"Presidential post-acquittal detention power"

[NickCole]

This is about civil liberties and Obama being Bush II.

"Presidential post-acquittal detention power," is a term used by Obama's DOD's General Counsel, Jeh Johnson at a Senate hearing yesterday to explain Obama is claiming he has the power to imprison anyone indefinitely even if they are acquitted at trial.

The term, as Glenn Greenwald writes, is "an Orwellian term (and a Kafka-esque concept) that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares at all about the most basic liberties."

When Bush did this, Democrats raised hell, there was an election and the candidate who promised Change was voted in.

But Change from Bush? Not so much. In fact not at all.

Also at the hearing Johnson testified that Gitmo might remain open after January 2010, the deadline date Obama gave for closing the prison.

There's much more in this Glenn Greenwald piece.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/08/obama/index.html

 

[CaptainRush]

I just read this somewhere else and it did scare the shit out of me. That's really frightening.

 

[Apollo]

That is quite scary and sad. Bad move on Obama's part.

 

[andysayshi]

That's change, alright. For the worse!

 

[iman]

What is the solution to this problem. Should a known terrorist be released if we cannot convict him of a specific crime? We would not release soldiers who are prisoners of war, why would we release non-state terrorists that are Al-Queda and suicidal enemies of the US?

These people are prisoners of war and are not entitled to release if they are going to continue to be a danger to other people.

How many airplanes, how many buildings, how many innocent people's lives are worth sacrificing to extend civil rights to suicidal terrorists who do not deserve any more rights than any prisoner of war.

 

[Kulindahr]

What is the solution to this problem. Should a known terrorist be released if we cannot convict him of a specific crime? We would not release soldiers who are prisoners of war, why would we release non-state terrorists that are Al-Queda and suicidal enemies of the US?

These people are prisoners of war and are not entitled to release if they are going to continue to be a danger to other people.

How many airplanes, how many buildings, how many innocent people's lives are worth sacrificing to extend civil rights to suicidal terrorists who do not deserve any more rights than any prisoner of war.

If they're acquitted, that means they aren't terrorists -- and that they're known non-terrorists.

These people aren't "prisoners of war" -- many of them were turned in because someone didn't like them.

Sounds like you've bought the Bush line lock, stock, and barrel... or hook, line, and sinker... everything including and beyond the kitchen sink.

 

[Kulindahr]

I forgot -- a solution.

Well, we could put them all on a ship to leave Guantanamo, and... it could, like, sink somewhere, without any survivors!

Yeah, that'd work....

 

[iman]

If they're acquitted, that means they aren't terrorists -- and that they're known non-terrorists.

These people aren't "prisoners of war" -- many of them were turned in because someone didn't like them.

Sounds like you've bought the Bush line lock, stock, and barrel... or hook, line, and sinker... everything including and beyond the kitchen sink.

We may not have enough evidence of specific crimes to convict them of anything, nevertheless some were captured on the battlefield or in bomb factories or in Al-Queda houses. Obviously we should not be imprisoning anybody for insufficient reason.

It seems to me that if one uses the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" for all terrorists then one must oppose the predator attacks on Al-Queda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, in fact, we could not fire on anyone unless they fire first. Why don't we just surrender?

There is no difference between the enemy that is killed on the battlefield and the enemy that is in custody, except that the ones in custody are much better off.

 

[Kulindahr]

We may not have enough evidence of specific crimes to convict them of anything, nevertheless some were captured on the battlefield or in bomb factories or in Al-Queda houses. Obviously we should not be imprisoning anybody for insufficient reason.

It's that "some" that's the problem. Our people in the field were far too naive in taking the word of 'allies' that people were 'the enemy'. For those captured actively engaged in operations -- anything one would expect a soldier, from a typical grunt to special forces, to be doing in a war zone -- putting them in an honest-to-goodness POW camp would work for me. Other than that, we're into a very gray area.

I'd make an exception against such outfits as Hezbollah, which IIRC has flat said that there are no civilians among their enemies, that all are targets: if that's their position, then we use it against them, and if we take a camp (or whatever), then everyone in it goes into detention as a POW.