[Napoleon17]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

I haven't seen the whole speech, nor do I really want to, but from the sound bites Rachel Maddow included in the video, it certainly seems that Obama is being incredibly hypocritical at the very least. I hate how he kept alluding to the rule of law, when its clear he either has no idea what the rule of law is, or is just using that phrase to make his disgusting abuse of power sound more politically correct.

Related article

[slap_j]

"Our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred." (starting at 4:57)

Yes, that sounds ad hoc to me as well.

[jthomas1600]

We're going to close Gitmo and then just keep doing the same things at other locations. Is that what he's saying? It sounded like it to me.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

We're going to close Gitmo and then just keep doing the same things at other locations. Is that what he's saying? It sounded like it to me.

Sort of. Essentially the plan is that some of these people are going to be tried via a re-made military commission system, and some of them that we can't try (for whatever reason) but are too dangerous to be released are to be housed in the US, probably in a supermax prison. You know, the oens where we held terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber and the guy who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in '93.

[JerryLove]

I recommend that you listen to the speech, not the commentary and re cuts in the link provided.

The commentator says that we will start imprisoning people for future crimes. We do that all the time. Anything that begins "soliciting" or "conspiracy to" or "attempted" are impressionable offenses for something that has yet to be done.

We also "Baker act" people for posing an imminent danger.

Heck: Self defense rules for killing someone are over the danger they pose, not what they've already succeeded in doing.

The commentator falsely asserts that this is a new Idea.

The problem with the Bush administration was never that it holds people. Nor is the problem even whether they have yet committed a crime. The problem is that the Bush administration held them without judicial oversight, without congressional law, without rights guaranteed under the constitution, often without council

Obama's speech discusses putting the ability to review those cases in the courts where they belong, it discusses the legal framework being written by congress, not dictated by the president. It's a significant departure from Bush.

The commentator is either extremely ignorant, or lying for ratings.

Even the title of this thread is very misleading and should be changed. Obama rips Bush for detention without legal justification, without review by the courts, and without constitutional protections.

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The commentator says that we will start imprisoning people for future crimes. We do that all the time. Anything that begins "soliciting" or "conspiracy to" or "attempted" are impressionable offenses for something that has yet to be done.

Yeah, except that the government has to prove in a court of law that they actually conspired, or attempted, or solicited, before they can imprison them (well, they can imprison them but they have to give them a speedy trial or let them walk). And even then there is a particular sentence given, such as 5 years, 10 years, etc. To my knowledge, prison sentences generally aren't indefinite or "prolonged".

The problem with the Bush administration was never that it holds people. Nor is the problem even whether they have yet committed a crime. The problem is that the Bush administration held them without judicial oversight, without congressional law, without rights guaranteed under the constitution, often without council

And the problem with the Obama administration is that they do not want to try certain people in an actual court of law because he knows that they would be acquitted, because there is not enough evidence, or the evidence they do have was manufactured (sometimes through torture, i.e. not reliable). And so his reaction is to try sort of construct out of thin air some way for it to be legal to hold them indefinitely without a trial.

Even if Obama somehow cooks up some form of justice by adding judicial oversight, congressional law, and "constitutional rights" *cough*speedytrial*cough* to the recipe, he is still advocating the same general, despicable principle that Bush did... the idea that it's okay to indefinitely detain someone without ever giving them a fair trial in an actual court of law.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by McLuvinjesus

Yeah, except that the government has to prove in a court of law that they actually conspired, or attempted, or solicited, before they can imprison them (well, they can imprison them but they have to give them a speedy trial or let them walk). And even then there is a particular sentence given, such as 5 years, 10 years, etc. To my knowledge, prison sentences generally aren't indefinite or "prolonged".

No, you often prove your case *after* arrest and imprisonment; and in many cases the sentences are "until cured" (such as involuntary mental health treatment).

That said, you are touching directly on the important difference between the Bush policy and the Obama policy. Obama wants court involvement; Bush did not.

And the problem with the Obama administration is that they do not want to try certain people in an actual court of law because he knows that they would be acquitted, because there is not enough evidence, or the evidence they do have was manufactured (sometimes through torture, i.e. not reliable). And so his reaction is to try sort of construct out of thin air some way for it to be legal to hold them indefinitely without a trial.

That's not a new problem.

You have three groups.
1) Criminals. Before they were put in Guantanimo, now they will get trials and be treated under US law.
2) Soldiers. Before they were put in Guantanimo, now they will be put before military courts and treated under international law.
3) Those who fall in neither side. Those are still potential problems. Obama doesn't yet have a solution for them, but is looking to Congress to make the laws that will govern them rather than leaving it up to the whims of the executive.

Even if Obama somehow cooks up some form of justice by adding judicial oversight, congressional law, and "constitutional rights" *cough*speedytrial*cough* to the recipe, he is still advocating the same general, despicable principle that Bush did... the idea that it's okay to indefinitely detain someone without ever giving them a fair trial in an actual court of law.

Group 1 is going to court. Group 2 is going to (military) court. Group three remains a problem.

Let's imagine you have someone in there who will go join the Jihad as soon as he gets out. He's said he will over and over. What would *you* like to do with him?

I complained as loudly as anyone at the way the Bush administration was acting; but I did have a "what I think they should do". It looks like Obama is doingmost of exactly that. What would you do differently?