Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 145

Thread: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provisions...

  1. #41
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Whether or not it's breaking Constitutional Law has been challenged over the years in the Supreme Court. They're not US citizens though it could be argued we've made them so by not giving them a country except our military base. An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. All of the detainees have been designated as unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law have a right to counsel to challenge their detention or the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. U.S. citizen enemy combatants who are detained in the United States may challenge their detention by a petition for habeas corpus, not so for non-citizen detainees. In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the detainees retain the same rights as U.S. residents to seek writs of habeas corpus. But the ruling will only permit the accused enemy combatants to see the evidence that justifies their captivity. Justice Kennedy wrote, "The (Constitution's) framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty," "and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom." So in the spirit of the law it seems we are not holding up the Constitution because it was never meant to deny anyone's rights indefinitely, no matter how you twist it to the letter.
    Right, but it's my understanding that the Constitution only applies to citizens. Obama has already stated that indefinite detention will not apply to citizens.

  2. #42
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I feel like I'm the only liberal who isn't outraged and disillusioned by this. I also feel like I'm the only one who understands that campaign promises are made before candidates get certain information.
    Dont worry. Even though you are the ONLY liberal that really understands everything, the rest will still join you in the polls, despite this, or his stuffing his pockets with banker/broker bribes (OWS...fight the power baby), expanding black ops prison use, extension of Bush's anti-terrorism actions, signing the Obama tax breaks for the rich, along with congress adding as much debt as Bush in 3 short years, failure to insist on something as basic and simple as a federal budget from congress, engagement of our military against a sovereign power that posed no threat to the US, outasight unemployment figures...etc...

  3. #43
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Right, but it's my understanding that the Constitution only applies to citizens. Obama has already stated that indefinite detention will not apply to citizens.
    Well, that's the kind of cagey dodge supporters of the "unlawful enemy combatant" definition have been supporting, especially being lodged off of continental soil. But the Constitution as you say should apply to the US citizens and it's officials in how we treat others regardless of their national status. The following is case law that interprets how the Constitution applies to non-citizens in US custody.

    In Rasul vs. Bush /Al Odah v. United States the court, by a 6-3 vote, held that the nearly 600 non-citizens being held at the Guantanamo Bay navel base may challenge their detention before a neutral decision-maker, presumably a federal judge.

    In the Rasul case, the core question was whether non-citizens being held in custody at Guantanamo Bay have a right to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus—petitions through which federal judges are asked to examine the lawfulness of holding a person in custody. In affirming that right, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority and settled two basic issues raised in the case: first, that no distinction can be made between a citizen and a non-citizen held in custody in their right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus; and second, that Guantanamo Bay is within the jurisdiction of federal courts, entitling the non-citizens detained there to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus. It has been the administration's position that the federal judiciary's reach does not extend to Guantanamo Bay because it is outside the "sovereign territory" of the United States. In rejecting that argument, the court held that federal judicial review applies to Guantanamo Bay, since it is a territory in which the US exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, if not "ultimate sovereignty."
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Well, that's the kind of cagey dodge supporters of the "unlawful enemy combatant" definition have been supporting, especially being lodged off of continental soil. But the Constitution as you say should apply to the US citizens and it's officials in how we treat others regardless of their national status. The following is case law that interprets how the Constitution applies to non-citizens in US custody.

    In Rasul vs. Bush /Al Odah v. United States the court, by a 6-3 vote, held that the nearly 600 non-citizens being held at the Guantanamo Bay navel base may challenge their detention before a neutral decision-maker, presumably a federal judge.

    In the Rasul case, the core question was whether non-citizens being held in custody at Guantanamo Bay have a right to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus—petitions through which federal judges are asked to examine the lawfulness of holding a person in custody. In affirming that right, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority and settled two basic issues raised in the case: first, that no distinction can be made between a citizen and a non-citizen held in custody in their right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus; and second, that Guantanamo Bay is within the jurisdiction of federal courts, entitling the non-citizens detained there to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus. It has been the administration's position that the federal judiciary's reach does not extend to Guantanamo Bay because it is outside the "sovereign territory" of the United States. In rejecting that argument, the court held that federal judicial review applies to Guantanamo Bay, since it is a territory in which the US exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, if not "ultimate sovereignty."
    I didn't know about that case. I guess my impression was wrong. Even so, if non-citizen prisoners are given the right to contest their imprisonment, this still does not bar the right of the country to detain them indefinitely since their petitions may be denied.

  5. #45
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I prefer to say that I agree with the Constitution of the United States.
    This isn't about guns, so you don't get to play the constitution card and still keep your conservative card. Hand it over.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:

    1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.

    2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.

    3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.

    Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.

    Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.

    Finally, if a case is ever to be made for a third party, this is it, just as long as they don't sell America down the river too.

    Article is here.
    As well they should slam him for this.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Frolicking Dinosaurs View Post
    This is another reason I favor line-item veto. Obama made it crystal clear he did not like the questionable provisions, but that he had to sign the bill because of other items it contained.
    Even though he pushed for it.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Well, when you sign up for the military, sometimes that's the case. You sign up to trust military intelligence, the president and the rest of your superiors. Sometimes, too much information flow threatens the mission.
    Again, I can understand a soldier not being briefed on every aspect of a mission but that's entirely different than the country being at war without it being explained why.

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Again, I can understand a soldier not being briefed on every aspect of a mission but that's entirely different than the country being at war without it being explained why.
    You say that like it's a mystery why we're in Afghanistan. It's not. You just don't know every detail.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    You say that like it's a mystery why we're in Afghanistan. It's not. You just don't know every detail.
    So tell me.

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •