US administration to abolish due process

Stalin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,155
Never trust a lawyer...

"....The Obama administration is drafting an executive order, scheduled for release early in 2011, which authorizes indefinite detention without charge of prisoners currently held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The new order means that the prison will remain open, or that these prisoners will be transferred to permanent locations in the US.

The prisoners would be given a “periodic review” of their imprisonment in a procedure that makes a mockery of due process and basic democratic rights.

According to reports first published Tuesday evening by the Washington Post and ProPublica, unnamed US officials have revealed that the executive order, which will for the first time establish indefinite detention as an Obama administration policy, has “been in the works for more than a year.”

With typical contempt for the democratic rights of the population, the announcement was released through anonymous backdoor channels on the eve of the Winter holidays. It is aimed at preparing public opinion for yet another extension of the anti-democratic policies of the Bush administration.

Guantánamo Bay has grown into an internationally despised gulag since the first jail, Camp Delta, was opened by the Bush administration in early 2002 under the pretext of jailing “enemy combatants” in the so-called “war on terror.” The “enemy combatant” category had no precedent either in domestic or international law, and was adopted solely for the purpose of placing people in legal limbo―stripped of protection under both the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

Guantánamo Bay has become synonymous with the most flagrant attacks on core democratic rights, including denials of habeas corpus, detention without legal authority, denial of counsel, sensory deprivations, abusive interrogations and outright torture.

During his campaign for president, Obama repeatedly pledged to close the Guantánamo Bay prison camps, promising shortly after his inauguration to complete the task by January 2010. With the proposed new order, there is no closure in sight.

More Guantánamo inmates are facing lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.

Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed the reports on December 22, announcing “There are some prisoners that will require indefinite detention,” although closing the Guantánamo prisons, according to Gibbs, “remains the president’s goal.”

Some of the prisoners transferred might be transferred from Guantánamo to prisons in the United States. There is no indication that the executive order would not continue to apply―meaning that Obama would be vastly expanding the scope of indefinite detention.

“If the Obama administration succeeds in establishing indefinite detentions on US soil,” according to a statement by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), an organization that has represented a number of Guantánamo prisoners, “it will be difficult to hold the line at the 48 men at Guantanamo.

“This proposal lays the groundwork for US prisons to become places where people from around the world are brought and imprisoned without charge or trial, eroding our Constitution and adherence to international law beyond recognition,” according to the CCR statement...."

more at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/dete-d23.shtml
 
Werbung:
Due process has >>NOTHING<< to do with detaining enemy combatants during wartime, and certainly not war criminals.
 
Never Trust Democrats. They lie cheat and steal.

Did you even read what was posted? This is what the GOP has been doing for the last 8yrs and Obama is just continuing it. You criticizing him for this is laughable.
 
BS for all you know they are innocent civilians.

Yaaaaaa - heard that one before - they just happened to be taking a stroll on the battlefield, and happened to have an AK-47 along to......uh.....er......hunt squirrels. :D
 
Yaaaaaa - heard that one before - they just happened to be taking a stroll on the battlefield, and happened to have an AK-47 along to......uh.....er......hunt squirrels. :D

Do you have a problem with a person's right to bear arms now? Or is that just when the are praying to a different God while owning a weapon?

That "battlefield" is where they live and I for one would want at least a Kalashnikov to protect me from the BS that started when the us came in claiming they were there to help in their white gowns stained in blood.
 
Do you have a problem with a person's right to bear arms now? Or is that just when the are praying to a different God while owning a weapon?

That "battlefield" is where they live and I for one would want at least a Kalashnikov to protect me from the BS that started when the us came in claiming they were there to help in their white gowns stained in blood.

The STUPIDEST thing anyone could possibly do is walk into a battlefield with an automatic weapon, claiming it was for "protection" (against what - apache helicopters? 20,000 pound daisy-cutter bombs? :D) and not one in a million people would be that stupid. Suggestion for you: Stop. You're getting lamer as the thread goes on. :D
 
Is anyone actually surprised by this?

Bush wanted to close GITMO (he said as much) for the last few years of his Presidency, the problem is, and as Obama found out despite his campaign rhetoric, there is nothing you can do with the ones who are there.
 
Is anyone actually surprised by this?

Bush wanted to close GITMO (he said as much) for the last few years of his Presidency, the problem is, and as Obama found out despite his campaign rhetoric, there is nothing you can do with the ones who are there.

there is, just not without pissing off people...like Republicans who got mad if they went to NYC..for trial. for the most part is comes down to, if we have the evidence to hold them, we should have to to convict them...otherwise we may as well just shoot them as we will never be able to release them or give them a trail...they will die in a jail with no do process...as if you say they are combatants to be released at end of war...well this war will go on and on with no end...so held forever with no trail....or we give them one ...those are the 2 options we have.
 
Werbung:
there is, just not without pissing off people...like Republicans who got mad if they went to NYC..for trial. for the most part is comes down to, if we have the evidence to hold them, we should have to to convict them...otherwise we may as well just shoot them as we will never be able to release them or give them a trail...they will die in a jail with no do process...as if you say they are combatants to be released at end of war...well this war will go on and on with no end...so held forever with no trail....or we give them one ...those are the 2 options we have.

"Republicans got mad if they went to NYC"???

First of all, it was not just Republicans who got mad about that, and additionally, it was the Democratically controlled House which passed a bill banning detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to the U.S. for trials in criminal courts.

That said, this idea that "we can try them" has been flatly rejected by the Obama Administration as well, so that option is already off the table. Defense Secretary Gates stated in 2009 that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions."

That is a pretty clear statement that trials are not an option for many who remain at GITMO.

I can agree with you that we might be able to try some of them in military commissions (especially given evidence rules and language used to define interrogation techniques etc), but it is simply not plausible to try them all, and therefore GITMO would remain open regardless of trials.
 
Back
Top