@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
If I didn't believe that he was a man of his word, I would not have troubled myself to vote for him.
Don't feel bad DL, millions of voters are experiencing the same voters remorse that you are.
@H2O MAN,
Yes but obviously not about the same things.
When I read Holder's explanation of the reason they can't sue, it sounded reasonable to me not to blame those who were only following orders. However, today I learned there is already something in the GC covering just that situation. We have signed the GC; although I understand that the Bush administration i
invented a loophole with their bogus "enemy combatant" title.
Quote:Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
source
And before we get into a lengthy discussion on the merits of that bogus title, bear in mind the GC had a clause in there too about the determination of a prisoners status being determined by a tribunal.
Quote:Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
source
There has been doubt raised by various international groups such as the Red Cross.
Red Cross: Detainees 'are POWs'
In any event; all prisoners are to be treated humanly in accordance with the GC.
Quote:The same ruling, Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, also asserted that all detainees in the war on terror were entitled as a matter of law to the due process protections guaranteed by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which, among other provisions, bans the imposition of sentences by courts that fail to provide "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" -- a standard on which, the court suggested, the Pentagon's military commissions fell short. Article 3 also requires that all detainees be treated "humanely" under all circumstances and bans "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
source
Maybe if the previous administration spent half as much time trying to catch real AQ and Bin Laden as they did trying to find legal ways to torture, Bin Laden would not be free running around yet here today eight years after 9/11.
@revel,
revel wrote:
Yes but obviously not about the same things.
man-caused disasters ... PrezBO
obviously the same thing.
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:If I didn't believe that he was a man of his word, I would not have troubled myself to vote for him.
I know. I was being sarcastic in the post you responded to. I get this way when I'm disappointed. And although candidate Obama wasn't my first choice among the Democratic contestants, I respected and trusted him enough to be disappointed with president Obama.
I'm watching the live coverage of the press conference. The WH press secretary is trying to weasel around Obama's previously announced stance on immunity for CIA personnel who tortured prisoners because Obama wants to look forward. But, when we prosecute criminals, we are prosecuting them for what they did in the past. The claim that we want to move forward as a nation could be used to immunize all criminals for their past criminal acts. On the other hand, Obama announced that no one is above the law. How can these presidential assertions be reconciled? The WH press secretary is spinning his head right now.
President Obama promised to change washington. so far he has bailed out the rich banks and other money lenders with public funds. We , the public own large ammounts of stocks in these banks. Why are not the CEO,s who caused this train wreck not fired from thier jobs for incompentsy. Why are not the high federal officials who let the torture go not taken to court for thier illegal acts. I wonder now why I voted for a man who turned out to to be just another politician who is paying off the money men who put him in office. How is he so much different from Bush. I am tired to death of voteing for the lesser of disasters. I see no real differance between democrat or republican politicians. They all bow to the money that controlls our government.
Court decision, April 28, 2009
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/27/0815693.pdf
The 9th Circuit rejected the government's "state's secrets" privilege and refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Jeppesen for its participation in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program that included the abduction, detention, torture, and abuse of detainees.
@Debra Law,
Thanks, Debra! I'm off to read it.
@Thomas,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html#mod=djemalertNEWS
Quote:MAY 14, 2009 Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely
By EVAN PEREZ
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.
On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
I'm becoming a little concerned. Partly on the issue of indefinate confinement without trial, but mainly the lack of consistant policy. It's almost as though Mr. Obama is getting his decision making input by reading something on the order of a2k when he gets up in the morning. Note also what looks like a reversal of policy on the photos showing prisoner abuse. I can't honestly say I have an opinion on the issue, but it would be nice to feel like we knew where our government were going, based on what our president had said in the past.
I wander from the main topic, but the man just doesn't seem to have any inner sense of direction.
It is mildly amusing to observe the rationalizations and excuse-making among some here for president Obama's apparent change of heart (or merely equivocations, depending on your preference) on these issues; and the disenchantment among others who don't even try.
There is, of course another, perfectly rational, explanation. Namely, now that he has the moral and legal responsibility for the country's defense and safety, he sees things in a different and clearer light. The evidence for this is significant. In addition to all that has been noted here, Obama is also using precisely the same arguments to defend the continued use of our prison facility in Bagram Air base in Afghanistan that Former president Bush used to defend Guantanamo.
The transition from ignorance to wisdom or merely from folly to wisdom often involves episodes of perceived hypocrisy along the way. If that is what is afoot here, I'm willing to tolerate it.
Lost in all this anguish are a couple of fundamental and long-standing principles of law. (1) U.S. domestic criminal law does not apply in other countries, nor does it apply to certain classes of stateless criminals or spies acting in disguise. (2) The Geneva Conventions were never intended by their makers to apply to pirates or the agents of non-state international terror, revolutionary or criminal organizations. (3) Drumhead trials - without any access to habeas corpus or appeal - are the historical rule, not the exception, for sabateurs acting in disguise, pirates, and even the soldiers of an enemy country when they disguise themselves in the uniform of their foes.
Oddly entirely new concepts of the applicability of domestic criminal process have crept in to public expectations in these areas in this country and in Europe. However they have little historical standing and virtually no acceptance anywhere else. Whether you agree or not, the ACLU and your favorite blogger do not make either our laws or national policy -- even though they are indefatiguable in punishing those who violate their largely juvenile prejudgements.
During WWII the United States summarily confined and, following a quick trial by military tribunal, providing no recourse to habeus corpus or appeal, executed six German sabateurs introduced to the country by submarine. Later in the campaign leading up to the Battle of the Bulge, the German Army very effectively used some English-speaking soldiers, outfitted in U.S. uniforms to misdirect U.S. units moving to relieve our embattled forces. A fairly large number of these German soldiers were found out, caught and quickly (within a day) executed by U.S. forces following a similar procedure. Similar standards were applied by all the combatants in that and subsequent wars.
The sorry spectacle of NATO ships freeing Somali pirates after intercepting them in the act of piracy; or a decade ago of hapless Dutch soldiers standing by impotently during the massacres of thousands in Sebrenica Bosnia, because they "had no orders"; or of, after the fact, demands that we apply domestic rules of evidence to the terrorists who organized the 9/11 attacks and who were apprehended by force in other countries (with the silent assent of their governments - which were also unwilling to take any overt action themselves) does nothing but undermine the law - notwithstanding the indignant outrage of supercilious idiots who couldn't find or fight their way out of a wet paper bag -- or offer an alternative solution to the problem at hand.
By the way a feature of our law and that of most countries is that the government can be the subject of a civil suit only with its explicit assent. It can refuse without offering any argument at all.
Just when I think I'm so cynical the Obama administration can no longer disappoint me, they counter with a resounding: "Yes, we can!"
NPR: Obama Revives Detainee Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay
@georgeob1,
George -- thanks for your thoughtful post. You won't be surprised to learn I disagree. Unfortunately, though, this is a bad time for me to rebut you, but I'll try to revisit some day next week.
@Thomas,
I'm reading along agreeing with you all.
1) take guantanamo detainees, load on plane.
2) affix parachutes to detainees.
3) fly detainees to nation of origin
4) push detainees out of plane's hatch.
5) repeat steps 1 through 4 until guantanamo is empty.
@Thomas,
I don't get the drama...UNLESS he fails to rescind the outrageous changes to military tribunal normality instituted by Rumsfeld/Bush for the Guantanamo kangaroo travesties.
Your article says:
Quote:The president said that immediate rule changes governing the trials will begin to bring them in line with the rule of law, most significantly by altering some rules of allowable evidence. Obama also is asking Congress to change the 2006 law creating the current, on-hold tribunal system to enact more sweeping reforms.
"Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered," Obama said.
I read up on all this a while ago and, before the Bush disaster, military lawyers had worked hard on making military tribunals reasonable.
As far as I can see, they had become so.
Bushco's own military lawyers criticized the travesties of tribunals the administration created.
If proper process is re-instituted, what is your objection?
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
I don't get the drama...UNLESS he fails to rescind the outrageous changes to military tribunal normality instituted by Rumsfeld/Bush for the Guantanamo kangaroo travesties.
If proper process is re-instituted, what is your objection?
you have to understand that a lot of people here are positively gun shy about anything even remotely attached to bush.
for myself, i think people are really jumping the gun on complaining about obama. they're doing the republican's job for them in a lot of cases. military tribunal is really the best option for these particular guys. to go through the u.s. court system would take forever, there's too many to get done quickly. later, we'd have to see what the circumstances were.
frankly, i feel like we have much bigger fish.
I note in yesterday's news the Obama administration is going to resume the military tribunals previously used by the Bush Administration, this time with a few cosmetic new rules, but still outside the jusisdiction of Federal courts or the extablished rules of Military justice -- all as Thomas noted above..
How do you interpret the now nearly complete reversal on these issues?
@Thomas,
Including his reversal of his earlier decision to release photographs. Glenn Greenwald and a multitude of others are also voicing their disappointment in Obama's "bait and switch" positions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
@DontTreadOnMe,
Well, if it is not a reinstitution of properly constituted tribunals, with due process etc I would agree with Thomas.
But I am not sure why people are making the assumption that what Obama proposes is pretty much the same as the Bush things.
Is there somewhere that states that they are similarly to be travesties?
