A Mockery of Justice

[LnGrrrR]

Per Glenn Greenwald's column today...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/



In June, Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked by ABC News' Jake Tapper whether accused Terrorists who were given a trial and were acquitted would be released as a result of the acquittal, but Gibbs -- amazingly -- refused to make that commitment (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/white-house-refusal-to-answer-question-on-terrorist-prompts-senate-skirmish.html). But this is the first time an Obama official has affirmatively stated that they have the "post-acquittal detention" power (and, to my knowledge, the Bush administration never claimed the power to detain someone even if they were acquitted).


So, let me get this straight. Even if ACQUITTED, we could still indefinitely detain people. How much more antithetical to American values can you get?

First, our justice system assumes innocence before guilt. Not just for Americans, but for everyone. As many founding fathers and others have stated, assuming innocence before guilt is one of the key ways of preventing unlawful detention and punishment. It is morally correct.

Secondly, being detained indefinitely is a power for tyrants. There is a good reason that habeas corpus is enshrined into the Constitution.

Third... even IF found innocent, we would still detain them, based on the say-so of our President? What type of kangaroo banana-style-republic do we live in?

It is vitally essential to America that we process these suspected terrorists in a fair and just manner, and we accept the final decision of these courts. To do otherwise is unjust and immoral.

[Winehole23]

From Update I in the article, Greenwald claims Bush claimed something similar, but he only cites himself and a commenter on his website:




This stunning turn of events highlights a cruelly ironic feature of detention at Guantanamo. In an ordinary justice system, the accused must be acquitted to be released. In Guantanamo, the accused must plead guilty to be released -- because even if he is acquitted, he remains an "enemy combatant" subject to indefinite detention. Only by striking a deal does a detainee stand a chance of getting out.


So this is (another) one of those cases where Obama is embracing a radical Bush theory of power rather than inventing one of his own.

[DarrinS]

I've had a lot of sleepless nights worring about the Gitmo gang. :sleep

[LnGrrrR]

I've had a lot of sleepless nights worring about the Gitmo gang. :sleep

Thanks for the non-sequitur.

Nice to see your moral relativism shining here DarrinS. Our system of justice is only strong enough, in your mind, for Americans, and we must degrade our system to the point of ridiculousness for others.

Why not just say that we should be allowed to do whatever we want to those locked up in GTMO? Torture, starvation, who the hell cares? I mean, it's not like their people! And surely, NONE of them were innocents.

[Winehole23]

The key passage, IMO:


In today's Wall St. Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699680303307309.html), which also reported that "the Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges," Rep. Jerry Nadler was quoted as saying something quite similar about the Obama approach:

"What bothers me is that they seem to be saying, 'Some people we have good enough evidence against, so we'll give them a fair trial. Some people the evidence is not so good, so we'll give them a less fair trial. We'll give them just enough due process to ensure a conviction because we know they're guilty. That's not a fair trial, that's a show trial," Mr. Nadler said.
Exactly. Show trials are exactly what the Obama administration is planning. In its own twisted way, the Bush approach was actually more honest and transparent: they made no secret of their belief that the President could imprison anyone he wanted without any process at all. That's clearly the Obama view as well, but he's creating an elaborate, multi-layered, and purely discretionary "justice system" that accomplishes exactly the same thing while creating the false appearance that there is due process being accorded. And for those who -- to justify what Obama is doing -- make the not unreasonable point that Bush left Obama with a difficult quandary at Guantanamo, how will that excuse apply when these new detention powers are applied not only to existing Guantanamo detainees but to future (i.e., not-yet-abducted) detainees as well (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/i_want_to_draw_attention.php)?


Whatever else is true, even talking about imprisoning people based on accusations of which they have been exonerated is a truly grotesque perversion of everything that our justice system and Constitution are supposed to guarantee. That's one of those propositions that ought to be too self-evident to need stating.

[DarrinS]

Thanks for the non-sequitur.

Nice to see your moral relativism shining here DarrinS. Our system of justice is only strong enough, in your mind, for Americans, and we must degrade our system to the point of ridiculousness for others.

Why not just say that we should be allowed to do whatever we want to those locked up in GTMO? Torture, starvation, who the hell cares? I mean, it's not like their people! And surely, NONE of them were innocents.


You say moral relativism like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with the left is moral equivalence.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's alright because they're baddies. We should never make the assumption that a state free to ignore the Constitution in one instance might not do the same in our instance. Frankly, most Americans cannot and would gladly give up their constitutional rights for a free dinner at the casual dining chain of their choice, except for their right to own firearms and their right to view porn on the internets.

[Marcus Bryant]

But we gots the biggest economy and the biggest military on the planet!!!11 I guess that makes their lives fulfilling.

[Winehole23]

The creation of a multi-tiered system of justice will be acknowledged as an Obama accomplishment, though his predecessor pioneered the style of brazenness in the presumption about his own powers necessary to sustain such a system.

Indeed, years of Orwellian doublespeak and self-serving expedience have inured us to it. The subplot in the article regarding the use of the word torture on NPR and GG's contretemps with NPR's ombudsman, shows just how far we've come.

*America is objectively pro-torture and pro-administrative detention by now*

[Winehole23]

That didn't take very long.:depressed

[coyotes_geek]

Barack W. Obama strikes again..........

[Winehole23]

When we let Bush get away with it, we gave the power to Obama. Was that such a good idea?

[LnGrrrR]

You say moral relativism like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with the left is moral equivalence.

Ah, so your morals shift according to the situation. Nice to hear! That's always a good basis for morality.

Tell me Darrin, do you feel that innocence before guilt should be a universal concept, the most effective way to prevent unfair sentences? Or do you think that's a neat feature reserved only for those peope born into our country?

[sam1617]

On a personal level, I could care less if some random dude gets locked up forever.

However, this goes against everything that the US stands for. If we say that we are going to give accused terrorists trials in the US court system, then we should follow our rules. Its that simple. All or nothing.

If we aren't, then why waste our time with the hoopla of the courts at all. Just line them up and shoot them after we have milked them for all their information. Acquitting them to only detain them forever if deemed necessary by mysterious people is just power hungry and deeply unnerving. How long till "domestic terrorists" are given the same treatment.

To spout some rhetoric real quick, the only trustworthy government is the one that doesn't exist. We HAVE to shrink the federal government and it needs to be done now. Now if I only had any clue how to do it...

[Winehole23]

How long till "domestic terrorists" are given the same treatment. It's only a matter of time IMO.

[DarrinS]

You guys should volunteer to give these guys brisk genetalia massages.

[sam1617]

Ah, so your morals shift according to the situation. Nice to hear! That's always a good basis for morality.

Tell me Darrin, do you feel that innocence before guilt should be a universal concept, the most effective way to prevent unfair sentences? Or do you think that's a neat feature reserved only for those peope born into our country?

Discounting God (or God's depending on your religion), morality exists on a personal level, not at a cultural, ethnic or national level. There is no guiding force that can say what is right or wrong, so moral relativism is a fact of life, because as people change, and people's situations change, so do their morals.

But thats just me ;)

[Winehole23]

You're missing the point Darrin. You're thinking short term. Administrative detention is here to stay in the USA.

[DarrinS]

The same people who lambast moral relativism are the same people who want to pass "hate crime" legislation. Interesting.

[DarrinS]

You're missing the point Darrin. You're thinking short term. Administrative detention is here to stay in the USA.


Who are they going to round up first? Teabaggers?

[sam1617]

You guys should volunteer to give these guys brisk genetalia massages.

You're inability to recognize that these people that we are discussing are people who have been acquitted. They aren't, by definition, terrorists if thats true. They aren't the enemy anymore. I'm not saying that I'm worked up on a personal level, they are strangers from a foreign land, not my dad or sister or anything... But still, keeping innocent men is, to me, and to the constitution, is illegal.

[DarrinS]

You're inability to recognize that these people that we are discussing are people who have been acquitted. They aren't, by definition, terrorists if thats true. They aren't the enemy anymore. I'm not saying that I'm worked up on a personal level, they are strangers from a foreign land, not my dad or sister or anything... But still, keeping innocent men is, to me, and to the constitution, is illegal.



I'm just screwing with them.

Hey, isn't our POTUS some kind of Constitutional genius? Why isn't he doing anything?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Darrin, you fucking idiot -- we are criticizing Obama.

Open your eyes!

[LnGrrrR]

You guys should volunteer to give these guys brisk genetalia massages.

F*ck you.

[sam1617]

I'm just screwing with them.

Hey, isn't our POTUS some kind of Constitutional genius? Why isn't he doing anything?

Why does this come down to political boundaries again? Behaving like this is part of the reason why our country is the way it is. Dem's and Reps are too busy being idiots and fighting, rather than uniting about the things that all people condemn, and fixing them. I fully expect that the next thread, I will strongly disagree with something that winehole or Lngrrrrrrrrrrr said, but for now, I revel in the fact that as people can condemn stuff like this, regardless of party, there may be hope for America yet.

[Winehole23]

Who are they going to round up first? Teabaggers?In a way, that's exactly what I mean. The door is open for that, maybe not right now, but in the not-too distant future when administrative detention is considered a normal feature of government, as in Great Britain.

[LnGrrrR]

The same people who lambast moral relativism are the same people who want to pass "hate crime" legislation. Interesting.

No I'm not, and you're an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

No shit -- where did that straw man come from?

[LnGrrrR]

Discounting God (or God's depending on your religion), morality exists on a personal level, not at a cultural, ethnic or national level. There is no guiding force that can say what is right or wrong, so moral relativism is a fact of life, because as people change, and people's situations change, so do their morals.

But thats just me ;)

There's a difference. I'm fine with changing your morals as you grow through life, and experience change.

Moral relativism is different. It's saying it's ok when party A does something, but completely wrong when party B does the same thing.

For instance, if an American were captured in a foreign country, and accused of terrorism, and said country said they then had the right to indefinitely lock him or her up, even if acquitted, how many Americans would be going out of their mind at the 'injustice' of it all?

Yet, those same ones don't make a peep, or don't care, when we do it. That's moral relativism.

[Winehole23]

You're inability to recognize that these people that we are discussing are people who have been acquitted. They aren't, by definition, terrorists if thats true. They aren't the enemy anymore. I'm not saying that I'm worked up on a personal level, they are strangers from a foreign land, not my dad or sister or anything... But still, keeping innocent men is, to me, and to the constitution, is illegal.That's too nuanced for D, I'm afraid. Nice take, sam. :tu

[Winehole23]

The same people who lambast moral relativism are the same people who want to pass "hate crime" legislation. Interesting.I've spoken out against hate crimes law in these pages, mostly for being redundant, but also on constitutional principle.

Most of what would be made illegal is already described in law (as being serious crimes and felonies), and the equities should lay in favor of free speech, even for racist assholes.

[sam1617]

There's a difference. I'm fine with changing your morals as you grow through life, and experience change.

Moral relativism is different. It's saying it's ok when party A does something, but completely wrong when party B does the same thing.

For instance, if an American were captured in a foreign country, and accused of terrorism, and said country said they then had the right to indefinitely lock him or her up, even if acquitted, how many Americans would be going out of their mind at the 'injustice' of it all?

Yet, those same ones don't make a peep, or don't care, when we do it. That's moral relativism.

I understand what you meant the first time ;). I just struggled with how to convey my point, and failed to address it correctly.

So, to use an example on a personal level, since I believe that people act the same, regardless of political level or scale. When I go in a restaurant and see a toddler causing problems, it aggravates me. I don't like loud noises, and that brat is causing them. However, when I go in a restaurant, if my nephew does pretty much the same thing, I don't care at all. Its a matter of, I'm more accepting to his flaws, because he is mine (and his failure to behave is partially my fault too). Is that morally wrong? I don't know. It is a fact of life though. We are more willing to ignore some flaws in the things closest to us, than in strangers. On a religious basis, thats immoral, but without an overarching moral guidance system, who can say what is actually morally wrong? Essentially, I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just saying its human behavior and don't expect it to change anytime soon, since its been happening for all eternity.

[DarrinS]

Remember when Navy snipers took out those Somali pirates?


Not THAT was justice. Fuck, those guys didn't even get their Miranda rights read to them.

[DarrinS]

I've spoken out against hate crimes law in these pages, mostly for being redundant, but also on constitutional principle.

Most of what would be made illegal is already described in law (as being serious crimes and felonies), and the equities should lay in favor of free speech, even for racist assholes.


Heinous crimes usually committed against someone the perp hates, so I agree with you that "hate crime" is redundant.

[Winehole23]

Frankly, most Americans cannot and would gladly give up their constitutional rights for a free dinner at the casual dining chain of their choice, except for their right to own firearms and their right to view porn on the internets.Picante! :stirpot:

[Winehole23]

Heinous crimes usually committed against someone the perp hates, so I agree with you that "hate crime" is redundant.God, you're so trite. Please don't ever change, Darrin.

[Winehole23]

I'm against criminalizing the intent of crimes in actions separate from the ordinary criminal process for which that intent is already a question.

[Winehole23]

It's overkill.

[DarrinS]

God, you're so trite. Please don't ever change, Darrin.

:toast

[LnGrrrR]

I understand what you meant the first time ;). I just struggled with how to convey my point, and failed to address it correctly.

So, to use an example on a personal level, since I believe that people act the same, regardless of political level or scale. When I go in a restaurant and see a toddler causing problems, it aggravates me. I don't like loud noises, and that brat is causing them. However, when I go in a restaurant, if my nephew does pretty much the same thing, I don't care at all. Its a matter of, I'm more accepting to his flaws, because he is mine (and his failure to behave is partially my fault too). Is that morally wrong? I don't know. It is a fact of life though. We are more willing to ignore some flaws in the things closest to us, than in strangers. On a religious basis, thats immoral, but without an overarching moral guidance system, who can say what is actually morally wrong? Essentially, I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just saying its human behavior and don't expect it to change anytime soon, since its been happening for all eternity.

I don't think the analogy you drew necessarily involves 'morality'though. I don't think it's immoral for a family to bring a whiny kid into a restaurant... it just annoys me. :)

Certainly, there is a societal morality, just as there is a personal morality we all have.

To me though, even though we MIGHT falter, morality should not change based on whether the criminal is a friend or not, whether the thief is someone you know, or whether the nation invading is yours or another.

[LnGrrrR]

Remember when Navy snipers took out those Somali pirates?


Not THAT was justice. Fuck, those guys didn't even get their Miranda rights read to them.

Yeah, and I think you'll find most liberals on the board said they were totally fine with that.

I sure was.

What you fail to realize is combat =/= detention.

[sam1617]

Heinous crimes usually committed against someone the perp hates, so I agree with you that "hate crime" is redundant.

See, with the sarcasm. When someone says they agree with you, you respond with pointless sarcasm. I begin to see why they so vehemently attack your reasonable posts.

You could have just said something like:

Yep, if its already a crime why do we need two laws to do the job that one law was doing just fine. Just give the original law a broader variety of punishments if it was too constrained to punish a particularly bad crime.

You might find if you did stuff like that, people would be more willing to listen to your reasonable points. And yes, you aren't the only one to blame, winehole and lngrrrrrrr and others, including my self, say stuff that i just look at and say, damn, why are they being ridiculous....

[Winehole23]

For the record, D, you're thumbs up on administrative detention, right?

[LnGrrrR]

It's overkill.

I've heard one good defense for hate crime laws.

When a person commits a crime against another, it can be for any number of reasons, but it usually only involves those two.

However, a hate crime can be seen as the criminal sending a message, not just to whoever the crime was perpetrated against, but to that group as a whole.

Again, I don't agree with hate crime laws. I just thought that was the only justification for an 'extra' punishment above what the law details for the crime that seemed even slightly reasonable.

[DarrinS]

See, with the sarcasm. When someone says they agree with you, you respond with pointless sarcasm. I begin to see why they so vehemently attack your reasonable posts.

You could have just said something like:

Yep, if its already a crime why do we need two laws to do the job that one law was doing just fine. Just give the original law a broader variety of punishments if it was too constrained to punish a particularly bad crime.

You might find if you did stuff like that, people would be more willing to listen to your reasonable points. And yes, you aren't the only one to blame, winehole and lngrrrrrrr and others, including my self, say stuff that i just look at and say, damn, why are they being ridiculous....


My comment to WH wasn't sarcastic in the least. Open crack, remove panties.

[LnGrrrR]

You might find if you did stuff like that, people would be more willing to listen to your reasonable points. And yes, you aren't the only one to blame, winehole and lngrrrrrrr and others, including my self, say stuff that i just look at and say, damn, why are they being ridiculous....

What? I'm eminently reasonable, at all hours of the day.

:D:angel:spin

[DarrinS]

For the record, D, you're thumbs up on administrative detention, right?



What are they supposed to do with these people?

Maybe they could let gay couples adopt them.

[Winehole23]

See, with the sarcasm. When someone says they agree with you, you respond with pointless sarcasm. I begin to see why they so vehemently attack your reasonable posts.Darrin found himself mistaken as usual, because he did not notice I agreed with his joke. He probably did not even read it. If he did, he retained nothing, judging by his reply.

DarrinS is a derailler.

[Winehole23]

What are they supposed to do with these people?

Maybe they could let gay couples adopt them.Simple question, simple answer. I told you mine. Are you afraid to tell me yours?

[johnsmith]

DarrinS is a derailler.


Says the current champion of one line responses that say nothing.

[LnGrrrR]

Says the current champion of one line responses that say nothing.

Were you referring to yourself? If so, your post was quite apropos.

[johnsmith]

Were you referring to yourself? If so, your post was quite apropos.

Really? You can't recognize that I was clearly referring to Winehole? Really?

[johnsmith]

Shouldn't you be off asking perfect strangers if you should cut your kids wang?

[sam1617]

I don't think the analogy you drew necessarily involves 'morality'though. I don't think it's immoral for a family to bring a whiny kid into a restaurant... it just annoys me. :)

Certainly, there is a societal morality, just as there is a personal morality we all have.

To me though, even though we MIGHT falter, morality should not change based on whether the criminal is a friend or not, whether the thief is someone you know, or whether the nation invading is yours or another.

I would argue that you are showing some moral relativity yourself there ;). IMO, its bad for a parental unit to fail to discipline their child in a manner appropriate for their misbehavings. Unless its my sisters kid, in which case, I'm perfectly willing to give her the benefit of a doubt. Thats the same behavior that is exhibited when people don't care about how the US treats prisoners, but does care how NK does, its just on a tiny scale, versus a HUGE one.

And, as to your last point, I agree. However, I don't expect people to actually behave like that, because while societal morality may say one thing, your personal morality should override it, and you should accept those consequences. For an example, society says its wrong and immoral to have more than one child, and you have to kill any others you may have. I would say fuck you society and protect all my kids, and suffer whatever consequences there are.

How about this, and I think we should reach a consensus here. Societal morals should be fair and applicable without regard to relationships or situation. Personal morality does not necessarily have to follow those rules.

[sam1617]

My comment to WH wasn't sarcastic in the least. Open crack, remove panties.

If it wasn't I apologize. Unfortunately tone isn't conveyed well across the internet.

Could you expound upon your point then, since I'm not sure what you really meant then?

[Winehole23]

Says the current champion of one line responses that say nothing.Chacun a son gout. There's something to be said for being brief.

[LnGrrrR]

Really? You can't recognize that I was clearly referring to Winehole? Really?

I knew what you meant; I just thought it amusing that your post could also be classified as a one-line response that did not say much.

[LnGrrrR]

Shouldn't you be off asking perfect strangers if you should cut your kids wang?

Is this supposed to be a dig? If so, it didn't work very well. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know everything; why not ask others for wisdom/guidance that have already been through what I have?

[Winehole23]

Originally Posted by DarrinS http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3540282#post3540282)
Who are they going to round up first? Teabaggers?









In a way, that's exactly what I mean. The door is open for that, maybe not right now, but in the not-too distant future when administrative detention is considered a normal feature of government, as in Great Britain.Lost in the shuffle.

[Winehole23]

When we let Bush get away with it, we gave the power to Obama too. And also to all of their successors. Was that such a good idea?

[Marcus Bryant]

When we let Bush get away with it, we gave the power to Obama too. And also to all of their successors. Was that such a good idea?

Is that not also true of the other wing of the DC party? Bush is elected and suddenly concern is raised about the 43rd Reich or what not.

[Winehole23]

Without any doubt. The whining is hysterical.

Widespread.

Nonstop.

24/7


(not laughing)

[Winehole23]

The fact remains that the President now has quasi-regal discretion to suspend habeas and detain indefinitely. This is a definite novelty in our system, viz., normalizing irregular detention. I wonder if power can long resist the temptations offered by mainstreaming a multi-tiered scheme of justice.

[Winehole23]

Is that not also true of the other wing of the DC party? Bush is elected and suddenly concern is raised about the 43rd Reich or what not.I referenced the harebrained manifestations against 41 not too long ago....

[Marcus Bryant]

Who are they going to round up first? Teabaggers?

How long until the state classifies anti-state sentiments as 'hate speech'?

[Marcus Bryant]

I referenced the harebrained manifestations against 41 not too long ago....

Back and forth it goes. We can only trust 'our guy' (ok, or 'our gal') with the power.

[Winehole23]

The first generation of the anti-NWO cluster was heinous with it's easy reliance on absurdly wrong Nazi and "fascist" equivalences. I feared and mistrusted 41, but I did not hate him passionately.

[Winehole23]

Whatever historical example one would wish to discuss would be on one side or the other, almost unavoidably so. Somebody's always gonna take the hit. Fair and unfair.

If everyone wasn't so hung up on the aspect of petty faction, maybe we could start to focus on other things. I sure hope we do, starting soon.

The lesson of *you can hope in one hand and shit in the other...* is...



...first, don't shit in your own hand.

[Winehole23]

Some posters skip that step as being optional. Some are driven to it by other insane posters. But at bottom, it's totally discretionary.

[SnakeBoy]

Is this supposed to be a dig? If so, it didn't work very well. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know everything; why not ask others for wisdom/guidance that have already been through what I have?

I liked that you posted a real question. Doesn't happen often in this forum.

[LnGrrrR]

I liked that you posted a real question. Doesn't happen often in this forum.

Thanks Snake. And I truly appreciate your, and everyone elses, opinions in that thread.