I just wish there were a way to get this through the American public's collectively thick skull faster. Sadly, short of having their own family members rounded up and 'disappeared', I suspect most ordinary citizens don't grasp the implications of all this.

Maybe Congress would be quicker to intervene if they found themselves 'detained' based on their shadier contacts and supporters. One could only hope.

What happens if a judge decides to free the detainees and their countries don't want them? Are you comfortable with them being freed into the American communities with no strings attached? I will not call them terrorists, but weren't most of the detainees caught engaging in military actions against US soldiers? Or are you arguing that these are innocent men who were caught up and brought to Guantanamo Bay, and that it is okay for them to be eventually released into America.

I agree with you that detainees should not be held indefinitely, but I think President Obama has to make it clear that if a detainee has to be released from custody, he must be sent back to his homeland or to whatever country wants him.

It is for Americans.

I thought those FEMA camps were just paranoia but I am not so sure anymore.

BTW How many non terrorist have been killed by airport security protecting us from terrorists?

Whatever they say they want to do to terrorists, they also want to do to anyone else.

Why are we even debating this issue? Why is Jesse Ventura the public figure speaking with the most integrity and logic on this issue? Why have we adopted a lowest common denominator standard for our morality and behaviour? Why are our role models the Israelis when we've seen how well it's worked for them and to where it has led their society? Why will we be surprised when all of this blows back in our faces and pushes us in to all-out, naked Cheneyism?

All I can say is go Glenn, go Jesse! You may be our last hope.

so if you are a pakistani or afghan, your village gets blown up by a drone carrying missiles or are indiscriminately bombed, can you lock up whomever did this forever? oh, no we just don't want anyone "killing americans".

cowards...

No one cares much. At the moment I believe that 3 or 4 individuals are detained, or living under extraordinarily strict conditional release as a result of being issued a "Security Certificate". It's a very bad law. The only "good" thing, is that so far at least, it has been used sparingly. There is not much debate about security certificates here in Canada. If you scare people enough, they will agree to anything if they think it will protect them.

Canada : Security Certificates -

Time for Reform

Posted: 30 March 2005

Updated: 14 February 2006

Five Muslim men face deportation – to countries where they are at risk of torture – following the issuing of “security certificates” naming them as national security threats in Canada. Four are currently in detention without charge, while another was recently released under stringent bail conditions.

Amnesty International is concerned that the security certificate process violates a number of fundamental human rights.

Security certificates are issued under the Immigration and Refugee Act and apply only to non-citizens (visitors, refugees or permanent residents). They must be signed by both the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness. The “reasonableness” of the certificate is then reviewed by the Federal Court. During this process – which may extend for many months and even several years – any immigration proceedings involving the individual in question are suspended. Foreign nationals are automatically detained. Permanent residents may be also detained if a deemed a danger or likely to fail to attend court proceedings, which, in effect, means that most are also detained. http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/canada_certificates.php

The questions and concerns you bring up are necessary because Obama is abandoning reason and principle in his attempt to craft a policy that pleases as many as possible.

Pleasing powerful constituencies has replaced reason and principle in Obama's universe, which is governed by a perverse utilitarianism. This is a triangulation that subjects our rule of law to political strangulation.

Rachel Maddow also took Obama apart last night on this at the start of her show.

It's un-Constitutional.

And a Constitutional law professor should know better. That is one of the main reasons I voted for him, and he's throwing it away.

...but weren't most of the detainees caught engaging in military actions against US soldiers?

No.

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/so_who_else_is_at_gitmo.php

"What happens if"...is not a legal question. It shouldn't even be on a judge's radar.

It's not what's constitutional. It's not legal. It's not habeus corpus. It's not right.

I will not accept reasoning based in fear. We have no choice. We have to let them go if we can't prove in court they are criminals, terrorists, what-the-fuck-ever.

Or else we continue the Bush Nightmare indefinitely. I vote no.

I recall an interview where you described your impetus for moving away from practicing law to a career of political and media criticism as being a concern for radical Presidential authority overtaking the core Constitutional principles of our country.

Two administrations and a few Congresses later, how are we doing?

as might be expected when it's a "War on Terror", indefinite detention and government assigning guilt seem perfectly logical. If war isn't a crisis but rather the status quo, standards of conduct begin to change: martial law effectively begins to replace civil law, authoritarian order begins to supersede individual freedoms. This war-time president, like the one before him, isn't going through some initiation rite like Grenada or Panama. He is designing a more amenable version of the perpetual war (or the "long war" if you prefer) for the public. The non-partisan alarm that was raised to many of the policies and actions of the past two administrations was precisely out of concern for what is coming to pass: not only were they contrary to the system of government, checks and balances, and civil liberties and freedoms that the American system was based on, they were also the beachhead for a radically different status quo. It is against this new status quo that policies are being assessed, and so the question of whether or not indefinite detention with no charges is a standard or radical idea must be put into the context of this endless war. If you accept the War on Terror, then it's pretty standard and the US will emulate China more and more. If you don't accept the War on Terror then this proposal is even more chilling then the reactionary ideologues of GWB--it's the new standard.