Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review

[blu]

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

tell me both sides aren't for bigger, more intrusive government

this country will only get better when actual small gov conservatives take over the senate, congress, and president. getting rand paul in will be a good start

 

[RetiredGySgt]

, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:

As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .

By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

This is the words of Obama when attacking the Bush policy he now supports.

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Come on Blu none of the koolaid drinking Obama bots on this board CARE. They will either pooh pooh this thread claiming necessity ( while still maintaining Bush had none) or they will simply ignore it.

Obama can do no wrong to these lemmings.

 

[Gadawg73]

, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:

As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .

By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

This is the words of Obama when attacking the Bush policy he now supports.

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Come on Blu none of the koolaid drinking Obama bots on this board CARE. They will either pooh pooh this thread claiming necessity ( while still maintaining Bush had none) or they will simply ignore it.

Obama can do no wrong to these lemmings.

You left out the legal facts of the cases. Imagine that.
There is a significant difference between the Bagram and Guantanomo detentions. Guantanomo is not in an active theatre of war and the United States does not have de facto sovereignty over Bagram that it has held over Guantanomo for over 100 years. The Bagram base and it's prisons are on the sovereign territory of another government and beyond the jurisdiction of US courts.
So explain how we could grant them, or anyone, the right of habeus corpus in another country or area where we have no control or jurisdiction.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:

As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .

By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

This is the words of Obama when attacking the Bush policy he now supports.

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Come on Blu none of the koolaid drinking Obama bots on this board CARE. They will either pooh pooh this thread claiming necessity ( while still maintaining Bush had none) or they will simply ignore it.

Obama can do no wrong to these lemmings.

You left out the legal facts of the cases. Imagine that.
There is a significant difference between the Bagram and Guantanomo detentions. Guantanomo is not in an active theatre of war and the United States does not have de facto sovereignty over Bagram that it has held over Guantanomo for over 100 years. The Bagram base and it's prisons are on the sovereign territory of another government and beyond the jurisdiction of US courts.
So explain how we could grant them, or anyone, the right of habeus corpus in another country or area where we have no control or jurisdiction.

Being in an active theater of war hasn't got shit to do with anything. The rights afforded detainees at Bagram are laid out in various agreements signed by the U.S. and Afghanistan, the U.S. law authorizing the President to use force in Afghanistan and U.N resolutions.
Don't now try to justify Obama being exactly like Bush as being acceptable to the left wing kooks.....it really makes you and those like you look like hypocritical dupes.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is the words of Obama when attacking the Bush policy he now supports.

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Come on Blu none of the koolaid drinking Obama bots on this board CARE. They will either pooh pooh this thread claiming necessity ( while still maintaining Bush had none) or they will simply ignore it.

Obama can do no wrong to these lemmings.

You left out the legal facts of the cases. Imagine that.
There is a significant difference between the Bagram and Guantanomo detentions. Guantanomo is not in an active theatre of war and the United States does not have de facto sovereignty over Bagram that it has held over Guantanomo for over 100 years. The Bagram base and it's prisons are on the sovereign territory of another government and beyond the jurisdiction of US courts.
So explain how we could grant them, or anyone, the right of habeus corpus in another country or area where we have no control or jurisdiction.

Being in an active theater of war hasn't got shit to do with anything. The rights afforded detainees at Bagram are laid out in various agreements signed by the U.S. and Afghanistan, the U.S. law authorizing the President to use force in Afghanistan and U.N resolutions.
Don't now try to justify Obama being exactly like Bush as being acceptable to the left wing kooks.....it really makes you and those like you look like hypocritical dupes.

Where did I try to justify anything? I am giving you a much needed lesson in the LAW of this great country you take for granted.
"Agreements signed by the US and Afghanistan"
Are they treaties and ratified by the Senate?
You need a good education in the law and the US Constitution my friend. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one side you claim you do not trust the UN and then you cite their resolutions in support of your argument when it is convenient, all the while calling Obama a hypocrite for his alleged double standard.
Thank God for the US Constitution. We are a nation of LAWS, not men.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Oh christ...another one of those Senate treaty clowns....let me school your ass.....agreements aren't the same as treaties...you got that? Now grow the fuck up and debate...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You left out the legal facts of the cases. Imagine that.
There is a significant difference between the Bagram and Guantanomo detentions. Guantanomo is not in an active theatre of war and the United States does not have de facto sovereignty over Bagram that it has held over Guantanomo for over 100 years. The Bagram base and it's prisons are on the sovereign territory of another government and beyond the jurisdiction of US courts.
So explain how we could grant them, or anyone, the right of habeus corpus in another country or area where we have no control or jurisdiction.

Being in an active theater of war hasn't got shit to do with anything. The rights afforded detainees at Bagram are laid out in various agreements signed by the U.S. and Afghanistan, the U.S. law authorizing the President to use force in Afghanistan and U.N resolutions.
Don't now try to justify Obama being exactly like Bush as being acceptable to the left wing kooks.....it really makes you and those like you look like hypocritical dupes.

Where did I try to justify anything? I am giving you a much needed lesson in the LAW of this great country you take for granted.
"Agreements signed by the US and Afghanistan"
Are they treaties and ratified by the Senate?
You need a good education in the law and the US Constitution my friend. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one side you claim you do not trust the UN and then you cite their resolutions in support of your argument when it is convenient, all the while calling Obama a hypocrite for his alleged double standard.
Thank God for the US Constitution. We are a nation of LAWS, not men.

We have COMPLETE Control of the base and the prison in question. The key phrase you want to ignore is the one where the US Government can take a person from anywhere in the world and CHOSE to send him to Bagram to AVOID habeus.

I told you guys this was what would be argued.

Obam argued on the Senate floor that it was UNAMERICAN, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and just plain wrong to have a facility where the US could hold someone with no recourse to Habeus. THEN when he makes President he ORDERS his Justice Department to argue that JUST such a place exists and is legal.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Rendition....a Clinton era program.

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh christ...another one of those Senate treaty clowns....let me school your ass.....agreements aren't the same as treaties...you got that? Now grow the fuck up and debate...

"agreements aren't the same as treaties"
Well no shit dumb ass. That is what I told you in my post. You were the one that claimed that our agreements allowed something. Executive agreements with other countries do not trump habeas precedent Moe. Executive agreements never are allowed in Constitutional arguments before any court. You made that argument, not me.
You are so stupid you do not even know you are supporting the liberal argument in the Bagram case. The Appeals Court ruled in favor of the government allowing for the detention of these terrorists WITHOUT a habeas review.

 

[Gadawg73]

Being in an active theater of war hasn't got shit to do with anything. The rights afforded detainees at Bagram are laid out in various agreements signed by the U.S. and Afghanistan, the U.S. law authorizing the President to use force in Afghanistan and U.N resolutions.
Don't now try to justify Obama being exactly like Bush as being acceptable to the left wing kooks.....it really makes you and those like you look like hypocritical dupes.

Where did I try to justify anything? I am giving you a much needed lesson in the LAW of this great country you take for granted.
"Agreements signed by the US and Afghanistan"
Are they treaties and ratified by the Senate?
You need a good education in the law and the US Constitution my friend. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one side you claim you do not trust the UN and then you cite their resolutions in support of your argument when it is convenient, all the while calling Obama a hypocrite for his alleged double standard.
Thank God for the US Constitution. We are a nation of LAWS, not men.

We have COMPLETE Control of the base and the prison in question. The key phrase you want to ignore is the one where the US Government can take a person from anywhere in the world and CHOSE to send him to Bagram to AVOID habeus.

I told you guys this was what would be argued.

Obam argued on the Senate floor that it was UNAMERICAN, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and just plain wrong to have a facility where the US could hold someone with no recourse to Habeus. THEN when he makes President he ORDERS his Justice Department to argue that JUST such a place exists and is legal.

Obama argued on the Gitmo case only in the Senate. That is our sovereign territoy.
Bagram is not.
You are making the liberal argument and are so biased and gullible you do not even know it.

 

[blu]

, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:

As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .

By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

This is the words of Obama when attacking the Bush policy he now supports.

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Come on Blu none of the koolaid drinking Obama bots on this board CARE. They will either pooh pooh this thread claiming necessity ( while still maintaining Bush had none) or they will simply ignore it.

Obama can do no wrong to these lemmings.

the pure hypocrisy from the left & particularly obama is what pisses me off so much

 

[saveliberty]

Both sides aren't for bigger, more intrusive government. There, I said it, feel better blu? I know I don't.

P.S. There are some other sides starting. One even has making government less intrusive as a goal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

tell me both sides aren't for bigger, more intrusive government

this country will only get better when actual small gov conservatives take over the senate, congress, and president. getting rand paul in will be a good start

Obama has embraced a national defense policy conservative Republicans applaud.

 

[blu]

Both sides aren't for bigger, more intrusive government. There, I said it, feel better blu? I know I don't.

P.S. There are some other sides starting. One even has making government less intrusive as a goal.

what? both sides are for bigger government as bush and obama have shown us well. both are cheered on by their side and neither would give up or refuse any power, constitution be damned

 

[saveliberty]

Both sides aren't for bigger, more intrusive government. There, I said it, feel better blu? I know I don't.

P.S. There are some other sides starting. One even has making government less intrusive as a goal.

what? both sides are for bigger government as bush and obama have shown us well. both are cheered on by their side and neither would give up or refuse any power, constitution be damned

Hey, you asked for someone to tell you that. Gee, try to help someone out and look what you get.

Note: I was agreeing with you to boot.