I'd feel a lot better about it if he'd just stop wearing that GWB mask around the White House. It's sort of freaking me out.

To be fair, the rights of the accused are greatly improved, this time around. This still sucks, though.

Change, my ass!

Okay...he's done one thing right. Let's see if he continues to go up hill from here.
Public executions for terrorists would be the next step.
Pretty sure if it were televised the ratings would be through the roof.

I'm starting to wish I didn't vote at all in the last election.

/Barak W. Bush strikes again

shivashakti: Change, my ass!

As I said long before the election..the only change is going to be the name on the door.

I'd feel a lot better about it if he'd just stop wearing that GWB mask around the White House. It's sort of freaking me out.

Don't worry, he'll take it off in a few months...

...and replace it with a Cheney mask.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

What's he going to do? Try these dirtbag foreigners in open court and either a. see them acquitted, or b. reveal all sorts of classified information?

There was always a real reason for the tribunals, and there's nothing illegal about them.

General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution.[1] Commissions were also used by General (and later President) Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 to try a British spy; commissions, labeled "Councils of War," were also used in the Mexican-American War.[1]

The Union used military tribunals during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War[2]. Military tribunals were used to try Native Americans who fought the United States during the Indian Wars which occurred during the Civil War; the thirty-eight people who were executed after the Dakota War of 1862 were sentenced by a military tribunal. The so-called Lincoln conspirators were also tried by military commission in the spring and summer of 1865. (new window)

Obama ran for President of the United States, not President of the Hand-Wringing Worry-Warts. He's just doing his job.

imagine that..... more election hyperbole struck down by the stark forces of reality.

Stay Cool Babylon: To be fair, the rights of the accused are greatly improved, this time around. This still sucks, though.

I asked this before, and I ask it again: what else are we supposed to do?

If we put them into a regular court, they walk. Period. They have been in legal limbo because the Bush Administration knew that they couldn't convict anyone, because of their rights abuses, and because so many couldn't even be sent home, because their own countries don't want them back. So, rather than try them, they've been left to sit in jail, and let someone else deal with them. It was a cowardly move when it began, and it still is.

Now then, we can point fingers at the President for finally acting to address the fact that America has pooped in its own dog dish, and is actually trying to clean it up--or we can ignore it even longer.

What is he supposed to do?

This thing was botched when they were detained and held, and then put under some legal fiction that denied them their rights, and we allowed that. As a nation. Point fingers all you want, but we allowed these folks to be held without counsel, with a gross violation of their rights, both if we wanted to classify them as criminals, or as prisoners of war. BOTH codes were violated, because we had a President who didn't want to be bound by either, and came up with a hodge-podge of wrangling to avoid the basic questions of how he intended to deal with these folks.

As criminals, they'll walk. We put them into any court in the nation, and a retarded monkey could get them off scott free. We borked up the process so badly.

As prisoners of war, they likewise have been held for a long while contra to the conventions of war.

Scream all you want about "Change" and how it "remains the same" but at least the President is actually trying to deal with the situation, as opposed to leaving them in cells to rot. You know, like some of these folks have been doing for nearly eight years. That's a long time to be shuffled around because folks are too scared of the political fallout. And that is what we are going to have to face.

Ultimately, the gnashing of teeth? That can be directed at the President, or it can be directed at ourselves who have allowed these folks to sit for so damn long.

real shaman: imagine that..... more election hyperbole struck down by the stark forces of reality.

Well, you mean the change of actually trying to put folks into a trial, as opposed to letting them sit in legal limbo? Having at least the courage to face the fact that folks have been waiting for charges to be filed?

Point fingers at the President all you want, but this is miles and away better than simply waiting for another Administration to clean up this mess--which is exactly what the last Administration did. Passing the buck or cleaning up this mess--which would you rather?

shivashakti: Change, my ass!


Is there something wrong with the ass you have?

canyoneer: General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution.[1] Commissions were also used by General (and later President) Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 to try a British spy; commissions, labeled "Councils of War," were also used in the Mexican-American War.[1]

The Union used military tribunals during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War[2]. Military tribunals were used to try Native Americans who fought the United States during the Indian Wars which occurred during the Civil War; the thirty-eight people who were executed after the Dakota War of 1862 were sentenced by a military tribunal. The so-called Lincoln conspirators were also tried by military commission in the spring and summer of 1865. (new window)

This!

/Don't forget Ex Parte Quirin.

So you folks in the GOP like him now right? RIGHT?

No? Then you are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

Obama gets a +1 from me for this.

hubiestubert: If we put them into a regular court, they walk. Period

This is the unfortunate truth of the situation. I find it highly, highly unlikely that they have enough to get a conviction in the federal court system on a good number of the detainees.

MasterThief: canyoneer: General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution.[1] Commissions were also used by General (and later President) Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 to try a British spy; commissions, labeled "Councils of War," were also used in the Mexican-American War.[1]

The Union used military tribunals during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War[2]. Military tribunals were used to try Native Americans who fought the United States during the Indian Wars which occurred during the Civil War; the thirty-eight people who were executed after the Dakota War of 1862 were sentenced by a military tribunal. The so-called Lincoln conspirators were also tried by military commission in the spring and summer of 1865. (new window)

This!

/Don't forget Ex Parte Quirin.

You mean cases in formally declared wars? Which we haven't done in how long? It's tenuous legal ground to try to tread on, at best. Especially if you really want to try Ex Parte Quirin.

This is why we haven't brought them to trial yet. Because the previous Administration knew that it didn't have anything, and it was quite happy to pass the buck, and then point fingers when folks had to clean up their mess.

These folks are criminals. They aren't "enemy combatants" or representatives of any nation or state. They are thugs and asshats, and criminals. And by treating them as something else, we have hamstrung our ability to do anything with in a court of law, when we tossed out the law to bring them in.

PC LOAD LETTER: So you folks in the GOP like him now right?

KaponoFor3: Obama gets a +1 from me for this.

Me too.

PC LOAD LETTER: No? Then you are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

A little quick on the draw, no?

Good job Barry....you did the right thing AND pissed off the knuckle-dragging unicorn humpers on Fark at the same time!

First the reversal on "interrogation" pictures, now THIS??

That's a +2 buddy! Keep it up.

BaWack

hubiestubert: I asked this before, and I ask it again: what else are we supposed to do?

Put them on a "Prisoner Transport Ship", which never makes it to port.

Evil, but effective.

We should be giving them to the UN, just like we did with Milosevic. It was Dubya's high and mighty opinion that only we should be the arbiters of who is right and wrong in the world. And sadly, it looks like our new centre-right president agrees.

PC LOAD LETTER: So you folks in the GOP like him now right? RIGHT?

No? Then you are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

Sheesh, at least post for a few posts before you answer you're own question.

Spanky_McFarksalot: PC LOAD LETTER: So you folks in the GOP like him now right? RIGHT?

No? Then you are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

Sheesh, at least post for a few posts before you answer you're own question.

He's a rabid lil troll, but his frustration is always so sweet and satisfying.

hubiestubert: "You mean cases in formally declared wars?"

A declaration of war? War has been declared against the United States, and the detainees in question are (unlawful) combatants in that war.

"Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." (new window)

Obama has to play the hand dealt to him by the previous administration.

They tortured KSM trying to prove a link between AQ and Iraq. If nothing else, this path has to be tread slow and deliberate.

canyoneer: What's he going to do? Try these dirtbag foreigners in open court and either a. see them acquitted, or b. reveal all sorts of classified information?

It's what I'd do.


Anyway, originally [read under Bush] there was no due-process. Now there is. Doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. Just not the worst.

Shaggy_C: We should be giving them to the UN, just like we did with Milosevic. It was Dubya's high and mighty opinion that only we should be the arbiters of who is right and wrong in the world. And sadly, it looks like our new centre-right president agrees.

I doubt the UN would take them, a better deal would be to have them sign up for either a United States Military Tribunal or be returned to their country of origin for criminal trials.

Obama can't enforce American laws on foreign citizens, and most would return to a Western democratic government or the Military Tribunals. I doubt any detainee would want to take a chance in a Saudi, Egyptian etc court, and it would be a great propaganda victory for the United States.

Silovik: I doubt the UN would take them, a better deal would be to have them sign up for either a United States Military Tribunal or be returned to their country of origin for criminal trials.

Why not? They have no problem trying people for other war crimes. Why should terrorists be any different?

What they are not telling you is the military commission system is being resurrected to be used on United States civilians that will be declared as enemy combatants when they resist the take over. In a speech the other day Obama gave the signal when he said "the stars have aligned". These where the code words to begin "operation change". Once everything is in place Martial law will be declared and the FEMA prison camps will be in full operation. Communications will be cut off and gun owners will be target first. The constitution will be suspended and bill of rights destroyed. The US will become a complete police state over night, the military will be used on citizens, hundreds of thousands of people will be detained in the prison camps and thousands will die when they resist.

I am amazed at the "Justifications" here that if they go to regular courts, they walk. Damn right they will -- given how much the government has shredded our most basic constitutional laws in this its-legal-if-the-president-orders-it attitude.

It is better to let 1000 guilty men go free than to imprison 1 innocent man.

That's what our country was founded on. That's why our courts are set up the way they are. That is why there is due process. It is all to stop those in power from stomping on the powerless. And you guys want to throw it all away for what.

Anyone who does not believe this is not a conservative. They are not a liberal. And they sure as hell aren't libertarian. They are a scared little moral cretin that doesn't want to deal with scary stuff.

canyoneer: hubiestubert: "You mean cases in formally declared wars?"

A declaration of war? War has been declared against the United States, and the detainees in question are (unlawful) combatants in that war.

"Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." (new window)

If you accept that this is a declaration of war, then you have to accept that anyone caught fighting is a prisoner of war. With all rights due.

/Can an individual that is not a head of state declare war?

Dancin_In_Anson: PC LOAD LETTER: So you folks in the GOP like him now right?

KaponoFor3: Obama gets a +1 from me for this.

Me too.

PC LOAD LETTER: No? Then you are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

A little quick on the draw, no?

Good. You get a +1 for consistency.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Spanky_McFarksalot: PC LOAD LETTER: So you folks in the GOP like him now right? RIGHT?

No? Then you are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

Sheesh, at least post for a few posts before you answer you're own question.

He's a rabid lil troll, but his frustration is always so sweet and satisfying.

Are you 2 in luv?

Seriously, go fark yourselves, but at least you passed the drooling hypocrite test.

And yes, for the record, Obama gets a huge -1 on this one from me.

I'll reserve further comment until another year has passed. I want to see what he goes with this. If nothing changes, then I'll post this regularly:

That article was pretty lame. It said that he enhanced the rights of the detainees but it didn't give any details at all. Basically that article could be condensed down to two sentences:

The president is planning to reinstate military tribunals for terror suspects. They will have more rights than they did under President Bush.


Seriously everything else in that article was pure fluff. I want to know what rights he gave them before I either condemn his actions or think that they are a good compromise between national security and protecting the rights of the accused. If they do have a decent amount of rights than its probably better than a jury trial. Do you think a jury of average americans are going to let a suspected terrorist go free even if there isn't one iota of evidence? Didn't think so.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I meant THIS:



Somehow, both work.

PanicMan: "If you accept that this is a declaration of war, then you have to accept that anyone caught fighting is a prisoner of war. With all rights due."

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. In 1942, unlawful German combatants were tried by United States military tribunals and executed for their roles in Operation Pastorius. (new window)

PC LOAD LETTER: Are you 2 in luv?

Oh thanks a lot, I was waiting for the right moment to tell him!

PC LOAD LETTER: If nothing changes, then I'll post this regularly:

I have never wanted to eat veggies so badly.

DarnoKonrad: Anyway, originally [read under Bush] there was no due-process. Now there is.

In 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental". - wiki

PC LOAD LETTER: So you folks in the GOP like him now right? RIGHT?

No? Then you are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

I can personally agree with his actions while at the same time laughing at the liberals who aren't getting what they voted for. That doesn't make me a hypocrite in way, shape or form.

PC LOAD LETTER: Somehow, both work.

"You are aroused by these vegetables. Your argument is invalid."

canyoneer: PanicMan: "If you accept that this is a declaration of war, then you have to accept that anyone caught fighting is a prisoner of war. With all rights due."

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. In 1942, unlawful German combatants were tried by United States military tribunals and executed for their roles in Operation Pastorius. (new window)

I think you missed the point of the that persons comment.

kleppe: I can personally agree with his actions while at the same time laughing at the liberals who aren't getting what they voted for. That doesn't make me a hypocrite in way, shape or form.

It still makes you an asshole. And unAmerican, proto-fascist one at that.

The administration officials stressed that the updated system will include expanded due-process rights for the suspects, which administration officials note is consistent with what Obama pushed for as a senator in 2006 in order to improve upon the widely criticized approach created by the Bush administration.

Meet the new boss. Same...hey wait a minute!

Is habeas corpus being respected now? Are we treating them like prisoners of war rather than meat puppets in a legal black hole? Are we not torturing them?

If these three things are the case, then I'm fine with military tribunals instead of civilian trials.

kleppe: I can personally agree with his actions while at the same time laughing at the liberals who aren't getting what they voted for. That doesn't make me a hypocrite in way, shape or form.

I'm getting what I voted for.

Never expected him to be perfect. And I don't think public trials for the detainees would have gone so well. So long as they receive due process, I'll be happy. I can't say that the tribunal is fair, the article doesn't go into detail about it, but this is a step up from the previous administration and more than what I'd expect from McCain.

canyoneer: hubiestubert: "You mean cases in formally declared wars?"

A declaration of war? War has been declared against the United States, and the detainees in question are (unlawful) combatants in that war.

"Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." (new window)

You know this because they're brown?

From the beginning of this charade, I said that there were two things that would satisfy my problems.

We could consider them civilians and give them trials with full benefit of Constitutional protections and rule of law.

We could consider them prisoners of war and treat them accordingly, and hold military trials as long as we preserve some measure of rights such as habeas corpus, and not farking torturing them.

Either solution would satisfy my concerns. This seems to be the latter solution.