Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
... he's now in full regalia. With a pocketful of free one-way tickets to the Bastille.
At least with those you knew at the start it was all a sham and wouldn't have to suffer afterwards.
I think you are right on in your assessment that the Obama administration seeks to create the illusion of due process, only to legitimize the underlying policy of indefinite detention.
This is not a phenomenon that is new to the justice system of the United States. It reminds me of the Post Conviction Relief Act in Pennsylvania as it pertains to capital cases. Ostensibly in place to provide people convicted of capital murder, PCRA relief is rarely granted, and in the few cases it is, the PA Supreme Court, in stilted, poorly written opinions overturns the lower court. The PCRA process gives the illusion of justice, and lends a superficial legitimacy to a judicial process that is built on inequity.
However, like the Obama administration, it allows the powers that be to point to the "process" afforded individuals, albeit one that is substantively dysfunctional, and in most cases, pre-ordained. One word comes to mind when an Obama official says that even if a person is acquitted at trial the administration will likely still detain that person indefinitely: absurd. Sounds like a Kafka novel.
"She also said -- when the host asked about the recent example I cited of NPR's calling what was done to a reporter in Gambia "torture" (at the 20:20 mark) -- that NPR will use the word "torture" to describe what other governments do because they do it merely to sadistically inflict pain on people while the U.S. did it for a noble reason: to obtain information about Terrorist attacks."
Do we know anything else about this person? Is this merely a case of another shockingly negligent journalist, or does she actually have a political agenda?
Frontier-style: Just "string 'em up" and call the undertaker.
From the May 20, 2005 NYT article on Dilawar.
Some of the same M.P.'s took a particular interest in an emotionally disturbed Afghan detainee who was known to eat his feces and mutilate himself with concertina wire. The soldiers kneed the man repeatedly in the legs and, at one point, chained him with his arms straight up in the air, Specialist Callaway told investigators. They also nicknamed him "Timmy," after a disabled child in the animated television series "South Park." One of the guards who beat the prisoner also taught him to screech like the cartoon character, Specialist Callaway said.
Clearly, their motive was to obtain information on terrorist attacks.
We have to confront a painful question about our President. Many of us were convinced that he would be very different from his predecessor in matters of civil liberties. He is not. The distance between our expectations and reality is a failure that must be explained. So what happened? Is it:
(a) we mislead ourselves -- that is, we heard what we wanted to hear, but Obama's deeds match his campaign rhetoric.
(b) we were mislead by Obama -- that is, that Obama said one thing and is doing another. This option has two sub-parts: did he (i) mean it when he said it, but change his mind when confronted by the pressures of Keeping Us Safe, or (ii) was it a con from the getgo?
(c) Obama is not actually in charge -- that is, he wants to do the right thing, but dark, invisible forces compel these awful things.
(d) ?
My gut says mostly (b), but I am open to other theories. And I don't have enough evidence to know which sub-part applies. But how we approach politics from here depends on how we answer this question.
I strongly disagree. It's not difficult at all.
If there is evidence to bring a detainee to trial, try him. Otherwise, release him.
If a detainee is tried and convicted, sentence him to a prison term of some length. If a detainee is tried and acquitted, release him.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work in America? Doesn't seem so difficult to me.
Likewise, how can anyone who has criticized Bush's detention policies, complain about the Obama Justice Department?
Glenn, your persistent and consistent reporting on the Obama interpretation of Justice is impressive for your refusal to defend the indefensible even though you have supported Barack Obama in his quest to become President. You have demonstrated that Obama has gone beyond the autocratic tenets of the Bush administration.
The death of Democracy in this country may have been insidious for some time, but the first big earthquake was the Supreme Court coronation of George W Bush to the Presidency. The Obama record on presidential power corrupting habeas corpus and other basic principles of our legal system will equal that if it is not reversed.
The biggest question thst I have for Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is how will she rule on questions of Presidential usurpation of judicial and legislative power. All other questions are relatively insignificant.
Considering FISA, it was a con from the get-go.
Let's say an innocent young Iraqi man, picked up through some treachery, inter-tribal feud settling or even to falsely claim a US dollar reward, and sent to Guantanamo, tortured continuously by the US military and now broken beyond recognition.
We send him home in this condition.
He's now on TV - an endless source of information about US illegal evil behavior.
You can see how Obama might not want this to happen.
So - let's just keep him locked up until he dies. Sooner or later, he will. Problem solved, right?
Empire of Evil, for sure.
What do you do when someone shouts out "no clothes" (like GG does here every day) and instead of the crowd acknowledging that there is indeed no clothes there they say, "well I like those clothes just fine."
The fable never goes there. But that seems to be what we have now.
"Likewise, how can anyone who has praised Bush's detention policies, complain about the Obama Justice Department?"
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
