4nik8

I thought Bush was screwed up with the idea of indefinitely detaining enemy combatants.

Well, Obammy has "one upped" him.

Seems Obammy is taking a page out of Minority Report and is going to INDEFINITELY lock up folks for what they might do..you know...some time in the future.

I guess he really WAS sincere in his idea of "change".






Obama proposed a new system of Indefinite Preventive Detention yesterday [May 21, 2009] in his National Security speech that is stunning in its illegality.

Obama is proposing we keep people locked up not for the crimes they have committed and we prove they committed in a court of law, but on the chance that they might commit crimes in the future. There will be no trial, for no crime exists to be charged. There is only the nebulous threat of "future acts" to justify depriving people of their liberty potentially indefinitely.

Is this justice?

Imagine you are picked up off the street for daring to write something provocative in your blog. Perhaps you vaguely threaten to relocate to Afghanistan and work with a humanitarian aid organization there. Unkown to you the humanitarian aid organization might possibly be associated with the Afghan resistence. Perhaps the head of the aid organization is the third cousin twice removed of a suspected warlord causing our march for empire trouble on the border. Based on that alone you could be kept in a cell forever. After all, letting you out of that cell might mean you really would do what you threatened and we can't have that.

Don't think it couldn't happen.

Read here the story of a red crescent worker arrested for perhaps having the phone number of a possibly terror related individual, Take a Walk in Lakhdar Boumediene's Shoes. Our government kidnapped Boumediene, tortured him, kept him in a cell for seven years and seven months, had him sign an agreement not to sue and then deported him last week.

Many men have been swept up off the streets these past eight years not for what they did or said or who they knew and associated with, but based on anonymous and often false accusations from third parties who in return collected bounties equal to several year's wages. Many thousands still languish in our cells around the world with no hope of a hearing or legitimate trial and now Obama is proposing a system that will allow uncharged detainees to be held without trial FOREVER and he wants to make this system "legal." Maybe the DOJ will start producing memos to back Obama up.

Indefinite detention with no trial is unconstitutional and morally abhorrent. Bush would never have been allowed to get away with it and indeed the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights have fought de facto indefinite detention for years now.

So the question now is will Obama worship, unthinking partisanship, and irrational fear rule the day and allow this grotesque new proposal to come (officially and quasi-legally) into existence?

You who think Obama cannot do wrong (hope! change!) despite the growing number of civilian corpses and refugees in Af/Pak due to his policies need to start paying more attention to what he is really doing and saying.

On this issue Obama is proving that the new boss may in fact be worse than the old boss.

If you don't believe Obama really plans to lock people up potentially forever for "future crimes," Rachel Maddow lays it all out coherently and eloquently in the Youtube clip above which includes footage of Obama proposing and justifying this new system of indefinite preventive detention.

The ACLU doesn't miss a trick and their Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero, has already responded:

"We welcome President Obama's stated commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law and the unequivocal rejection of torture. But unlike the president, we believe that continuing with the failed military commissions and creating a new system of indefinite detention without charge is inconsistent with the values that he expressed so eloquently at the National Archives today."

From the NY Times article on Obama's speech: “It is very troubling that he (Obama) is intent on codifying in legislation the Bush policies of indefinite detention without charge,” Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said after the speech. “That simply flies in the face of established American legal principle.”

Other sources - Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan (NY Times), Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some (Washington Post), CCR: Obama Embraces Indefinite Detention, Not Meaningfully Different From Bush (TPM), Obama in Bush Clothing (Washington Post), Terror suspects face indefinite detention after Guantánamo (Financial Times), Facts and myths about Obama's preventive detention proposal (Glenn Greenwald of Salon), Is Obama creating "an American Gulag?" (Joan Walsh of Salon).

__________________

msicidron

oh wait he said there would be judicial and congressional oversight...no worries



by the way that video sucked and i think that woman should be put in prolonged detention for the future crimes she's going to commit on stupid people.

__________________

Ego Tripping

I don't believe that the Military Industrial Complex would just let this go, no matter who is President. If he's going to make any change, this was the very last arena I felt he could do it, especially so early into his first term. I admit too, this is actually a bit worse. But I like this tidbit:

The big difference between this Admin and the Bush Admin, is the Obama Admin. are trying to do with in front of everybody along with accountability and an actual framework, while the Bush Admin. did this in the shadows away from almost all public exposure. He also seems open to suggestions to some kind of other option, considering the catch-22 that the Bush Admin. placed us in. Does this make it right? Of course not, but since it's so in the limelight now, it's a whole lot more likely there will be lots of pushback that will either slow or stop this process. I don't quite understand why he would support this, but I also don't have the slightest idea what kind of control the rest of the government has over the Presidential office. I really don't feel Obama supports what is coming out of his own mouth (whereas I felt Bush/Cheney was near giddy about it), so I assume he's being told to say these things. Perhaps the agreement was that he wanted to inform the public and at least give public opinion a chance, rather than keep it classified and hidden like the previous Admin. did.

Either way, we'll have to wait and see how this progresses.

__________________

stoneric

There will now be 3 options for detainees. You can get lucky and have a trial in federal court but only if you are a "slam dunk" to be convicted. Or you can go before the disgusting military commisions. It doesn't matter if they have enough evidence to convict you because they don't have to release you even if they don't. Or you can be a prolonged detainee and the government doesn't have shit on you but has decided that you are a danger to the precious citizens of the us. They might have tortured you to confess but can't use that evidence even in the military commisions because obama has "cleaned" that atrocity up. That doesn't mean you will be released, you will continue to be our shackled guest under any of the options.

John F. Kerry

i guess theres nothing wrong with idealism,

and i guess theres something good about the fact that people call it bulshit when it clearly is too idealistic to be realistic.


and so i guess at the marketplace of ideas everythign is going prety well.... i mean contrast our debates on policy issues to those of for instance Iran.

notepad

we desperately need a no-thanks button in here

4nik8

I love it. I mean... I just love it.

If Bush pushes for indefinite detention on enemy combatants... he's evil.
If Obamma pushes for indefinite detention on crimes that HAVEN'T EVEN HAPPENED.. he doesn't support them. Someone else is pulling the strings in the presidents office.

If the guy ever passes anything good, he'll be acclaimed.
Proposing illegal/inhumane legislation gets passed off as someone else doing it.

I'll never understand the blind following.

Bush was horrendous. Obamma is even worse.

__________________

stoneric

I don't think obama wants to grab people off the street for some future crime, only that he doesn't want to release those already in custody. There's a bit of difference there. He can't use the tortured confessions that the bushies got from the detainees so he feels compelled to protect us from the possibility that some of the information obtained thru said torture might be true. Shame on him, but to say he is worse than bush is a stretch. You won't live long enough to see anything worse than bush.

4nik8

Agreed.




Then apparently you didn't listen to what's been presented.
He's ALREADY going to keep detaining those in custody. He's said so. Just not in Guantanamo.
This is another, wholly different program. One that doesn't require the precursor of actually committing a crime. The mere affiliation with what can be perceived as an enemy element can result in being "detained" because of what MIGHT be done.

Because the courts struck that down. NOT because he's such a wonderful fellow that he decided all on his own not to.

What has he rolled back that Bush installed?
Any degradations of our rights?
Any degradation of the rights of others around the world?
Can you name one thing that Bush put into place that Obammmy has rescinded?

And now that he's broadening the scope of those implementations of Bush with proposals of his own he's not worse?

Surely you jest.

__________________

stoneric

Fuck you on the I don't think comment.

I know he's going to keep them in custody. I said that. And how in the fuck is what he's doing worse than bush? The bush administration filled up gitmo with people for just being affiliated with al qaeda and who hadn't commited any crime. I have no doubt the obama administration will do the same. You made it sound like they'll do something more drastic than bush.

Did I say he was responsible for torture not being admissible?

Did anything I say even remotely suggest that I condone anything the obama administration is doing regarding foreign policy?

Surely you fucking jest. He isn't broadening shit. He's just using different rhetoric.

4nik8

Poor lil fella. I didn't mean to go and get your panties twisted in a knot.
Shows me a lot about you and why you hold the your views though.
I apologize for getting you that upset.


For one thing, Bush nabbed people that were either actively helping the terrorists or in no small way involved with the actual actions.

Obammy is talking about upping that to where nothing has to have been done.
A mere insinuation that you might do something is what he's proposing.

Now. Take a breath and try to explain to me, since he's going to "do the same thing....just using different rhetoric"..., how I'll never live to see anything worse than Bush.

If this guy is using the same methodology... wouldn't you have to admit that they are, at the very least, on par? And he ain't even good and wound up yet.

By the way. You never answered my question. What has Obammy rescinded that Bush put in place?

"Just give him some more time" is a quote I see a lot.

I don't need more time to see he's already gone past Bush by basically:
A. Nationalizing the auto industry.
B. Nationalizing the Insurance industry.
C. Working on nationalizing the health care system.

Those may seem innocent to some folks, but capitalism doesn't flourish when there is socialism in play.


Just some food for thought:
Do you know what fascism is?


An example of the fasces:


See 'em on both sides of the flag?

Been that way for who knows how long (too lazy to google it)

Like I said. Just some food for thought.

__________________

stoneric

Again, Fuck you and your condescending attitude.

You're out of your fucking mind if you think bush only nabbed legitimate terrorists. obama isn't upping anything. He was talking about not releasing people who might do harm to americans, not pulling someone off the street who MIGHT harm americans. And again, I'm not saying they won't pull innocent people off the street that he deems guilty, but that's NO different than what bush did.

And no, they're not even close to being on par. I can talk out of my ass and say our standing around the world has improved immensely since bush left office. And again, I don't in any way agree with obama's foreign policy.

I lean to socialism so the rest of your tripe was ignored.

Mafoo

yo, lets try n keep the emotional responses and jabs to a minimum.



(microcosm of us politics)

__________________
PLUR
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

stoneric

I agree. I didn't start this garbage and I'm too petty to let it go.

cantSEEme

lol! stoneric w/ the honesty.

and with ppl like fornicate, i think even if obama didnt make mistakes, was a perfect president (whatever that might be) in every regard, they would still shit on him. there is obviously a huge amount of bias emanating from these posts, and in no way am i sucked up in this "obama-mania", and he has made mistakes and done some things in my opinion he shouldnt have done, but these posts just drip with disdain. "obammy".... jesus.

__________________

Ego Tripping

Word. What's ironic is this Bush was tied to a dynasty of power through his father. Bush had obvious ties to oil. Cheney, Rice, same thing. Wtf would be Obama's motivation here? I don't buy the 'robin hood' babble nor do I buy the Socialist Ghost, especially when actual Socialists don't think Obama is a Socialist. Plus, I don't get what people are trying to say about this guy. Obama wants to extend the Neocon agenda of power grabbing in the Middle East and declaring war on American Citizens...but also wants to redistribute wealth and introduce a Socialist (possibly Communistic) system in America that serves the lower class? Which is he, a tyranical dictator trying to wage war on people, or a communistic perpetrator bent on an entirely equal resource distributing system or a puppet capitalist just in the pocket of wall street?

It's clear there is a power in American Politics that extends past the Presidential office. Bush just seemed to go along with it easier than more deceptively than what we're seeing here. Furthermore, I agree with the bias, considering he's been in office for less than 1/4 of his term and people are already drawing conclusions as to what is going to happen. Fuck them, really. The change Obama has brought I actually respect at this point, especially so early into his term. He's done more for the environment in 6 months than Bush did in 8 years. He gave people a feeling of cooperation in Government and motivated community based movements (even ones that are against his policies). It's what he hasn't done that dissapoints me (Gitmo, although he tried, and foreign policy in general), but considering we surived Bush and he hasn't even had the beginnings of a chance to really get something done, I would be lying to say I'm not optimistic of what could actually change over the next 4 years. Am I delusional? Ignorant? Pollyanna? Not really, I stay educated and current. But I am glad I'm not making an ass out of you and me. There's a difference between hope and hiding your head in the sand. No progress is made in a society where people shoot down the possibility of progress before it starts.

Bush had a 60% disapproval rating and people didn't do shit. Obama has a near 60% APPROVAL rating, and all of a sudden people turn into "patriots." Which I guess now means a pessimistic naysayer with no real solutions, only more problems.

And once again, I'm not 100% behind Obama nor anybody that holds the Presidential Office...but I'm also leaving some room for an open mind, an expectation of progress (we made it this far) and a perspective of trying to help the process through positive proposals rather than pessimistic prophecy.

__________________

4nik8

Smoke a joint. You're teetering on melt down here.
Generally speaking, when I discuss things with those that exhibit limited intellect.... as evidenced by your reading comprehension..... I converse in kind.

Even with that long winded tantrum..... you never answered my original question as it pertains to OBAMMY rescinding policies and, hence, separating himself from being Bush in a different suit.



What a shocker.....

Shame the Russians or other socialistic countries don't have it as good as any republic.
I wonder why that is.....

Couldn't possibly be the freedom of self determination or anything like that. Nahhh.....

Other than my last trip to the San Diego Zoo and visiting the primates, I've never seen such a proclivity for blindly fling shit. Do as you wish.



Congratulation on being able to sound out my name phonetically. Applause is in order. You'd be surprised how many can't put it together.

On the rest:
I'm not sure who "they" are.
I speak for me.
As for "shitting" on him, I hold no party line. In all honesty, I don't see a difference. Except for how they're packaged.
Case in point:
OBAMMY is doing nothing different than Bush has done and is in fact building off the policies left behind.
How, exactly, am I supposed to believe there is a difference in parties?
Theoretically? Yeah.
Practically? Hell no.

Is there "disdain" in my posting? You bet your ass. Has it anything to do with HIM personally? Nope. His policies are what I abhor.
Same with Bush. Hated that President for exactly the same reasons.

The entitlement of "OBAMMY" goes back to discussions on other boards and has just stuck.
But you can read into it what you will.

__________________

4nik8

Yes.
But, it only LOOKS to serve the lower class.
As I've stated in other posts, the over all scheme is elimination of the middle class. War on that class has been on-going.
Limiting the freedoms, not only of rights but of choices, makes for a malleable
class of people.

The end product is money and POWER (follow the power and the truths become self evident) in the hands of the upper few.

That reasoning kind of flies in the face of preconceived notions. Doesn't it?
I'm not against poor getting help. I'm against the nature of the policies.
The path those policies not only follow...but where they lead.

__________________

stoneric

What are you talking about? Me telling you to fuck off is bordering on meltdown? And then you go off on a condescending scolding as if you exhibited some superior intellect in this back and forth.

What original question are you talking about? I commented on "prlonged detention". I don't feel a need to answer about anything other than what I commented on.

I think I remember you. You were the one who thought all vets were badasses. Tough guy.

And most people got the "fornicate" thing. There goes that attitude again.

4nik8

The overall ...ehh...flavor of your post.

Hey, if the shoe fits....

And you wonder why I come off as condescending.
Can you not use your mouse to scroll and see? Or do I have to type the question a 3rd time for you?

Not my words but if you choose to characterize it that way, be my guest.

There goes your insecurity again.
I didn't specifically mention THIS site, did I?
I post on several boards and moderate on two.
I come into contact with a lot of posters. MANY do not get the the "fornicate thing".

__________________