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
