OK, they're not "enemy combatants." But we can still hold them, no charges, forever.

[Richard_Parker]

@ElvisL1ves

As I said, he can order his people to act as if that right existed. Okay, sport?

How would Obama’s people “act as if that right existed?” Please be specific.

@ElvisL1ves

I was referring specifically to Hamlet’s handwringing over the lack of laws these people can properly be charged with, in this War On A Tactic in a world where Everything’s Different, and his desire that they be created for the purpose. Ex post facto, that is.

Heh. Ok.

[Hamlet]

@ElvisL1ves

It isn’t just a moral question, but a legal one as well. If you aren’t as alarmed by the Hamlet types’ eagerness to denigrate and ignore the law as by Bush’s, then there’s something very seriously wrong.

I see that you still engage primarily in misrepresentations and false namecalling as your only tools in “debate.” Good Luck with that.

[ElvisL1ves]

Your own post #88 (just for example; there are others, as you know):

@Hamlet

That’s part of the problem with a “war” on terror that for all purposes, will never end. There will be no end date, no sovereign authority to release the POWs to when they will no longer be a threat.

we need to figure out a way to handle the detainees beyond just locking them up forever without charges or hearings. This grey area in the law would be a great opportunity to begin to build back our reputation and respect throughout the world. We can create an international tribunal for terrorists. Or try them in our criminal courts. Establish military commissions. Shoot them on sight. There are multitudes of things we can do. Bush chose to lock them up and wait until it wasn’t his problem anymore. We don’t know what Obama is going to do. Yet. But I hope it will be good.

Where’s the misrepresentation? :dubious:

[ElvisL1ves]

@Richard_Parker

How would Obama’s people “act as if that right existed?” Please be specific.

Is that *really *not apparent?

[Richard_Parker]

@ElvisL1ves

Is that *really *not apparent?

Yes. Indeed, it seems as if you don’t actually know what habeas corpus means. I’m quite familiar with it, and I have no idea what it means for Obama’s people to act as if it applied to Bagram detainees.

[ElvisL1ves]

Hamlet, if your indignation is due to having been called out as disdaining the law, this other line from that post is illustrative:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
How about Geneva Conventions protections, then? They’re US law too.

Works for me to a point. But they’re outdated, and don’t deal with the reality of terrorism very well.

“Outdated” (echoing Gonzales’s “quaint” and “obsolete”). No other discussion of the point, just dismissal.

Where’s the false namecalling there?:dubious:

[ElvisL1ves]

@Richard_Parker

Yes. Indeed, it seems as if you don’t actually know what habeas corpus means. I’m quite familiar with it, and I have no idea what it means for Obama’s people to act as if it applied to Bagram detainees.

No gameplaying, please.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Little_Nemo

Exactly. The immense difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush didn’t inherit any of the unconstitutional policies that happened during his administration - he initiated them.

Bush was confronted with a new paradigm, i.e. a vast escalation of the terrorist threat. This brought to the fore new issues that had not been confronted before, and required a fresh consideration of the tactics that were required to combat them.

The fact that Obama apparently hues closely to the Bush approach, give or take a technicality or labelling change here and there, is something of a vindication of the Bush approach. I’ve read all the comments by hotblooded partisans in this thread, but if Obama does not make more substantive changes in the future, I doubt if future and calmer historians will judge Bush’s policy in this regard harsher than Obama’s.

I would also note that if Obama does substantially change WRT these issues, and the US suffers another major terror attack, he will likely take some blame for it.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Ending *torture, black sites, and extraordinary rendition is “hewing closely to the Bush approach”? Really?

[Hamlet]

@ElvisL1ves

Hamlet, if your indignation is due to having been called out as disdaining the law, this other line from that post is illustrative:

“Outdated” (echoing Gonzales’s “quaint” and “obsolete”). No other discussion of the point, just dismissal.

Where’s the false namecalling there?:dubious:

What a shock. You remain as indifferent to your inability to understand a simple post, and instead misinterpret, misrepresent and make an ass of yourself.

Contrary to your … misinformed … viewpoint, I am not arguing the Geneva Conventions can be ignored. I’m arguing that they don’t go far enough to offering protection to detainees in the War on Terror. As I already said, they allow for the detention of POWs until the end of hostilities, which, in the case of the war on terror, could be… forever. I find that unacceptable, and a flaw in the Conventions.

I understand that, in your rabid hatred for me, you are more than willing to gloss over my posts and just reach whatever preordained conclusion you want to. But maybe, just once, you could use critical thinking and actually READ what I say. I know it’s asking a lot of you, but maybe you’ll want to break your 6+ year streak of being a crappy debater.

[Little_Nemo]

Bush was confronted with a new paradigm, i.e. a vast escalation of the terrorist threat. This brought to the fore new issues that had not been confronted before, and required a fresh consideration of the tactics that were required to combat them.

Terrorism isn’t a new issue. There was the Oklahoma City bombing and the first World Trade Center bombing. There were groups like the Weather Underground and the SLA back in the sixties and seventies. There was the anarchists a hundred years ago who bombed Wall Street and shot a President. There was the Ku Klux Klan in the aftermath of the Civil War and John Brown’s Lambs before the war.

But prior to George W. Bush, no President seemed to feel the need to tear up the Constitution in order to fight terrorists. They all seemed to feel that their job was to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Bush, on the other hand, seemed to feel the 9/11 changed everything and gave him an excuse to do what he wanted. As he himself said, the terrorists are attacking us because of our freedom. So maybe he thought he was doing us a favor by eliminating that freedom.

The fact that Obama apparently hues closely to the Bush approach, give or take a technicality or labelling change here and there, is something of a vindication of the Bush approach. I’ve read all the comments by hotblooded partisans in this thread, but if Obama does not make more substantive changes in the future, I doubt if future and calmer historians will judge Bush’s policy in this regard harsher than Obama’s.

I would also note that if Obama does substantially change WRT these issues, and the US suffers another major terror attack, he will likely take some blame for it.

If Obama personally led a commando raid that captured Osama bin Laden tomorrow during the course of which he carried five wounded Marines to safety on his own shoulders, I’m pretty sure that the conservative spin machine would figure out a way to say he did something bad. They’d probably complain he didn’t rescue any kittens along the way.

[sailor]

@Hamlet

I am not arguing the Geneva Conventions can be ignored. I’m arguing that they don’t go far enough to offering protection to detainees in the War on Terror. As I already said, they allow for the detention of POWs until the end of hostilities, which, in the case of the war on terror, could be… forever. I find that unacceptable, and a flaw in the Conventions.

The “War on Terror” concept is utter BS. Do any of the other BS “wars”, like the war on drugs, also allow for indefinite imprisonment? Can we please have a war on bullshit?

Bush did not respect the Geneva conventions nor the US Constitution and Obama is moving in the opposite direction. That’s pretty much all there is to it in this thread.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Little_Nemo

Terrorism isn’t a new issue.

I said “vast escalation”.

But prior to George W. Bush, no President seemed to feel the need to tear up the Constitution in order to fight terrorists. They all seemed to feel that their job was to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

See above. Note also Lincoln & FDR.

If Obama personally led a commando raid that captured Osama bin Laden tomorrow during the course of which he carried five wounded Marines to safety on his own shoulders, I’m pretty sure that the conservative spin machine would figure out a way to say he did something bad.

In the circumstance I described it would be more than the “conservative spin machine”.

[Little_Nemo]

I said “vast escalation”.

The 9/11 attacks were a huge shock. But the reality was that less than three thousand people were killed. Twice as many people die every year from overdosing on over-the-counter pain relievers. But we didn’t declare a War on Tylenol.

[ElvisL1ves]

@sailor

The “War on Terror” concept is utter BS. Do any of the other BS “wars”, like the war on drugs, also allow for indefinite imprisonment? Can we please have a war on bullshit?

While we’re at it, can we please have a war on invective and table-pounding too?

[tomndebb]

@Hamlet

What a shock. You remain as indifferent to your inability to understand a simple post, and instead misinterpret, misrepresent and make an ass of yourself.

Control your temper or take it to the Pit. Do not resort to name-calling in GD.

[ /Moderating ]

[ElvisL1ves]

More info from Lawrence Wilkerson, SecState Powell’s chief of staff:

Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on "sources and methods" and "intelligence secrets" became the Bush administration's modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.

But their ultimate cover was that the struggle in which they were involved was war and **in war those detained could be kept for the duration. And this war, by their own pronouncements, had no end.** For political purposes, they knew it certainly had no end within their allotted four to eight years. Moreover, **its not having an end, properly exploited, would help ensure their eight rather than four years in office.**

In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way--from classified information or otherwise--that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement.

Bolding added.

That’s an insider’s view.

[Nars_Glinley]

@ElvisL1ves

No gameplaying, please.

I’m not a lawyer like I believe that Richard Parker is and I’m also not gameplaying but I’d really like to hear what “acting like the right to habeous corpus exists” means.

[Little_Nemo]

I’m not a lawyer like I believe that Richard Parker is and I’m also not gameplaying but I’d really like to hear what “acting like the right to habeous corpus exists” means.

If I’m understanding the issue here correctly, Elvis seems to feel that courts are issuing habeas corpus writs and the administration is saying these detainees have no habeas corpus rights so they’re not following the writs. So Elvis’ position is that even if the detainees don’t actually have the right, the Obama administration could issue an executive order telling the detention centers to pretend they have that right and to follow the writs.

Richard’s position seems to be that habeus corpus jurisdiction is a matter set by Congressional legislation and that Congress has not given the detainees any habeus corpus rights. So the courts are not issuing any habeus corpus writs because they do not have jurisdiction to do so. In which case, an executive order telling people to follow writs that don’t exist would be meaningless. And an executive order giving the courts jurisdiction to issue habeus corpus writs would be unconstitutional.

[VarlosZ]

A New York Times editorial from Saturday, expressing the same concerns as Bricker:

@The New York Times

. . . But we did not expect that Mr. Obama, who addressed these issues with such clarity during his campaign, would be sending such confused and mixed signals from the White House. Some of what the public has heard from the Obama administration on issues like state secrets and detainees sounds a bit too close for comfort to the Bush team’s benighted ideas.

. . . But the break does not always seem complete enough. Even as they dropped the “enemy combatant” terminology, Mr. Obama’s lawyers did not seem to rule out indefinite military detentions for terrorism suspects and their allies. They drew a definition of association with Al Qaeda that is too broad (simply staying in a “safe house,” for example). Worse, they seemed to adopt Mr. Bush’s position that the “battlefield” against terrorism is the planet. That became the legal pretext for turning criminal defendants into lifelong military captives.