Obama promises to suspend Habeas Corpus
Rachel Maddow points out that in Obama's national security speech yesterday, he proposes to replace Guantanamo-style detention without trial with his own detention without trial, a system he calls "Indefinite Preventative Detention" through which people who are believed to be likely to commit a crime at some point in the future can be locked up forever without charge, trial, jury or appeal.
Change I don't believe in.
Obama proposes Indefinite Preventive Detention without trial (Thanks, Zack!)
the latest
latest episodes
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I know I know, he hasen't been the new boss all that long, no one expects change overnight etc etc...
Getting a bit bleak though.
Hmmm...turns out he is the new Lincoln after all.
An unfortunate situation, sure, but do we need to get into politics like this here? I really like this site and hate to see it degrade in a Fark-like political platform.
Very much like what Stalin was doing back in the day.
Knee-jerk reaction.
Read the speech, he isn't suspending habeus corpus. In fact, the only thing that you can really take from the speech is that they are struggling with what to do with some of the detainees at Guantanamo. Obama stated he won't release anyone who poses a threat to America. If they are deemed to not pose a threat, they'll be released. They are working on the legal framework to make such a decision.
I was slightly frustrated with that piece though. I felt that portion of the speech was not addressing future prisoners, but the specific lot that we have in custody who are decidedly dangerous but can no longer be prosecuted because we've tortured them. It's a pretty tough dilemma.
Please Note: I am NOT saying that there aren't innocent people in Gitmo. I am NOT saying that there hasn't been torture. It seems to me the 500 or so people released by the Bush admin were likely three degrees removed from actual terrorists. You know, genuinely innocent people who were nabbed because they had a cell phone conversation with a guy who was close friends with a guy that knows a major terrorist. I figure the remaining folks are friends or regular associates of bad guys (meaning, bad friends but TOTALLY innocent), fixers for terrorist organizations or terrorists themselves. And I imagine an exponential relationship of terrorists to innocents of the 250ish left in Gitmo.
I'll wait and see the law that he's proposing in writing before I judge it. But it sounded more to me like he was creating a box that applies only to detainees that we have hard evidence for the immediate guilt in some sort of terrorist/insurgent action or facilitation. But, through the direct fault of the previous administration, that evidence has become unusable because we've tortured them repeatedly on the subject.
My question is, as a reasonable person, what do you do with these guys? Not nonsense Bush propaganda about how we should be scared of folks driving while muslim in Afghanistan, but genuine guys who are both victims of torture AND very dangerous to american security. This population may be ten people. Do you just let them go? What do you do? I don't know the answer to that. It seems incredibly complicated. But let's wait until the guy puts something down in writing before we condemn his effort whole sale.
*mighty
#4- ...so, we ought not worry because our government promises to incarcerate people indefinitely only when it's absolutely sure that they might be inclined to do something dangerous in the future?
Well, I for one feel better already...
wow, post messed up, should have read:
"Obama stated he won't release anyone who poses a threat to America. If they are deemed to not pose a threat, they'll be released. They are working on the legal framework to make such a decision."
That slope sounds mighty slippery.
Only I thought I'd posted it with mighty spelled wrong, hence post #5.
As concerned as I am about civ-lib, the sensationalist oversimplification at BoingBoing is really starting to get out of hand. To say that Obama is not going far enough to right the wrongs of the Bush administration is one thing; to claim that this speech is a promise of the general suspension of habeas corpus is another.
You take what he's saying out of context using a secondary source and don't even bother to link back to the original content. This is exactly the kind of screwball fear-mongering we get from the other side.
Let us be clear: your audience won't tolerate unfounded claims and politicized rallying just because it is stamped "Doctorow" or "Jardin;" it might as well be stamped O'Reilly.
Pagel's first law still applies: Beware of extremists.
it is all fun and games until Tom Cruise gets flagged as a possible future criminal, and then has to go on the run.
:shrug:
This is a complicated topic, and glib treatment as Miss Maddow, who I otherwise thoroughly enjoy, provides is unhelpful.
If people were detained overseas, legitimately on the battle-field, Habeus Corpus may not be the appropriate measure. Or, and I think this is the more likely scenario, they may be afforded a Habeus Corpus proceeding, where an independent court determines that they are properly committed to military custody.
At which point, indefinite detention, pursuant to ongoing hostilities, is governed by the laws of war, not domestic law.
The bottom line to me is that President Awesome has committed to making the process as transparent as possible, and I see no reason to doubt that.
And before people accuse me of being an authoritarian troll, let me say this. I am comfortable releasing dangerous terrorists, if we do not have adequate evidence to hold them (measured by the relaxed rules of war standard). My commitment to the rule of law is so great, that I believe we must risk the potential for that terrorist to attack us, than to hold them without sufficient evidence.
@ #6 - See #8.
#2:
The civlib tag dates back to late 2007. Politics aren't exactly new here.
http://www.boingboing.net/civlib/2007/11/
@ #8
So can you explain to us what exactly his "prolonged detention" idea means?
To summarize:
Obama is adding due process to "indefinite detention." Meaning, it's been improved, albeit broken to begin with.
Um, no. NO!
I'm just going to point out that in the story, the system worked and was handled as the moral alternative to the normal legal system.
This direction however is complete BS. Either charge them with a crime, or let them go. We take that chance with street criminals that kill far more Americans each year then all the terrorists acts of all time put together.
nexusheli wrote:
"An unfortunate situation, sure, but do we need to get into politics like this here? I really like this site and hate to see it degrade in a Fark-like political platform."
Nexushli,
BoingBoing has always been political, so I think posts like these are just par of the course. (Is that the right phrase?)
There's plenty of Bush criticism on this website for the past 4-8 years, so as a Republican (lifelong member), I am relieved to know that BoingBoing writers are being fair. They're critical of policies they don't like, Republican, Democrat, Obama or Not.
@ #15
Before I get into this I want to be perfectly clear; I don't agree with the President's proposed solution. But that doesn't make calling this a general suspension of habeas corpus any more legitimate. This is a slippery slope, not an absolute removal of right to due-process. It's an improvement over the current state of affairs, just not by much.
That said, the speech itself calls for the prosecution of as many gauntanamo detainees as possible, with the introduction of periodic review for those that they find themselves unable to prosecute.
The problem I have with this is that they are still not establishing a bright line that rule-of-law will be followed with all detainees.
Nevertheless, the introduction of judicial and congressional oversight is a huge improvement over the current situation.
That said, perhaps we could turn our energies to something more productive.
What should happen to people that have expressed a clear desire to kill Americans but have not planned specific acts or participated in a crime? The only way to move forward on issues like this is to prevent a superior alternative.
Oh, and you might like to see this.
Original content @ huffington post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html
As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the Geneva Conventions about releasing prisoners of war (which is what these people are) before hostilities have ended. So while it's not promising that Obama's using a new euphemism for permanent imprisonment, I hardly see anything to be upset about before hostilities end in Afghanistan.
So, can you explain to me how "holding indefinitely..." those "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people" constitutes anything but suspending habeas corpus?
It's putting people in jail, indefinitely, without proving that they've committed a crime.
Habeas corpus putting people in jail only after you can prove that they've committed a crime.
You can make endless comparisons to O'Reilly, but as near as I can work out, the only people making shrill, unsubstantiated denunciations are the ones who insist that there's something incorrect about this post, but who can't say what that wrong thing is.
As to what should be done with people who've "expressed a desire to kill Americans," this isn't actually a crime in most countries. There are plenty of Americans who've expressed a "clear desire to kill" various foreigners. Should they be "indefinitely detained" if they fall into foreign custody? Remember that a lot of Gitmo detainees were not captured in battle, but rather turned in by corrupt warlords in exchange for cash bounties. The entire case against some of them consists of hearsay from random thugs.
damn, you're so eloquent, dude.
it feels to me like the rapid reversal of Obama on the entire Gitmo issue may offer some validitity to much of it. He went from total transparency and releasing those who could not be prosecuted to the exact opposite.
Seems to me like he's been breifed and realizes that places like Gitmo may actually be necessary for the war on terrorism.
I do agree that those with flimsy cases and hearsay and such deserve to be tried or released. But clearly there are some bad dudes being held down there that we can't ever justify letting out.
For what it's worth, I feel more nervous about what the people who were running Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Northern Rock, AIG, and RBS will get up to in the future than anyone currently 'detained' in Gitmo.
I wonder how many of the Gitmo detainees had anything to do with executing car bombings. The biggest war crime happening daily in Iraq is those fucking car bombs. That is absolutely where our focus should be in bringing the war to conclusion. What can the U.S. do to prevent acts of mass murder in the markets, streets, and police recruitment centers all across Iraq? I'd like some answers.
I don't know enough to comment on what Obama proposes. Liberal versions of O'Reilly are roughly as useful for gathering non-sensationalist information as well, O'Reilly.
That said, it is an ugly situation. Any politician that touches this mess has my sympathy. Releasing Gitmo detainees is like playing political Russia roulette. It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Like any criminal justice system, the more liberal you are, the more criminals you are going to release. In the normal course of things we tolerate this pretty well. I don't want to ever be incarcerated for a crime I didn't do, so I am pretty cool with erring on the side of liberalness with my national criminal justice system.
The same is not true when you are trying to exact international justice. You are never going to pick me up on a battlefield in Afghanistan. There is no selfish reason to let someone you pick up get a liberal trial that ensures minimal false positives at the expense of elevated false negatives. So, the pretty much no win challenge that Obama is going to face is that if he implements a liberal justice system that errs on the side of preventing false convictions, he WILL let legitimate terrorist go. If one of the people that gets let go turns around and blows something up, especially a something on American soil, he is going to be lynched (wait a moment... the president is black now... maybe I need to rethink that one) by the public. He is pretty much screwed, and not in the fun consensual way.
Personally, I think that the best el-presidante can do is be liberal, start releasing people, give them a "flue shot" which will take a 10 hours of anesthesia and a minor operation, and send your favorite spy organization out to track the hell out of the people that are released. If it looks like they are about to do something bad in an another democracy, get them arrested. If they are about to do something bad somewhere else (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc) accidentally drop a missile on their head and try and walk away looking all innocent.
He's definitely trying to please too many people. He doesn't want to release any individual who has spent the past few years being tortured loose on an innocent and unsuspecting population. A lesser man would simply load all those former detainees up onto a bus headed toward Crawford Texas and just call it a day.
I find it odd when Republicans claim that Obama is a Socialist; whenever he does something completely Stupid, Wrongheaded or otherwise Idiotic, it seems to be an continuation or extension of a policy of the Bush Administration...
It seems there needs to be a discussion on what constitutes "unlawful imprisonment."
That is, what do they have to have done for the detainment to be justified?
Maybe I'm wrong, but after reading Obama's speech again, it seems that by bringing due process to the detainees who have been held for years, Obama is improving the situation. You're yelling that he's suspending habeas corpus, but he may very well be giving them a chance to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Obama also said he alone isn't going to decide who will end up being detained for an extensive amount of time, eluding to a system (that is being worked on) by which the detainees will receive fair trials.
@30:
It's quite simple, actually. America has a 2 party system: Commies and Nazis. You are either one or the other. There is no middle ground
I'd never heard of Rachel Maddow before, but I see she acts like the illegitimate love-child of Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart.
Now, I expect Stewart to talk this way, because he's an entertainer on a mostly-fake-news show. But Maddow grates in the same way that Olbermann does, on what I take to be news programs. Is the clip above taken from what is clearly understood to be commentary?
Am I the only numbskull who doesn't expect this kind of posing attitude from MSNBC? Is all of MSNBC like this (or has BB merely posted the outraged demagogues, while the rest of the channel is real, professional news reporting)?
Beyond which, and more relevant to the actual topic, I'm disappointed and puzzled by the can't-live-with-'em, can't-live-without-'em policy being adopted by Obama. I'm sure I'm missing some critical information, but IMO, if we have evidence, we try and convict (and incarcerate) the detainees, or else we try them and lose (and release). If we don't have evidence (of actual past illegalities) we release. I'm sure my simplistic view reveals some great ignorance on my part. Feel free to enlighten me, somebody.
"Obama stated he won't release anyone who poses a threat to America. If they are deemed to not pose a threat, they'll be released. They are working on the legal framework to make such a decision."
I would guess that once you've been to Guantanamo, you pose a threat to the US, even if you didn't before.
Habeas corpus only applies to US citizens, at least under the law. Is it in our best interests to extend the rights of US citizens to everyone on the planet?
Anonymous #6:
Why would you figure that? What basis do you have to suppose this? Because they're wearing orange overalls?A vivid imagination is a good thing to have. I, personally, imagine the war will end next month and the troops will return to the U.S. on July 4th and be paraded as heroes in the great victory over All Bad Things.I think he calls "Prolonged Detention" not "Indefinite Preventative Detention," although he certainly leaves the door open for indefinite preventative detention in some circumstances.
He's definitely not proposing to hold people "forever without charge, trial, jury or appeal." We know this because of the Supreme Court decisions in which the Court struck down Bush detention schemes. I think those decisions, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush, should be seen as incorporated into Obama's speech.
Under Boumediene, Obama cannot suspend Habeas Corpus - his detention scheme must provide for Habeas Corpus or some equivalent. I think that under Hamdan his detentions would have to conform with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
Cory's post and Rachael's segment are knee-jerk reactions, although it's true that Obama is essentially adopting the Bush administration's position on this. At least Obama is willing and able to articulate what he means to do.
@#35
I was under the impression that Habeas Corpus, like all other civil liberties, applied to all those within the United states, citizen or not. The constitution explicitly refers to us as 'the people' and not 'the citizens' for this very reason AFAIK.
#35 'Habeas corpus only applies to US citizens, at least under the law. Is it in our best interests to extend the rights of US citizens to everyone on the planet?'
Depends whether you're planning to leave them alone of not. If you're planning to scoop them up in some other country, on questionable evidence, render them to a base you own in someone else's country again, then yes, probably... That said, we were having this arguement last night in somewhere that isn't America, and the poor bastard is widely regarded as having to walk an almost impossible line. (Andd he's still better than George W)
Cory, I assume that you're arguing that detainees who are not admitted back to their home country should be granted asylum in the US?
If you were the President, what strategy would you use to make that law?
The Senate has recently voted 90-6 against funding the close of Gitmo. So I suppose you, as President, would make it happen by executive order?
The reason you don't hear any reasons against your argument, Cory, is that it is so impossible to put into practice that there's no place to start. And please don't accuse others of being shrill when your reference is Maddow.
Maybe, just maybe, we've already been skidding down the slippery slope.
Maybe, just maybe, it's going to be very difficult sorting our way out.
Quoting Obama,
"As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. 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."
Sounds to me like we've been put into a very difficult position already. The damage has been done. The actions of previous administrations, done outside the rule of law, has probably made enemies out of innocent people, and hardened those who were already enemies, and now that has to be dealt with.
Sounds to me that while Obama recognizes that much damage has been done, we need to establish means of dealing with these circumstances within the legitimate rule of law.
Sounds to me like Obama is trying to develop clear, fair policies, under congressional review, so that if, IF prolonged detention is used, it has been thoroughly evaluated and properly justified, again within defensible and lawful standards. That's different that justifying it by saying that if the president does it, it must be legal.
Sounds to me like Obama is seeking to construct a legitimate legal framework to deal with this, not some ad hoc reasoning based on secret memos by people trying to subvert the legal system by claiming that anything the president does is, by definition, legal.
Sounds to me like Obama wants to be sure that if, IF prolonged detention is used, it won't be based on the decision of one person, but under judicial and congressional oversight.
Sounds to me like Obama is working to develops a system that is consistent with the American Constitution.
Sounds to me that if the case of some of these people does consist solely of hearsay from random thugs, that might finally come to light.
Maybe I'm just a fool.
@#36
Habeas Corpus applies widely, even to people held at places like Guantanamo. That's why the Court said the executive branch had to provide for it. The "Military Commissions Act" was unconstitutional because it impermissibly screwed around with Habeas Corpus.
@#41
The cake is a lie.
@#35
I see...so declaration of independence would be better like this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as long as they're US citizens."
IMHO, these words should reflect our attitude towards how we treat people, ALL people, and how we would like our citizens treated while abroad. If we detain foreign nationals we have an obligation to uphold these values otherwise they are worse than meaningless.
Yeah! Obama's a bum! Let's go back to Bush-Cheney! We had it MUCH better back then!
Line-by-line:
>So, can you explain to me how "holding >indefinitely..." those "who cannot be prosecuted >yet who pose a clear danger to the American >people" constitutes anything but suspending >habeas corpus?
For the detainees in question, habeas corpus was suspended at the moment they were taken into custody. It's not something Obama is vowing to do to them; it's something that has already been done. Any move to introduce jurisprudence to the system that detains them is a move away from the full suspension of habeas corpus, as opposed to the institution of a new process that further removes habeas corpus as purported by this headline.
>It's putting people in jail, indefinitely, >without proving that they've committed a crime.
>Habeas corpus putting people in jail only after >you can prove that they've committed a crime.
This is absolutely true. My problem is not that you disagree with the system as originally instituted or as handled by the Obama administration; my problem is that the injustice you decry is far more limited in scope than you would make it appear. You'll probably suggest that there is no small injustice. I'll probably agree.
>You can make endless comparisons to O'Reilly, >but as near as I can work out, the only people >making shrill, unsubstantiated denunciations are >the ones who insist that there's something >incorrect about this post, but who can't say >what that wrong thing is.
First, I've already clearly stated what's wrong with that post.
1) It's a sensationalist oversimplification. It presents an idea without qualifiers or context in such a way that the idea is promoted to undue significance. This is the basis of my comparison to O'Reilly, because this is what he does.
2) It relies on secondary sources, without mention of the primary material, which could be used by the audience to make sound judgments in the original context.
3) It presents the speech as if the president intended to remove all jurisprudence and suspend habeas corpus in all cases. Everywhere. Period. Now, I grant (have granted, will grant) that the current situation is atrocious. However, you make no argument with the fact that this is the introduction of jurisprudence where there was none before. Furthermore, there is clearly a problem with presenting the information in this way.
4) My denunciation is substantiated by the source material (as posted above).
Second, my denunciation might be shrill. But it's helpful to have some context there, too. I LOVE BoingBoing. I recommend Little Brother every chance I get, and I frequently support the artists and civ-lib groups featured here. Bonus: you're my fave character in XKCD. But the way this was posted hurts the credibility of this site, its' authors, and the people that rely on the site for honest, cut-through-the-bullshit communication about issues like civil liberties. Raising to this level of rhetoric causes more harm than good.
>This isn't actually a crime in most countries. >There are plenty of Americans who've expressed a >"clear desire to kill" various foreigners. >Should they be "indefinitely detained" if they >fall into foreign custody?
I don't think that's the solution. But I don't think there's an easy solution, either. Accepting journalism with an uncritical eye is what lead us here. Because so many Americans believe Gitmo detainees are truly dangerous, there would be wide-spread panic if they were just released. It doesn't mean that they are actually dangerous, or that what is happening is okay, but SOMETHING has to be done to mitigate the panic.
>Remember that a lot of Gitmo detainees were not >captured in battle, but rather turned in by >corrupt warlords in exchange for cash bounties. >The entire case against some of them consists of >hearsay from random thugs.
I know. It makes me furious to my core. If you'd said "Rachel Maddow: Obama fails to reinstate Gitmo habeas corpus" I would have had no problem with this article. But you didn't.
And really, you should be glad you have critical readers. Isn't that what you want? I was under the impression that BB wants to stop the sheeping of media consumers.
/walloftext
But that doesn't make calling this a general suspension of habeas corpus any more legitimate.
Habeas corpus is an all or nothing proposition. 'Habeas corpus except when it's inconvenient' is a general suspension of habeas corpus.
I do not think it is possible for this issue to be resolved in a way which is both fair to our values and fair to our national security priorities. The whole problem here is that by stepping outside of the realm of what is constitutional, President Bush set these issues into territory from which they could never be neatly resolved with specific constitutional processes. The detainment protocols transgress the the writ of Habeus Corpus, this we know. At the same time, there are individuals (it might be 1, it might be 20) in Guantanmo who would pose a direct threat to American citizens and soldiers if released, and the president is constitutionally bound as the commander-in-chief to ensure the safety of the American people. So What can he do? I hate to say it, but it may not be possible to fix a breach in the constitution (a breach made by George Bush) without further measures which could easily be interpreted as unconstitutional. President Obama is caught in a seemingly intractable position. But isn't that the very reason we elected him? To find a way out of this mess while simultaneously cleaning it up? AS far as I can tell, the President is doing exactly what he promised on the campaign trail, he is attempting to solve our most dire, most difficult questions. But Difficult questions never have easy answers, that's what makes them difficult in the first place.
@22
You're correct, except that not everyone was taken prisoner in Afghanistan and some of them are not soldiers. Just because Bush wanted to call them all "enemy combatants" doesn't mean that they were. Beyond that the government's position thus far has been that these are not POWs, but war criminals and they have generally been treated as such. For example, the Geneva convention does not just outlaw torturing POWs, it says "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Obviously if these are POWs, then we've violated that constantly in our interrogations. So if we're going to claim that they are POWs and we can hold them without charges until the end of the war, then we'd better start treating them like POWs.
The Bush administration refused to treat the prisoners as POWs or as criminals, instead applying standards of their own devising rather than legal standards of any sort. It sounds like Obama is planning to do the same thing, just more openly. Either they're criminals and should have habeus corpus or they're POWs and are entitled to other rights.
Also, how do you define "end of hostilities" in Afghanistan? That could be a long wait indeed, given the history of the country for the last century or so. The Geneva conventions often seem to assume that the two warring parties are states and that a formal surrender or other mark of the end of hostilities will occur. With a group such as the Taliban which might continue as a guerrilla organization for decades, I would not think that indefinite detention would be appropriate.
This (second-hand) criticism of President Obama reveals an irony underlying the critiques of his administration to date:
Obama's critics seem to expect more miracles from him than even his most fanatic supporters do.
-- MrJM
If I'd spent years in detention I would be a threat, even if I didn't start out as one. You can't just let them out. Obama inherited a no win situation.
If I'd spent years in detention I would be a threat, even if I didn't start out as one. You can't just let them out.
Will we be applying that standard to people who have spent decades in prison only to be exculpated by DNA evidence?
I posted as Anonymous #6 originally. mea culpa, i forgot to login.
@ Little John#37:
I argue that because I can't think of any other reason the Bush administration of all people would have let those folks go. I'm not excusing his behavior by any stretch, but I think it bears out as reasonably accurate. In terms of who is left, I have to assume that at least some of them must be genuine threats, where others are mixed up enough in something bad that it is difficult, or not easy, to immediately label them as innocent victims of the godforsaken place.
@ Little John #34
I think its going to be difficult to try even the truly guilty in a court of law. Because, at this point in any court of law their case should be thrown out as a result of the treatment, torture, that has been inflicted upon them.
That gets at the root of my original post. How do you prosecute people who are genuinely guilty of some crime at this point? I don't know the answer myself, but I think this is the honest dilemma Obama is trying to overcome. All of the remainder in Gitmo may be truly guilty terrorists, or more likely just a small percentage. But, as a leader, how do you justify letting enemy leaders or experts back into battle because of the way a previous administration treated? It's dirty a solution no matter what.
@ Cory #23 and 24
I'm definitely not saying this wouldn't be a suspension of habeus corpus. And I'm not referring to people who are guilty of not liking americans publicly. The offered revised military tribunals take away the ability of the government to use the 'good' word, or hearsay, of an afghani tribal leader with a personal vendetta or the good word of the american government.
But, again, looking solely at the folks who are in our custody who are genuinely guilty of having committed a real crime or killed americans, what does the current administration do? I think that was Rachel Maddow's flaw in the presentation. Good on her for playing the role of media challenging the premise of the speech. But, i still the think that portion of the speech was meant to refer to the small population of folks who had already committed an offense, but are no longer able to be tried since the evidence was likely used in the torture interrogations.
I don't like it either. But, I'm not sure what the 'in good conscious solution' is. The previous administration screwed the pooch and left him the defacto choice of either accepting Bush/Cheney's doctrine of throwing away the key or untangling the plate of legal pasta left by them.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that when you depose a dictator, in situations where totalitarian/violent military leadership effectively works to temper ancient blood feuds, then you're going to be faced with the reality of all those ancient feuds flaring up and out of control. At this point the U.S. soldiers seem to be caught in the crossfire. Enough young men have died already. Bring them home! It isn't our war to fight. I mean, we caused it, but still, its no longer our war to fight, not that it ever was, oh, enough already! No more war!
#6 anonymous asks: "Do you just let them go? What do you do?"
Ever notice how in fiction the Good Guy seems to give the Bad Guys chance after chance to do evil again? They seem to consider it somehow virtuous to show 'mercy'. As if the quality thereof is not strained, but falleth as gentle rain from heaven, or something.
I submit that this is part of the essence of being a Good Guy.
_ _ _ _ _
#10 jonathanbruder says: "This is exactly the kind of screwball fear-mongering we get from the other side."
#26 wareagle says: "it feels to me like the rapid reversal of Obama on the entire Gitmo issue may offer some validitity to much of it."
#29 rindan says: "It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation."
#38 mirza says: "At least Obama is willing and able to articulate what he means to do."
_ _ _ _ _
Maybe the saddest thing is how quickly we go from demanding virtue to being 'realistic', to settling for an explanation for the thing we once thought was unacceptable. Principles are uncomfortably close to absolutes, and discomfort is possibly the one thing we won't accept.
_ _ _ _ _
#34 Little John says: "I'm sure I'm missing some critical information, but IMO, if we have evidence, we try and convict (and incarcerate) the detainees, or else we try them and lose (and release). If we don't have evidence (of actual past illegalities) we release."
#45 one amp says: "we have an obligation to uphold these values otherwise they are worse than meaningless."
Well said.
_ _ _ _ _
#49 anonymous: "I do not think it is possible for this issue to be resolved in a way which is both fair to our values and fair to our national security priorities."
I think you're right. Therefore, let's be the brave Good Guys, do what we believe is value-able, and deal with the consequences. If we do the other, we'll have consequences, too, but without the values we believe in. Neither way will guarantee national (or any other) security, but the one way will at least guarantee we aren't hypocritical.
@#57
we're headed down the same friggin path we were headed down 2 years ago, 8 years ago, 20 years ago. We're on the path to a more controlled, less free society, plain and simple. And I won't chastise you for voting how you did, since the path would be identical if McCain had been elected.
For the record, I voted for Ron Paul - the only bastard out there who recognizes that the Fed and the IRS are the source of (or are the enablers of the behavior that led to) the financial situation, that gun rights must be protected, and that our drug laws are insane.
I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul believes, but dammit if he isn't a thousand light years ahead of everyone else regarding the issues that matter.
Hey, remember when there was a bunch of assholes taxing and pillaging and violating peoples property and sovereignty, all at the behest of some ultra asshole who sat in a huge building in an important chair three thousand miles away? And we said 'how about this deal... ffffffuck you!' and then we totally kicked their ass? And stopped licking their boots? And made the best country ever?
Hey, California. Sound familiar? Let's get to it.
The previous administration screwed the pooch
How can you tell which one is the pooch in that group?
@#34 posted by Little John, May 22, 2009 1:01 PM
There is nothing additional that needs to be known. This is just Obama trying to appear tough on terrorism for political purposes instead of doing the morally correct thing and going ahead with trials.
- How can you tell which one is the pooch in that group?
For ranting purposes: I usually get out an eight sided die with administration officials' portraits for numbers and roll it.
Academically: shit, I don't know. I usually get out an eight side die...
Or, [insert snarky comment about your least favorite bush era official's looks]
@#54 posted by futbol789, May 22, 2009 3:18 PM
It is a simple decision. Run them through a legit court system, of which I don't mean a military kangaroo court as is still being suggested. Then let justice take it's course. It is the only thing that can be done.
I find it disgusting that alternatives to this are even being discussed. I find it even more disgusting as the reason this president is not is that he is trying to avoid doing to appease the Republican party and certain elements in the Democratic party. He lacks any backbone to stand up and do what is right and called for and put them on trail.
This is not a war. These criminals are not POWs. As soon as you start calling terrorism or any other crime a war, you trying to do a run around the constitution.
Al Qaeda needs to be handled the same way the KKK was, legally. It does raise some questions about how to handle some of the foreign aspects, but those should be addressed rather than going down this road.
America has painted itself into a corner by not abiding by the Geneva convention. The price is the kind of legal obfuscation you are seeing now. The result I presume will be a very dangerous form of social tyranny in which anybody who defies the government, can (and will presumably) be locked up indefinitely without hope of a trial. Its a slippery slope and it does not help to raise the habeous corpus argument, since the real problem is the Geneva convention. When is America going to realise that freedom can only be guaranteed by a just and equitable world order that is not the sole responsibly of one nation?
Wow, talk about a tangled mess!
Lots of tangles too; the subject in general, the report that the link points at, the misuse (and misunderstanding) of the terms in play...
Let's start with an obvious one: We are not at war.
Go look up the text of the War Powers Act. Consider it in the context that the Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress. The quick summary: the War Powers Act gives Congress three ways to approve the President and Executive branch's prolonged use of the nations military:
1. Declare war on some other state/government.
2. Grant the President Emergency Powers.
3. Allow the President to continue to use War Powers *without*
using declaring war or giving the President Emergency Powers.
Guess which one Congress used in 2001? Since it wasn't #1, then we are not at war. If we are not at war, then we cannot have 'prisoners-of-war'. Congress used option #3 because what we are engaged in is, on a massive scale, a police investigation. We are hunting a conspiracy of individuals from multiple countries (including a few or our own) intent on committing (or who have committed) criminal acts. Because of the scope of the crimes and the organization involved, it seems to be widely accepted that the best government agency(ies) for pursuing them is our military. But it is not a war.
This raises the question: why, if we are certain enough that these individuals are part of a criminal conspiracy, haven't we tried them for this crime? The two answers we usually hear for this are either A) revealing the evidence against them would compromise the on-going investigation of the conspiracy (the "We have to keep it secret." defense) or B) the evidence we have, while it seems to give those who are aware of it moral certainty that the individuals are guilty, is not usable in a US Court of Law (for whatever reason) (the "Trust us, we know they did it. If you knew what we do, you would too, but [see A) above]." argument).
(Note that Obama's apparent change of opinion on the matter could be due to either of these reasons. I would love for a reporter to ask which it is, or if there is another reason for his actions since taking office.)
There is also a minor argument against trying them for conspiracy; that the punishment for it does not do justice to the magnitude of the crime. That is a problem that Congress and Bush could have addressed, but did not.
As for the segment as presented; it seemed to me that there were a number of times when Maddow ignored what was said and twisted it to what was most sensational. Par for the course these days by pundits all across the political spectrum. Give it another listen, and note how she has to reword things multiple times to get it to where she can be indignant about it. She has done better; or perhaps she just has to work harder now than she did a year ago.
There have been some good observations posted so far here. Certainly, part of the problem (and the subject of the segment) is the very real problem of A) Mistakes Were Made, B) There Are Valid Reasons To Be Concerned and C) How The F*** Do We Correct A) When B) Is Also True.
I am fairly straight-forward when it comes to such things (i.e. in my opinion, when a cop finds evidence of guilt of a crime in an illegal search, the evidence should be valid to use in both trials; the trial of someone for the original crime and the one cop who conducted the illegal search). I think that part of C) _has_ to be prosecution of the folks who screwed up in A), as well as the allegedly dangerous folks in B). Obama, a Politician of the first water, seems to want to forget addressing the injustice of A) while finding a way to protect the people who voted for him from the bad guys B).
The problem, of course, is that his job, as in the oath he took, is to defend both the Constitution *and* the People. And ignoring A) is not 'defending the Constitution'. But then, the Constitution didn't (and doesn't) vote for him. This seems very pragmatic, which is not a bad thing. Unfortunately, it isn't simply idealism that says this is wrong. Making the opinion of The People more important than the Constitution hurts The People in the long run. (The bad news is that you just have to keep the people from noticing the trick to get away with it, as recent history seems to bear out...)
I have been writing about the fascism of Mr. Obama for quite a few months now. This prolonged detention is an absolutely fascist idea and is really all we need to know about this president. I supported this idiot with money and my vote, but once I took a good look at that terrifying Shepard Fairey poster, I knew completely what this guy represented. Fascism. Too bad for us. 8 years of Bush horror set us all up to be suckered this way and we fell for it.
I have completely withdrawn my support of Obama. Once of the very best things you can do immediately to oppose him is to simply unsubscribe from his Obama web site mailing list. Get off that list. Get off that list quickly.
Wht brng pst!
First the title "Obama promises to suspend Habeas Corpus" is inaccurate along two lines. First he didn't. There was no promise, no commitment to remove Habeus Corpus. Indeed he cannot because of Bush already did - the second line of inaccuracy as you cannot take away what they don't have. The speech openly rejects the legal basis of Bush's "ad hoc legal approach" that allowed the people to be detained in the first place.
Lets say that we have good evidence that one of the detainees actually performed an act of war against the United States. How could they possibly be prosecuted in the federal courts? The case, no matter how sound, would immediately been thrown out - their right to Habeus Corpus was ignored. The corollary logic insist that anyone detained by the previous administration under this logic should go free if brought to federal trial. The military trial, in a POW scenario, wouldn't apply if the act wasn't part of the a governmental action.
This is what is so frightfully boorish about this whole submission. It reads like a straw man argument - for the Republican militant religious extremists. The Nuremberg trial required that a similar legal framework to be built.
The question I have is: if the submission were accurate, how would Obama get Congress to write a law that contains both judicial and congressional oversight that suspends Habeus Corpus? That was a trick that Bush / Cheney couldn't do - even with the judiciary had a substitute.
Cory, I'm curious: Why DID you link to Rachel Maddow's commentary on this, and not directly to the speech in question?
After watching the video you linked to, I felt that what Obama said was rational and reasonable, and that Ms. Maddow is reading way too much into what Obama said. I think she is being reactionary and unreasonable.
I now intend to find Obama's speech in its entirety. Something tells me it won't suggest the kind of situation Rachel Maddow is describing.
Is there any other reason to believe that what she says is true?
and seriously, the headline is just overboard.
After watching the video you linked to, I felt that what Obama said was rational and reasonable, and that Ms. Maddow is reading way too much into what Obama said.
Without addressing this particular issue, that's the idea of political analysis. Looking at speeches in the context of what's really happening instead of swallowing whatever the team of speechwriters spoons up for you. Rachel Maddow and the Obamachine are both generating political spin. You have to decide which one is more accurate (or less horrifically inaccurate) based on what tiny tidbits of hard news you can find buried in the world of opinionews. Ben Stein lied; Nixon was a quitter.
Wow, some incredible hyperventilating going on. Obama is "absolutely fascist"? This is ridiculous, neither Bush and certainly not Obama were, are or will be anywhere near being fascist dictators.
If PaulTards and assorted wingnuts are freaking out then I figure I'm pretty safe.
#70,
You do not have any idea what fascism is, do you? Does the corporate part confuse you? Is it the detention part? Do you think fascism requires a dictator? Go learn something and come back here and explain yourself. I am truly fed up with blinkered imbeciles running around criticizing people for hyperventilating when freedoms and Constitutional rights are involved.
Go watch another episode of 'How Met Your Mother' and have a nice evening.
Alessandro,
Compose yourself. And there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. What you call fascism, I call totalitarianism.
...that's the idea of political analysis. Looking at speeches in the context of what's really happening instead of swallowing whatever the team of speechwriters spoons up for you.
Not so. Analysis, political or no, is the rational interpretation of the facts. What #67 AGOODSANDWICH did is analysis as AGOODSANDWICH looked at the both Maddow's video and Obama's speech and came to a conclusion based on the merit of their arguments. Rachel Maddow mis-characterized Obama's argument. False characterization, out of contexts statements, screen wipes to suggest that there was more, are just come of the tricks used her to present her case. Much like the rhetorical trick of the statement "swallowing whatever the team of speechwriters spoons up for you" infers that if you think that the speech was a bit a sophistry, people who think that the speech was rational are naive, and that old ad hominem chestnut - if it comes from speech writers then they must be lying.
@73:
I'm not so sure about that. Agreed, with regards to the definition of analysis. And that's definitely true for policy analysis. But, political analysis is just dueling rhetoric. I'm not taking away from it.
But, that was my issue with that particular clip. A lot of what she does is presented as policy analysis, and I think that this segment was dueling political rhetoric. But, that's politics. Mix in just enough policy analysis and mesh in some political rhetoric and you've got a damn convincing piece about the end of habeus corpus. Thus a jocular debate with the ensuing political conversation between fascist-liberals and fascist-conservatives. Or to quote Glenn Beck's slogan, "Enlightenment as Entertainment" (or vice versa, I can't remember) which is both a scary and delightful misuse of words. But, that's political analysis for you.
#72,
Well, yes, sure, no universal definition, but pretty good definitions will do in a pinch. Totalitarian implies a smaller ruling cabal though, I think. Fascism can encompass a larger or more multi-branched form of government. And I am composed. Gee whiz! You should see me in real action. This is the nice me. All things in moderation though, right?
"You do not have any idea what fascism is, do you?"
Like most Americans I don't have any direct experience with it. But I know a guy that does, Slavoj Žižek.
Liberation Hurts
Rasmussen:
" ...is wrong to use the rhetoric of fascism to critique the Bush Administration? Does the Left err when it makes claims like "the Bush Administration is an incipient fascist regime," or "the United States government is moving rightward, in the direction of fascism?"
Žižek:
"If I say that the Bush Administration's agenda is not fascist, I am not saying that it's not so bad. What I'm saying is that these are different structures of domination. I hate it when Leftists say we're returning to fascism! My reply to them is, "You don't know what you are talking about! You don't have a conceptual apparatus." They're simply taking recourse to this old notion of fascism, which is a catastrophe."
And he's much more to the Left than I am. So... Bush dominated in a particularly authoritarian and heavy handed way but he's no fascist. He and his cronies were really only interested in emptying out the Treasury. Once they were done, and the global banking system collapsed because of them, they lost interest.
Obama will also dominate, but in, I hope, a better way. We like to believe we live in a Democracy in the US, there are elections I guess, but it's also true that our system is based (in part) on a single powerful leader. Big Daddy is in charge. We are supposed to have co-equal branches of government but the Legislative branch has been very weak for a long time now.
I believe that Obama will do his best to return us to the rule of law, trashed by Bush and Cheney, and restore checks and balances to the gov. I'm not worried about him.
I think things will work out ok. I've done my share of hyperventilating in the past. I guess I got that out of my system.
#76,
Good answer. I'm always getting smacked by a moderator too early. They never give me the chance to make friends with the ones I go after. I do it all the time. It's probably why I have so few friends!
But I think we are seeing a new form of fascism that is peculiar to modern democratic societies. I think we are seeing it in Great Britain and the U.S. and that it is moving with its own momentum that is largely unconnected to a party or specific person. It is a general winding down toward fascist ideas that are made logical by fear. If you dream about your house getting blown up, you can justify almost any defensive posture no matter how extreme.
@75
Personally, I'm glad there are folks like you and Cory out there defining radical libertarianism. Just so long as you both realize that you ARE radical and that your ideas won't be adopted by any serious majority party.
I think the confusion here is that democrats aren't libertarians. Neither are Republicans. Depending on whether your definition of 'liberty' is low taxes, or the rights of workers, you'll get lumped in to one or the other.
When you feel the anger rising about this kind of thing, just start thinking about how tax policy or entitlements affect your life. Then pick the party that agrees with you on THOSE issues.
To rail against dems on libertarian grounds is kinda like voting for Bush because he's religious. It's just not politically relevant.
Meanwhile, I do hope dyed-in-the-wool dems aren't losing their focus on education reform. There are real fights still to come.
#78,
No, actually, not at all. I am not by any stretch radical. You would actually be amazed by how conservative I am in most respects. There's no libertarian angle here that I see. It's a simple respect for the idea that a person does not get locked up unless he or she has been proven guilty of something. It's very simple and conservative really. Nothing radical in it.
I think perhaps you mistake tone for a radical position. When I speak or write there is sometimes a tone or harshness that can be mistaken for a radical point of view. I've never thought of Constitutional rights and freedom of expression as being in any way 'radical.'
But of course now I'm all confused and as I head out to dinner with my friends shortly I will spend the evening asking them if they think I'm radical in some way. I'll probably ruin the entire dinner.
I think that Cory might be quite surprised to discover himself to be a radical Libertarian. He did, BTW, support Obama (from afar) in the last election.
#80,
Yeah, I supported him in the election from anear. But I've always thought that the job of the American voter is to pick a candidate to support and get him or her through the election and into office, but, then all bets are off. It then becomes the voter's job to actually turn on the office holder that he or she once supported - to turn on them and hold them over the fire until their feet blister. Every president will try to amass more power. It's in the nature of the job. But it's my job to make it awfully hard for the person I elected to ever get that job again in another election. That's my job and the job of every voter I think.
But I have to go to dinner now and ask my friends if I'm radical. I should probably wear my 'Rolling Stones' concert T-shirt. That's kind of radical... a little...
Alessandro Cima @ #65: "[O]nce I took a good look at that terrifying Shepard Fairey poster, I knew completely what this guy represented. Fascism."
You said the same thing about André Roussimoff.
-- MrJM
"But I think we are seeing a new form of fascism that is peculiar to modern democratic societies."
What we are seeing in Britain and less so in the US, is the rise of the Surveillance State. It's not really fascism though I bet it will feel that way to laissez-faire Rugged Individualists.
The reason this is happening, I believe, is the shear crush of large numbers of people.
@ mod
I think left-libertarianism sums up the BB perspective pretty succinctly:
"...a doctrine that has a strong commitment to personal liberty and has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, believing that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership..."
Replace 'natural' with 'intellectual' and you're there, IMO. Maybe we should coin 'techno-libertarian'? Whoops, it already exists.
"I don't have any direct experience with it. But I know a guy that does, Slavoj Žižek."
Žižek sounds more like an *advocate* of fascism or totalitarianism to me:
http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=097a31f3-c440-4b10-8894-14197d7a6eef
The curious thing about the Zizek phenomenon is that the louder he applauds violence and terror--especially the terror of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, whose "lost causes" Zizek takes up in another new book, In Defense of Lost Causes--the more indulgently he is received by the academic left, which has elevated him into a celebrity and the center of a cult. A glance at the blurbs on his books provides a vivid illustration of the power of repressive tolerance. In Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, Zizek claims, "Better the worst Stalinist terror than the most liberal capitalist democracy"; but on the back cover of the book we are told that Zizek is "a stimulating writer" who "will entertain and offend, but never bore." In The Fragile Absolute, he writes that "the way to fight ethnic hatred effectively is not through its immediate counterpart, ethnic tolerance; on the contrary, what we need is even more hatred, but proper political hatred"; but this is an example of his "typical brio and boldness." And In Defense of Lost Causes, where Zizek remarks that "Heidegger is 'great' not in spite of, but because of his Nazi engagement," and that "crazy, tasteless even, as it may sound, the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not 'essential' enough"; but this book, its publisher informs us, is "a witty, adrenalinfueled manifesto for universal values."
Excellent post.
Hope? Lessening. Change? Sadly, no.
I think the post is great, personally. I also think it's very much in line with boingboing's usual topics, in this case personal freedoms.
The only thing that's wrong with it imo is Maddow. She is unrelentingly awful. It saddens me that MSNBC has decided that the way to be an antidote to O'Reilly and Hannity is to find their liberal equivalents in Olbermann and her. A real antidote would be balanced journalism without the histrionics.
I think the President's position is wrong. But what Boing Boing is doing is actually worse. Boing Boing's power is, of course, far less. But the obvious goal of this sensationalist bull is to push Obama to the right and/or help the Republicans make gains in 2010. You do know better. You do not get a pass.
Support Obama and get called mindless sheep. Critique Obama and get called right wing shills. Clearly BBs doing its job just fine. How about contributing a political viewpoint to the discussion rather than just saying DO NOT WANT.
I cited Zizek because it seemed a good idea to draw from the left for an example of someone who didn't consider Bush to be fascist.
Adam Kirsch's review of Zizek is pretty badly done and deeply misunderstands his philosophy. In the excerpt quoted here where Adam claims Zizek says "the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not 'essential' enough." Factually true, those words are found in his book, but they are quoted out of context and without any understanding of where the author is coming from. Zizek is saying that Hitler was not "violent" enough because his was a reactionary violence. He sees reactionary dictators as being impotent and clownish. Lashing out in blind rage at something they can barely comprehend. Hitler, Zizek says, didn't have "brass balls" he didn't have any balls at all. He was inwardly a coward, hence the explosion of physical violence outward.
We can see Hitler's cowardice in his art. His artistic expression was utterly dead and lifeless. It would have taken a tremendous act of psychic violence for him to have thrown off the dead weight of his father's abuse for Hitler to have grown as an artist and a human being. Had he managed to break free from his father (a form of violence that Zizek claims is more primary than physical violence) history might have been very different. This is of course not to be construed as some kind of excuse.
That is what Zizek meant in the quote above but Adam doesn't appear to understand that. I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise. Lacanian psychoanalysis and the French philosophers are not an easy read. But if I can understand him, even though I don't always agree, then I'm at a loss to know why Adam Kirsch cannot. I suspect something of a political agenda given who he writes for.
---
As for me, I'm not that worried any more. I used to be terrified, paranoid even. I've come to several tentative conclusions (with a bit of wry humor mixed in)
People are insane.
No one knows what the fuck they're talking about.
No one can predict the future.
I consider this to be good news.
I am sorry he turned out to be such a prick. It appears the difference between Obama and Bush is that supporters of Obama are now saying 'hey, he's a prick after all' while Bush supporters remain forever in denial about Bush. It's not rocket science - there is a right and a wrong, and Obama, whom we expected to do right, has decided to go wrong. Yeah, we knew he was in bed with Wall Street, but we didn't think he'd be so overt so soon. Yeah, we knew that he'd have to go along with the Rightists to get along and maybe get a deal to push the moderate/liberal agenda a bit forward, but instead he's not even a sell out - just a scammer. Still better than McCain/Palin but they were never a viable alternative.
This does seem to be the way journalism operates these days.
1) Run sensationalist stories to draw an audience.
2) Define unbiased as any position which people are willing to argue both sides of.
If you think that the Boingers post things to draw an audience, you don't know them very well. Have you ever seen Being John Malkovich, because that's what BB is - a conduit into the Boingers heads. If you don't like the party, nobody's forcing you to stay.
"I wonder why they even ask me to talk in the first place?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16MSLKKQ2uE
These aren't "conclusions" based on new evidence or novel reasoning. This is the random noise in your head when your fear response is exhausted.
(And leave it to the reader to decide if you're being wry or humorous.)
There's no "war" going on here, there is just the ordinary, ongoing process of Empire. There is no foreign government to be defeated, no capital to be seized, we did that already. That's over. The occupation of various random strategic strongholds in Asia could go on for centuries. That doesn't make every scapegoat you buy at a warlord slave auction a "prisoner of war."
"Beware of people you really really disagree with"?
Because other than that, the word extremist doesn't actually mean anything.
It's a convenient slur word for anybody whose vote you don't need.
Actually a pretty smart discussion of this on tonight's Bill Maher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBMrW_M2C0
@Danlalan:
"Habeas corpus only applies to US citizens, at least under the law. Is it in our best interests to extend the rights of US citizens to everyone on the planet?"
If your best interests include having rights (of any kind) extended to you when you travel abroad, perhaps the answer would be yes?
But I do think you've neatly summed up both the legal interpretation of the situation (as born out by recent court cases), as well as the popular opinion of the matter held by a significant fraction of your country's population (about half, maybe?)
It's also deeply repugnant to me, and it's taken me a little while to puzzle through why, but here goes:
The U.S. constitution is an early embodiment of fundamental human rights. The mapping is not one-to-one compared with the modern view, but it's pretty close. Certainly, it is the spirit of the document.
By suggesting that the constitution should not apply to people outside of your country, you are really suggesting that those people (i.e. the rest of us on the planet) are not deserving of fundamental human rights.
Which equates to regarding the rest of us as being lesser beings than Homo sapiens americanus. Sub human.
Wht rdcls pst.
The linked video is particularly asinine, why link to such idiotic reporting? All this talk of 'futurecrime' etc is groundless, the speech was about Guantanamo.
This post shows massive political naïveté. Obama inherited this problem which has no obvious solution. He's returning the right of habeas corpus to detainees where it is politically possible however is limited from doing it entirely. It is far from ideal but I'd like to hear someone come up with a better, *politically viable* solution.
Way over the top, Cory.
This is like a typical Glenn Beck abstraction-gradient: whereby any single policy statement can be portrayed as bearing the full imprimatur of any given extremist philosophy you can care to mention.
By pointing out that Habeas Corpus only applies to US citizens (about which I was incorrect, as it does apply to all persons legally in the US, thank you #37) it was not my intent to imply that all people everywhere are not entitled to the same rights as those in the United States, merely that the administration was not suspending Habeas Corpus in a narrowly legal sense.
Condemning the Obama administration as terrorists, war criminals, and proto-facists for not releasing clearly dangerous people from a type of confinement that most of us view as odious, without giving him a chance to make changes that provide system integrity and morality AND physical security for the people in the nation that put him in power....is unreasonable.
The world is a complicated and sometimes dangerous place. FDR, probably the most effective liberal politician in US history, signed the order to inter US citizens of Japanese descent, an act most of us see as wrong at almost every level. I doubt many modern liberals think FDR should be pilloried as a war criminal for the act, tho.
Reasonable people may disagree, but we are in the real world, and any solutions found must work not only within our idealogical frameworks, but also on the ground. I think I can give Obama some time and flex on this one.
Ok, I love reading the comments here at Boingboing, but all of you folks that think that indefinite detention of prisoners because the government KNOWS they're a threat... If you think that is not scary, is not a suspension of habeus corpus (the right to challenge ones detention in court), or is any different from the kind of framework Cheney proposed... you're kidding yourselves. Will it lead to the end of the United States? Hardly. But does it leave us all, as citizens of a free country, that much less free, less safe and less able to hold our government to account? Absolutely.
This post shows massive political naïveté...He's returning the right of habeas corpus to detainees where it is politically possible however is limited from doing it entirely,
Once again the argument that habeas corpus can be applied selectively. You utterly fail to understand the concept of a right. Rights can't be revoked when the government finds them inconvenient.
Where's your messiah now?
--Chief Wiggum
FYI: You can download Rachel Maddow's shows daily for free using Miro -- completely legally, btw.
Miro is a project of the Participatory Culture Foundation, a non-profit organization.
http://www.getmiro.com
I have a sneaky suspicion that some of these comments would read quite differently, if that speech would have been made by a Republican president.
Unicorn Chaser?
Preferably one with Obama riding his Black Unicorn of the Apocalypse, Lenin.
(When I didn't get the unicorn I wished for the day after the election, I knew it would all be downhill.)
And people wonder why guns and ammo are sold out nationwide!
Change? Yeah, maybe he is even WORSE for liberty than the tyrant who preceded him.
guns and ammo are sold out because of hysterical idiots and cold-blooded opportunist merchants.
Any president that actually tries to forcibly disarm America would sign the death warrant for all cops, for starters. Cops have guns, are hopelessly outnumbered and could be taken down en masse by an enraged populace by poison, being run over on the street, having heavy objects fall from rooftops and by perishing in notoriously inflammable police stations. Each gun taken would multiply by two in an insurrection.
When US weapon inspector Scott Ritter, UN weapon inspector Hans Blix, and the UN itself declared in March 2003 that Iraq was complying with disarmament demands of its WMD programs, the neocons swore they knew better, swore they knew Iraq had WMD's, and invaded.
of the thousand or so detainees who've gone through Guantanamo, about 80% were released or are planned to be released by the US with no charges filed against them. Turns out, they were innocent. Oops. 10% of the detainees died in American custody, about one-third of those were ruled homicides. (Amercans murdered detainees.)
With a terrorist-identification failure rate of at least 80%, and a track record of "knowing" something with such certainty as to be willing to commit the US military to a quagmire that it cannot extract itself from for a decade, the neocons are now arguing that this time they've got it right, that this time they really do know who is guilty and who is innocent.
These bastards are acting like a bunch of gambling addicts who've hocked their home at the roullette wheel, and now they swear, by God they swear, that if you just loan them money for one more bet, then this time they'll win it all back.
Anyone who actually believes this horseshit is throwing good money after bad, except it's not just money. it's what little is left of American values like "rule of law", and "due process", and "innocent until proven guilty".
You're being suckered by fools too blind to see their own folly. To this day, Cheney swears, by God swears, that his track record is right.
Obama isn't so SUPer OBAMA! anymore heh.
Same puppet as the last.
The romance is over folks its business as usual.
ALL the promises were to let you think you have a say when in all reality you are only going through the motions pretending to participate in the circus.
U.S.S.A. is born.