There’s a difference between dismantling a problem and blowing something up. One requires some careful thought and some time and effort to do right. The other is good for people who want immediate gratification without being concerned over what happens next.
It took Bush eight years to build the mess this country’s in right now. It’s going to take Obama more than a couple of months to fix it.
I am afraid this isn’t true. It doesn’t matter in the least whether I get away with it or not - if you claim something is a moral wrong yet do the same thing, then you are a hypocrite.
Regards,
Shodan
a) It is a bit ridiculous to compare the situations directly, in terms of evaluating the current president dealing with an issue versus the president who caused it.
b) Obama seems to be moving along in the right direction
c) But he isn’t out of the woods yet
That’s not what I’m doing at all.
I fully agree that any evaluation of Obama at this stage is premature when compared to an evaluation of eight years of Bush. No doubt about it. I guess I could have made that point explicit, but I really did think it was self-evident.
But I also contend that the filing last week was a key decision point. If I could offer an analogy, it’s as though we were heading down the Interstate with Bush at the wheel, and Obama insisting we’re heading in the wrong direction. So the passengers took a vote, and we pulled over and put Obama behind the wheel.
Obviously as he starts up, he has no choice but to continue down the highway.
But last week’s event was an exit ramp… or maybe one of those gravel pathways in the median… and he didn’t take it. Of course, he could be planning to take a later exit. No question. And he’s only been driving for a few months, not the years and years that Bush was. Still, when an exit comes up, and he’s spent time telling us that if were driving, we wouldn’t be on this highway, then it’s fair to ask why he didn’t take the first opportunity to get off the highway.
You can dismiss my questions as “scoring political points” if it makes you feel better. But I started this thread with a quote from the New York Times, which I hope you’ll agree is not exactly known for its rabid right-wing posture. Nor is it the only tome that has expressed disappointment that Obama didn’t take this opportunity to repudiate the detention claims Bush made.
So it’s not just Bricker the Rabid Right Wing Point Scoring … er … Person asking these questions. How about you pretend the New York Times posted the OP, and answer them?
Right, but that still means that you have no leg to stand on to criticize me for it.
Looks more like one of those gravel pathways with a No U Turn sign on it. Go another mile, and there’s a nice cloverleaf you can get on and off. The gravel that goes across the center line tends to have nails and metal chunks in it. If you have the time, might as well do it the safe and easy way.
I’m seeing that some of these people are no-shit bad people, and they really should go the hell away forever, and Obama is carefully unwinding things to let them all off in appropriate places.
As opposed to, you know, stuffing more people in there.
Well, the new method does have the benefit of needing a consensus larger than one. That does seem to be a small safeguard against wholesale abuse, and it is an improvement over the executive deciding alone who is protected under the Constitution. That is a refreshing change from the previous administration, no?
He has, and he’s doing it. But he has to determine it on a case by case basis. He can’t just release them all, or keep them all locked up. And making that determination takes a lot of time. Especially given the mess left by Bush.
They already do have a better policy. Actually doing something rather than letting the detainees left just sit there. It’s just you and yours seem to think that he should be able to handle each and every case of the detainees in just a couple months.
Can you clarify this a bit? A couple people have been tried by the military commissions.
And that’s a fair rebuttal. Which is why I said, in the OP, “But perhaps I’m missing something that makes it all better.” This was an invitation to reply with something substantive to support the idea that this was a gravel pathway with a no-U-turn sign and some mud in the tire tracks, and that there’s a paved cloverleaf down the road.
Had this thread started with a debate over whether the CinC has the power to detain people indefinitely, I’d be more willing to believe you. But it wasn’t. And your typical use of smarmy comments (“But perhaps I’m missing something that makes it all better”) and uncited statements that I question the veracity of (“I do have a problem with Obama’s election tactic of appearing to promise he wouldn’t adopt these tactics and then doing so.”), and I concluded that it wasn’t about the power, it was about another of your potshots at Obama.
Can you get me a link? I read the article, and I’m not seeing a big conflict. Are you questioning whether or not the President can detain foreign belligerants at all? Because it seems to me that question has been answered for over a couple centuries.
What did you expect? At this point, the filing was a simple assertion of the long recognized fact that the President has the power to detain people in a war. Big shocker there. Why nigh but unheard of I guess.
What the real issue is what are we going to do with the detainees we have and any future ones. THAT’S the problem I, and many people had, with Bush. His CSRT’s were … lacking. He didn’t grant them habeas. And he didn’t try a single one.
What question? Does the President have the power to detain in a war. Well, I didn’t think you needed an answer to that, but the answer has pretty much always been YES. Or was it “Do Obama and Bush agree on that?” Well, that one is pretty easy to answer too. YES. Or was it “Is there any difference between the two?” Other than more references to international law, less emphasis on broad executive powers, and using different words? Nah, not really. Same assertion of the same general power. Is there a major difference between “supporting” the enemy and “substantially supporting” our enemy. Quite possibly, but since “substantially” isn’t decide, we’ll have to wait and see.
Glad I could help you out with your “questions”. The answers seemed pretty blatantly obvious. But feel free to ask more if you need help. But I still maintain your missing the REAL issue about Guantanamo (what to do with the detainees) and instead trying to make political hay out of the fact that both Obama and Bush agree with a legal premise that has existed since the founding. But it’s your thread.
Sure. I was wrong. I am now aware that there has been one trial and sentencing by military commission. Salim Hamdan was tried, found guilty, sentenced and released to Yemen in November of last year. So, despite my assertion earlier, the Bush administration did manage to try one person by military commission. If you’re aware of others that have been tried in those 6+ years (Hicks pled, which I don’t really count), let me know.
This site has the relevant links for people who want to actually read the memo before judging its content: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html.
And Bricker, if you have a moment, I’d like to know your answers to the questions in post 36.
What a good thing I’m now able to correct that misapprehension.
Here are some questions from the NYT article:
Question: are the critics’ concerns justified? Why or why not?
From the actual court filing:
In what way, if any, does this differ from President Bush’s claim of authority stemming from the AUMF? What, if any, are the limits of this authority, and where does the instant submission identify them?
Maybe I’m not remembering things correctly… but without a search, I recall much derision heaped upon Bush on these boards for claiming the AUMF supported these detentions. I welcome correction on this point.
Hmm, seems he is deriving his power from the AUMF, so Congress could easily change that if they wanted. Unlike Bush who thought it was his inherent right to do whatever the hell Cheney let him do.
Yes, I agree that Obama has already “taken the highway exit,” as it were, with respect to the torture issue. My clain in this thread relates to the indefinite detention issue, however. But if an explicit acknowledgment of the change in the torture arena helps us to focus on the detention issue, you now have it.
My quote from the filing is provided above. In addition:
That is as broad-reaching as the power Bish claim, and does not specify any particular end-date. It is thus indefinite detention.
Really?
Now, the very next sentence does say “unwitting” support is not covered, so you’re right on that. But where does “indirect” support get excluded? Nowhere that I can see. And when did Bush claim that unwitting support was groudns for detention?
No. Bush’s argument was precisely the same: the AUMF gave him the power.
“You and yours?” So quick to the ugly little ad hominem. Just out of curiosity, who do you imagine as “mine?” Do I get to pick who “yours” are, and ascribe their views to you?
As Bricker has already pointed out, the question at hand is not about finding a immediate disposition of the people already in custody. Every reasonable person agrees that it will take awhile to sort out each and every case.
The issue at hand is that Obama is endorsing the same underlying legal principle of the Bush admin. IANAL, but it seems to me that they could have easily said they supported habeas corpus for detainees, but simultaneously asked for a temporary stay while they sorted things out. They did not do this.
Barring that, they could have said that while the current cases were indeed a sticky wicket, going forward they would renounce the Bush approach and treat all future detainees very differently. They did not do this.
To repeat the question you ducked: at what point will it be fair to criticize Obama for failing to change policies he campaigned against since Iowa? 6 months? A year? Four?
You’re not the only one in the thread, Brick. Some of your erstwhile allies are claiming Obama is no different from Bush.
Wrong wrong wrong. Bush claimed this authority under Article II in addition to the AUMF. Read the DOJ’s brief in Boumediene if you don’t believe me. I can’t copy and paste from the PDF, otherwise I’d quote it myself.
But more importantly, where did Obama disclaim the ability to detain people under the AUMF? Point to the quote for us. You’re alleging a failure to follow his promise, so show us his promise.
You haven’t been paying attention. He claimed it in 2004 and until he left office:
In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005). See also the government briefs in that case.
They didn’t need to do it. The detainees in Gitmo have habeas rights. The Supreme Court said so and Obama has endorsed that decision in his January 22 executive order which states: “The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”
They have renounced it in part. Two notable differences are that he linked it solely to the AUMF and he tightened the definition of who can be detained. And they are planning to dispose of the cases in a set time period set by the closing of Gitmo. The real question will arise when they decide what to do with people they want to continue to detain without charges. But that time has not yet come.