Reply With Quote
From Update I in the article, Greenwald claims Bush claimed something similar, but he only cites himself and a commenter on his website:
Per Glenn Greenwald's column today...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
So, let me get this straight. Even if ACQUITTED, we could still indefinitely detain people. How much more an hetical to American values can you get?
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. 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).
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 Cons ution.
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.
From Update I in the article, Greenwald claims Bush claimed something similar, but he only cites himself and a commenter on his website:
I've had a lot of sleepless nights worring about the Gitmo gang.
Thanks for the non-sequitur.I've had a lot of sleepless nights worring about the Gitmo gang.
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 cares? I mean, it's not like their people! And surely, NONE of them were innocents.
The key passage, IMO:
In today's Wall St. Journal, 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?
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 Cons ution are supposed to guarantee. That's one of those propositions that ought to be too self-evident to need stating.
You say moral relativism like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with the left is moral equivalence.
It's alright because they're baddies. We should never make the assumption that a state free to ignore the Cons ution in one instance might not do the same in our instance. Frankly, most Americans cannot and would gladly give up their cons utional 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.
But we gots the biggest economy and the biggest military on the planet!!!11 I guess that makes their lives fulfilling.
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*
That didn't take very long.
Barack W. Obama strikes again..........
When we let Bush get away with it, we gave the power to Obama. Was that such a good idea?
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?
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...
It's only a matter of time IMO.How long till "domestic terrorists" are given the same treatment.
You guys should volunteer to give these guys brisk genetalia massages.
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
You're missing the point Darrin. You're thinking short term. Administrative detention is here to stay in the USA.
The same people who lambast moral relativism are the same people who want to pass "hate crime" legislation. Interesting.
Who are they going to round up first? Teabaggers?
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 cons ution, is illegal.
I'm just screwing with them.
Hey, isn't our POTUS some kind of Cons utional genius? Why isn't he doing anything?
Hey Darrin, you ing idiot -- we are criticizing Obama.
Open your eyes!
F*ck you.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
