Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomImus -> Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 5:24:38 PM)
"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team." "In a two-sentence filing late Friday, the Justice Department said that the new administration had reviewed its position in a case brought by prisoners at the United States Air Force base at Bagram, just north of the Afghan capital. The Obama team determined that the Bush policy was correct: such prisoners cannot sue for their release." ****** I really don't know what to say about this. We hear all this fire and brimstone about the evil Bush administration and the way they dealt with detainees... and then the Obama administration says Bush was right.

tazzygirl -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 5:33:50 PM)
The Obama administration’s decision was generally expected among legal specialists. But it was a blow to human rights lawyers who have challenged the Bush administration’s policy of indefinitely detaining “enemy combatants” without trials. The power of civilian federal judges to review individual decisions by the executive branch to hold a terrorism suspect as an enemy combatant was one of the most contentious legal issues surrounding the Bush administration. For years, President Bush’s legal team argued that federal judges had no authority under the Constitution to hear challenges by detainees being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s legal view for prisoners held at Guantánamo in landmark rulings in 2004 and 2006. But those rulings were based on the idea that the prison was on United States soil for constitutional purposes, based on the unique legal circumstances and history of the naval base. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/washington/22bagram.html A very interesting article. Im torn on this one as well. If federal civilian Judges have no jurisdiction, then that is that.

TheHeretic -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 5:49:43 PM)
This is the side-effect of the blind (dare I say "hate-filled and knee jerk?) opposition and demonization of the Bush administration. Now that President Obama has looked at the same facts, and come to the same conclusions, those who shrieked and whined now must either display their ignorance and hypocrisy themselves, or have it pointed out when they remain silent. Bed - make - sleep. C'mon my bleeding heart friends, where are the demands that we try Pres. Obama as a war criminal? You're up anyway...

tazzygirl -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 5:55:22 PM)
I never said we should try Bush. I was not against everything he did, just like i dont like everything Ogama is doing now. Party lines dont always affect how i view things.

Arrogance -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 5:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic This is the side-effect of the blind (dare I say "hate-filled and knee jerk?) opposition and demonization of the Bush administration. Now that President Obama has looked at the same facts, and come to the same conclusions, those who shrieked and whined now must either display their ignorance and hypocrisy themselves, or have it pointed out when they remain silent. Bed - make - sleep. C'mon my bleeding heart friends, where are the demands that we try Pres. Obama as a war criminal? You're up anyway... I believe the accusations of war crimes had less to do with this sort of detention and more to do with... 1) Invading a sovereign nation without basis and 2) The torture.

mnottertail -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 5:58:11 PM)
not for that, but when he invades a country under false pretenses, then we try him as a war criminal and thats what was being said, you as usual are twisting the words. I have always been in favor of 'proofing' to a civilian court that these are enemy combatants, and having done that I dont give a fuck what you do with them. So, if the stance is they dont have to prove but can hold them indefinitely without 'neutral' review. then it is fucked pure and simple Ron

DomKen -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 7:08:19 PM)
We held POW's, enemy combatants under the Geneva conventions, until the cessation of hostilities in WW2 as well and it was legal then and is legal now. My issues were always with starting the Iraq war under false pretenses, treatment of prisoners and assorted domestic issues.

TheHeretic -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 7:09:09 PM)
And how I wish, Ron, that President Obama had someone with your comprehension and insight, close enough to listen to. No. Really. I wish that. I don't think he does, but I can wish, can't I?

Termyn8or -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 10:09:17 PM)
What I don't understand is why. Are these couple dozen people really that dangerous ? And if it is indeed their ideas and ideology which are that dangerous, we are treading on some holy ground here. I don't like this whole fucking thing. If they are that dangerous just execute them and be done with it, Should've been done the first day. People who know how to win know that when you go in to do a job you do it completetly. You bomb the shit out of them and then walk in from one end of the country to the other and make sure that there are no people living, no pets, not a fish or bird even. War is death. You turn on the war machine, at least let it do it's job. That is where we are fucking up. Detainees my ass, sorry about their luck. Is it right ? NO, is it necessary ? YES. I never promised you a rose garden. T

rulemylife -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 11:12:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic This is the side-effect of the blind (dare I say "hate-filled and knee jerk?) opposition and demonization of the Bush administration. Now that President Obama has looked at the same facts, and come to the same conclusions, those who shrieked and whined now must either display their ignorance and hypocrisy themselves, or have it pointed out when they remain silent. Bed - make - sleep. C'mon my bleeding heart friends, where are the demands that we try Pres. Obama as a war criminal? You're up anyway... Bush was wrong and so is Obama. But the war criminal charges have to do with torture, not this issue.

rulemylife -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 11:18:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We held POW's, enemy combatants under the Geneva conventions, until the cessation of hostilities in WW2 as well and it was legal then and is legal now. My issues were always with starting the Iraq war under false pretenses, treatment of prisoners and assorted domestic issues. Who we held then and who we hold now are vastly different. In WWII we held uniformed members of the enemy we were fighting. In this case we don't know who is an enemy and who is not because many were rounded up at random due to the bounty our military was offering. Based on that they deserve a chance to prove their innocence.

DomKen -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/15/2009 11:49:57 PM)
If they are official enemy combatants then they have had that chance. It's part of the Geneva Conventions. BTW why is this suddenly worth a thread? The story in the OP is from Feb.

rulemylife -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/16/2009 1:18:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If they are official enemy combatants then they have had that chance. It's part of the Geneva Conventions. How? My understanding was the whole idea of how they were classified kept them in a situation of indefinite detainment not as POW's with rights under the Conventions nor as criminals with rights within the justice system. quote: BTW why is this suddenly worth a thread? The story in the OP is from Feb. Oh, I'm sure Beck or Limbaugh or one of the others dredged it up in a slow news week.

Irishknight -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/16/2009 7:58:54 AM)
I heard this on the news just the other day. I merely shook my head and figured it was business as usual in Washington. And by news I mean the news bits that play between radio programs not talk radio. It is kind of interesting that it was suddenly on the radio and in the public eye after 7 months. Maybe someone held onto the story so they could claim it was a cover up. Maybe the country was too busy worrying about who's sleeping with who in Hollywierd that they couldn't be bothered to listen until now.

DomKen -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/16/2009 8:00:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If they are official enemy combatants then they have had that chance. It's part of the Geneva Conventions. How? My understanding was the whole idea of how they were classified kept them in a situation of indefinite detainment not as POW's with rights under the Conventions nor as criminals with rights within the justice system. That's why I wrote 'if.' If they are being held as 'enemy combatants' then they're being held as POW's under conditions laid out in the Geneva Convention. If they are not officially 'enemy combatants' then its a whole different situation but the Times article is unclear if that is the case.

Arpig -> RE: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... (9/16/2009 11:33:27 AM)
Disappointing. The administration needs to make up its mind once and for all...are they POWs or are they criminals...and then deal with them using the appropriate channels. This "they are something different" stuff is bullshit. They are using it to hold them indefinitely without any sort of trial, or legal protection, and that is simply wrong. Obama is following Bush's lead in taking the most expedient course here...and that's disappointing because this is one issue he was very clear about during the election,one of the things that made him stand out from the rest of the candidates, yet here he is backtracking and adopting the very same policies he railed against...very sad really, not only is he reneging on his promise, he is doing so by doing the one thing in this issue that is demonstrably wrong.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125