Serwer documents that civil libertarians and other liberal Obama supports are deeply dissatisfied with Obama's detention decision, given the Bush/Cheney detention scheme that remains instead of a new preventive detention law.

    -- Glenn Greenwald
    Victory on preventive detention law: in context - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

  4. #4
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    how is that a victory
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #5
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Did you not read it? Greenwald said why explicitly in there.

  6. #6
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Yes, I read it. A victory for whom, exactly, is the question?

    I wouldn't ask the question unless I wanted an answer that i did not see in the article
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  7. #7
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Clearly you didn't when you first posted that question.

    A victory that preventative detention won't become institutionalized.

  8. #8
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Actually yes I did, don't tell what i did or not fucking do. You aren't me and it's irritatingly condescending to assume that I did not read it when i clearly told you I had. This is a tendency of yours that you really should stop.

    Anyhow, since it already IS institutionalized and no present or future President will bother rescinding that power, I call shenanigans.. thus it's not a fucking victory.

    Even if it WASN'T institutionalized (even though it is) whoopdee fucking do. That's like saying "Well, i got shot in the leg.. boy am i glad i didn't get shot in the face!"

    yeah, you still got shot by some asshole. Congrats.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #9
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    It's a tendency of yours to never notice anything remotely positive that happens.

  10. #10
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    I notice it, i just put no stock in it till concrete action takes place. Pretty words mean little.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Obama speech to Congress unlikely to be game changer
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: September 11th, 2009, 01:26 AM
  2. Obama admin has not even started working with congress to repeal DOMA
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 18th, 2009, 07:49 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 15th, 2009, 12:21 PM
  4. Suspects in plot to kill Barack Obama plead not guilty
    By kingcap72 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 6th, 2008, 12:29 PM
  5. Congress will fund Iraq war regardless, says Barack Obama
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 6th, 2007, 06:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •