On the "Rachel Maddow Show" last evening, Rachel criticized Obama for his "Radical new claim in Presidential power, which has never been attempted in American History before".
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
If Rachel is referring to the Presidents suggestion of "Reform", Rachel is mistaken. In an article from October 20th, 2005, Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Conner in an address to West Point Academy Cadets, spoke out for "clearer and more high-minded rules governing the detention and interrogation of prisoners in the war on terrorism". President Obama recollected, in his speech that in 2006, he "strongly opposed legislation proposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework with the kind of meaningful due process, rights, for the accuses that could stand up on appeal." In light of those statements it is clear that the "reform" in which Obama is talking about has been an ongoing issue, not one that "has never been attempted before".
Rachel also failed to mention that Obama was referring to "captured prisoners of war" when he stated that he would prevent them from harming Americans. According to the Geneva Convention Document adopted August 12, 1949, prisoners of war can be detained until the close of the conflict (Article 118). If you question whether or not we are technically at war, the beginning of the document defines and answers that question for you. It was a very informative and interesting read.
I was able to obtain a transcript of the speech of President Obama and he does not claim that he is going to "Redefine" the rule of law, only to "Reform" it, making it more "Clear" as Sandra Day O'Conner also thought was necessary in 2005. If it were more clear we may not be going through this circus right now. Nor did the President say the detainees would be detained indefinitely, he said in regards to the "prolonged detention" that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred". One should not assume that "prolonged" means "indefinite" as it surly does not in the dictionary.
What I got from the speech was that we will detain these prisoners until the President can construct a "legitimate legal framework" and not by himself but with "judicial and congressional oversight". Once that happens, it still has to be approved by the Senate does it not? And we have plenty of time if we can detain them until the conflict is over. Its a packaged deal with ending the war.
On a different note, a small community in Montana has asked for some of the detainees be transferred there and here we sit, or I do, in Illinois where North of us in Thompson, there sits a nearly brand new "EMPTY" prison. Why don't we utilize that and in the process produce more jobs? I'm writing my letters to my representatives. I'm not afraid of having them in my state, that argument is ridiculous and being instigated by the "Republican Conspiracy" to maintain a state of fear across our Nation.
Article by Elizabeth Hall
5/22/09
Posts
4 comments:
Comments posted on my other site at Quadville.com:
Posted by: srm on May 22, 2009 7:10PM EST
I was just thinking of you as I watched the Rachel Maddow clip a few minutes ago. Not only was she spot on, she was DEVASTATING in her critique of Obama. If only more of the talking heads in the media could be as spot on as she was in that clip. Anyway, I had a feeling that you'd dis Rachel in favor of supporting the dictator in waiting Obama.
With that said, I'm going to suggest some reading material for you.
1) The U.S Constitution (multiple times)
2) The Federalist Papers (multiple times)
3) All the writings of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
4) Glenn Greenwald's blog at salon.com (especially today's post which rips to shreds Obama's speech and his supporters..but don't forget to read his archives.)
I'd like to debate with you on this topic, but Greenwald makes the points much more eloquently than I could right now.
Posted by: ckrofone on May 22, 2009 9:06PM EST
And I'll suggest you read:
1. The transcript of Obama's speech
2. The Geneva Convention Documentation, specifically articles 2 and 118
Peace
Liz
Posted by: srm on May 22, 2009 10:47PM EST
1) Done it a few times. I admire how he can talk out of both sides of his mouth. I need to develop that skill so I can have people devoted to me to agree with everything I say despite the last 8 years they were bitching at someone else for doing the exact same thing. It's amazing. We always wondered if the 33% of people who always supported Bush no matter what would translate into a Democratic president. Well, I guess we have our answer. Welcome to the 33% club, Liz.
2) Done it many times since just a short time ago, people like you were citing the Geneva Conventions to argue against what Bush was doing. But now that Obama is doing it, suddenly the Geneva Conventions support the argument. Yet, both presidents are doing the exact same thing, though with indefinite detention, Obama is taking it a step further than any president has EVER done. I'd like to know what statutes in the GC have suddenly changed meaning now that Obama is president? Could you cite those, please. Unfortunately, when I read it, the meaning doesn't change based on who the president is. It's pretty consistent in language.
Based on your answer, I'm going to assume you didn't even do suggestion #4 as that's the quickest to do. I guess it's your loss.
Posted by: Jenius on May 22, 2009 11:12PM EST
It's probably not a bad sign when both the far right and far left find something to criticize.
Posted by: Chowdogz on May 23, 2009 6:45AM EST
srm, your "even handedness" is once again, overwhelming.....sheesh.
Posted by: Old Nick on May 23, 2009 10:14AM EST
Some people are so impressed by their own bright lights that anyone else with an original thought is just like a shadow in a dark room.
BTW, the Geneva Convention is a treaty we can withdraw from at any time-the Constitution is the skeleton of our Nation, the Amendments the cartilage & sinew.
More comments from Quadsville.com readers:
Posted by: srm on May 23, 2009 6:01PM EST
And until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, it is the law of the land.
Posted by: ckrofone on May 23, 2009 9:40PM EST
I don't think we are disagreeing with that sm. just that it outlines what is a prisoner of war and that we have the right to detain them until the conflict is over. At least we all agree that what happened was unethical and illegal under the same treaty as well as being unconstitutional.
Peace
Liz
Posted by: John T Moeller on May 24, 2009 2:33AM EST
Can you imagine the money our QCA could make if we told OBAMA we have room for a new federal prison on the Arsenal. After all a prison would not be a strange business for the arsenal. We could then fill that empty riverside hotel up with reporters and terrorist cell groups waiting ....for the day!
More comments from Quadville.com:
Posted by: marismom on May 24, 2009 10:27AM EST
So the Taliban was following the Geneva Convention when they beheaded reporters and other innocent people?...I'm just checking. :)
Obama has realized that it's one thing to be idealistic when you can be outside looking in...totally different to have to actually govern from reality.
Posted by: srm on May 24, 2009 11:33AM EST
Old Nick: I'm disappointed in you that you'd say such a thing. Aritcle VI in the Constitution clearly states that treaties are the law of the land.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Posted by: srm on May 24, 2009 11:38AM EST
maris: So Ted Bundy wasn't following the GC when he killed those people? How about Jeffrey Dahmer? Can we say that about him? Or any other violent criminal. Should we throw out all due process? In other words, Al Qaeda is just a criminal organization that needs to be treated like criminals. Otherwise, the "war on terrorism" will never end. It will just create a perpetual state of war for as long as we can afford the energy to prosecute such a idiotic war.
We should look at our past declarations of war on something. Drugs - failure. Poverty - failure. I think I'm drawing a blank on others. We will never win the war on terrorism. Terrorism will always exist. The definition may change over time to keep us in the state of "war," but terrorism will never go away. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can start fixing the problems that cause it.
Posted by: Old Nick on May 24, 2009 12:21PM EST
Apples & Oranges. BTW, where in the Constitution does it state we are obligated to do what other countries deem 'appropriate'? Why aren't ANY who don't honor any treaty tried before International Courts? Sovereignty trumps any treaty, the Congress does not possess the power to surrender sovereignty. That's why the Founders created Amendment # 2. I guess you won't be joining the rest of us in foxholes.
Posted by: srm on May 24, 2009 3:14PM EST
Old Nick: It is NOT apples and oranges. It's plain english: "...all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..." That is not ambiguous language. Ask any constitutional law professor. They will tell you the same thing.
If we enter a treaty with another country, we are obligated under our Constitution to follow the laws within it. It's not a case of doing what other countries deem appropriate. It's about following our Constitution and legal framework. Despite the push from the right and left to ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient, it's still our most sacred document and spells out a lot of things very plainly.
Other countries who don't honor treaties aren't tried in front of the ICC because it's not an international law issue. If it's spelled out in that country's constitution that treaties are the supreme law of the land, it's an internal legal matter. Just as it is in the United States.
There's a reason George Washington warned about entering into too many permanent alliances.
Posted by: Old Nick on May 24, 2009 6:23PM EST
Repeated from 5/23 @ 9:14 a.m. real time-
Some people are so impressed by their own bright lights that anyone else with an original thought is just like a shadow in a dark room.
Change original perhaps to different, & you have most attempts at conversation with srm. See ya.
SM: then you agree, that we have the right to hold the detainees until the conflict is over and by doing so, Obama is not out of line?
And that any constitutional law professor, who is also the President of the United States, will make sure that any "reform" made under the pretense of upholding the law, will be fair?
Unfortunately when the Bush Administration broke that treaty, they left many detainees unable to receive a "fair" trial with due process. If anyone can find a way to rectify that, I would think a constitutional law professor is your man.
As for those still vowing to kill Americans, they are technically still at war with us and we have the right to hold them as prisoners of war. They may not be another Country, but under the GC they are "a group of people who have declared war on us".
Peace
Liz
Post a Comment