If we DON'T criticize the admin for this, there's something very wrong

[cali]

On Friday, a federal judge in Washington will hear a challenge to the Obama administration's approach to targeted killings. I find myself frustrated by how little progress we've made.


In 2004, I represented Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Supreme Court in Rasul vs. Bush, challenging President George W. Bush's claim that he could hold noncitizens at Guantanamo without judicial review based on the administration's unilateral claim that the detainees were enemies of the United States. I argued that the president's position presented a profound threat to the role of the courts in safeguarding the rule of law, and that the prisoners were entitled to due process, including judicial examination of the government's reasons for holding them. The Supreme Court agreed, reaffirming that an asserted "state of war is not a blank check" for the executive branch when civil liberties are at stake.

When campaigning for office, then-Sen. Barack Obama agreed with the court's decision and criticized Bush's abandonment of basic checks and balances in the so-called war on terror. Yet today, President Obama has taken his predecessor's assertion of executive fiat even further. His administration says it has the power not just to detain suspected terrorists but also to kill them without any judicial oversight or accountability.


<snip>


Seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, the Justice Department has maintained that such killings are immune from judicial review. The administration argues that due process does not require judicial process and that we should trust the executive's judgment when it takes the lives of its own citizens abroad. That position — that the government should be able to use lethal force against individuals it deems to be a threat based on a secret executive process using standards and evidence that are never tested by a court — is disturbingly familiar. Indeed, it is just as much an affront to the rule of law as it was in 2004 when it was defended by the Bush administration.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gibbons-targeted-killings-drones-20130719,0,4996590.story

[Bonobo]

1. How long before the first "But I trust my president" post? nt

[cali]

2. I sincerely hope not

this is so disturbing and so clearly wrong that I'd hope we can all agree it should be stopped.

[Bonobo]

3. It also shouldn't just be true for US citizens.

War powers belong to the Congress for a reason.
That power has been subverted by since Vietnam and it is time to take them back.
THAT is the central cause of all this going pear-shaped.

[cali]

6. of course. but aside from the war powers concern

there's the due process argument.

[randome]

15. There is no such thing as 'due process' during war.

It's a nonsense argument to make. However, I completely agree with Bonobo that the responsibility to declare war belongs with Congress, not the President.

Why this abrogation of responsibility has been allowed to go on this long is an affront to all of us. On this there is no doubt about the Founders' intentions. I'm not a fan of letting 18th century politicians run our lives in such detail but on this I think they had it right.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

25. " There is no such thing as 'due process' during war."

That's the lovely thing about the Forever War on Terror. No need to bother with that messy and horribly inconvenient "due process" nonsense.

[randome]

30. I meant no such thing as 'due process' for combatants.

The problem remains that it is a complete abrogation of responsibility for Congress to have handed over their power to the Executive branch.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

43. But who is a combatant?

The Occupy mob are a bunch of econo-terrorists who greatly obstructed the smooth operation of our banking institutions, which are obviously vital to the financing of the war effort.

People protesting Keystone are eco-terrorists who threaten the nation's energy supply.

Not far from where I'm writing this, Gogebic Taconite is employing a private army to guard their mine site from even more eco-terrorists.

People who attempt to get photographic evidence of factory farm operations are threatening our food supply, and Iowa has already passed legislation against this variety of terrorists.

Moral Monday demonstrators are weakening our governmental institutions at the state level. Surely they qualify as enemy combatants.

[randome]

47. A 'combatant' is someone who is on the field of battle.

That has always referred to a foreign location, not American soil.

I agree with you that none of the groups you name should be considered terrorists but none of them have been -or probably could be- declared combatants.

The fear that they might stems from a distinctly dystopian viewpoint of the world. If we're going to right the wrongs of the world, we need a more organized framework of protest.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

49. So, if an enemy invaded US territory they wouldn't be "enemy combatants"

any more once they got inside our borders.

Interesting theory.

[randome]

51. I don't know the answer to that. Let's hope it never happens.

But anyone who takes up arms against the country and is on a field of battle should be regarded as an enemy combatant. The alternative is to wade into a battle waving an arrest warrant.

But the target of a protest should never be regarded as a 'field of battle'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

53. Would a person who exposes classified information about troop movements

be an enemy combatant?

[randome]

54. I would think a person who betrays their country in a time of war would be a legal target.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

56. To threaten our energy supply in a time of war--

To impair the functioning of our financial institutions in a time of war--

To politically oppose needed defense spending--

Are those not the acts of enemies?

[randome]

58. No. You're trying to conflate them all but it doesn't work.

No matter how bad you think the country has become, we still have free speech and the right to protest.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

60. Riiiiiiiiiight.

Two New York City Police officers will not face charges after the Manhattan District Attorney decided that widely circulated videos of them punching and pepper-spraying protesters amounted to insufficient evidence that they had done so.

Anthony Bologna, the now-infamous NYPD inspector, was filmed in September 2011 spraying a group of female Occupy Wall Street protestors who had already been isolated and immobilized by a screen held by other officers. The video, which received well over a million views online and was skewered on late night television, became emblematic of the brutality endured by OWS demonstrators who found themselves on the receiving end of aggressive police tactics.

http://rt.com/usa/nypd-no-charges-punching-occupy-233/

[Jackpine Radical]

62. And for a little trip down Memory Lane…

Can you identify these pictures?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

106. In your top photo, with all the National Guardsmen, it's amazing that they only managed to kill 4,

permanently paralize one student, and wound eight others.

They fired 67 rounds in 13 seconds.

[truedelphi]

127. I didn't realize how many rounds were fired.

Yikes.

Yet people here still "trust" the government to do the right thing. You know, we must have security, and constantly consider NINE ELEVEN, and them damn "terrorists."

I have no such trust. For me, the current occupant of the Oval Office has so many Nixonian mannerisms that I no longer can watch him on TV. (Although Nixon stood up to the banks and financial institutions, and his Administration helped us get our rivers, lakes and drinking water restored, while under this president, his approval of the natural gas industry and its fracking will destroy all of these.)

[questionseverything]

131. kent state

where they seemingly quieted us forever

padilla was the first(American citizen) enemy combatant,captured in the usa,held and tortured nearly 5 yrs with no charges(current admin's pick for the head of fbi,comey was responsible (or the front man) for that...padilla was eventually convicted on a lesser charge(his mind was gone and could not aid his lawyers in his defense)

so to say it could not happen here is incorrect,it already has...and besides not prosecuting those responsible,current admin elevates them

the italians did prosecute a cia torturer but again ,current admin is shielding him

[Mojorabbit]

150. This is seared into my memory as if it was yesterday. nt

[randome]

64. I think the DA's decision was right since all the circumstances were not filmed.

Only the act itself. How was anyone objective supposed to know what the provocation was?

“These two were on-duty members of law enforcement, reacting during a chaotic scene that included much more than the short video clips that most people have seen."

I am not condoning what happened in this incident or to Occupy in general. But I sure as hell wish someone would 'rise from the ashes', so to speak, to lead a great protest movement dedicated to something tangible and obtainable beyond camping out in public parks and hoping to embarrass corporations into behaving better.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[dsc]

69. that is why we have these things called trials

you know with testimony and stuff.

[randome]

76. A trial is still possible even without the DA's help.

More difficult, sure, but still possible. The problem remains, though: lack of evidence of all circumstances and context.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

82. I guess it must have happened in a crowd where there were no witnesses…

[ret5hd]

130. Oh, you mean somebody they can shoot!

Hell yeah, thats what we need!

[randome]

136. Why the hell do you think I would want someone shot?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[dreamnightwind]

132. Except when you ARE condoning it

There are probably better examples, but here's one:

In this thread:
Naomi Wolf: "Revealed: How the FBI Coordinated the Crackdown on Occupy"

you posted the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022100704#post24

What would you expect law enforcement to do when there are a hundred different protest groups without any leaders? Take someone's word for what they are doing? If so, whose word?

Read Prosense's link above. This is nothing more nefarious than law enforcement doing its job. In several places, they specifically state that the different OWS groups were peaceful.

And you've pretty much supported any authoritarian fascist tactic I've seen, at least since Obama's been in power. Sorry, I can't let false claims like that just sit out there as if they're true.

[randome]

135. Right. Because law enforcement stating that Occupy is peaceful is evidence...

...of a coordinated crackdown on Occupy. Sorry, I don't buy that has anything to do with the subject of the OP.

I teach my daughters to challenge authority, including my own. They have learned how best to find their way to critical thinking. In the past, when I was proven right about something, I would challenge them: "So what are you going to say next time I say 'Trust me'."? At first they said they would trust me but I pointed out that was the wrong answer and that they should always think for themselves, even when I'm involved.

I don't bother asking that question any longer because they have passed into the realm of thinking for themselves.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[dreamnightwind]

170. Nice try

Your feelings about Occupy and how the government should have dealt with them are pretty obvious, there is concrete, undeniable evidence of a coordinated military-style crackdown on the various Occupy camps, and your response was "what do you expect government to do?".

What I expect them to do is to respect the demands of people exercising their constitutional right to free assembly and free speech. The people were telling the government to listen to them and not just to the banksters and monied interests. The response was for the government, working in concert with the corporations and local police forces, to violently attack and arrest the peaceful protesters, ending what was the finest attempt I have seen in many years at making their government responsive to the issues the people need and care about. No thanks to people like you.

[brooklynite]

171. Bearing in mind this has nothing to do with Federal anti-terrorism or war policy.....

[Pholus]

68. Yes, we've seen the Bush definition before.

It's less impressive now that it's "ours."

[randome]

78. Then YOU define 'enemy combatant'.

I'm sure neither you nor I can think of every possible circumstance.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Pholus]

81. Why should I?

Not like I care to quibble with you over the creation of a term whose sole purpose is to justify why particular individuals are exempt from our country's "rule of law."

[TheMadMonk]

156. Can't be defined, because it's a diplomatic fiction used to justify...

...the unjustifiable.

It's anyone who sufficiently upsets the wrong people in America.

[Maedhros]

161. The problem is that "the field of battle" has been defined as anywhere.

We are taking one set of criteria - rules for conventional war - and twisting them to apply to any and every situation in which our military is engaged.

When one refers to the "battlefield", an image is conjured of two armies maneuvering against one another, with defensive positions and assaults and air strikes and artillery barrages. The vast majority of our drone strikes occur in situations that do not resemble this description in the slightest.

When we drop a missile on a funeral in Yemen, by what criteria are we defining that as a "battlefield?" The only one that has been presented is that because "militants" (i.e. military age males) are present, then it's a "battlefield."

If we want our military to be able to operate under the rules of war, then we need to declare war. Otherwise all this talk of "you can't have due process on the battlefield" is just empty justification for murder.

[rhett o rick]

137. Also, What is WAr? Is the "War on Terrorists" a war? If so is the war on drugs a war? etc etc. nm

[Jackpine Radical]

143. "War on Terror--"

A war on a tactic.

After the War on Terror, can we have a War on Siege, a war on Ambush, a war on Enfilade Fire?

[randome]

144. A war on war would be a better use of resources.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

145. Exactly. So the War Powers Act does not apply. nm

[cali]

63. so all of the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is a battlefield?

and sorry but signature strikes and double tapping clearly aren't about known combatants or those on a battlefield.

Illegal fucking shit.

but go ahead and defend this.

[randome]

67. I'm not really defending it, I'm pointing out it's a complicated situation.

We operate there with Pakistan's half-assed help. I'd prefer that we withdraw from the entire world and 'bomb' them all into submission with offers of food, birth control and education.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

94. bzzzt. fail. not anymore we don't but even were that true, it's not a battlefield.

[matthews]

138. Right. Just as soon as TPTB get done killing the SNAP program,

closing all the clinics and punishing all health care professionals in this country who deal with family planning issues, and making sure that the cost of a college education is affordable by only the elites.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programs of killing civilians based on somebody's hunch that they're one of those evil-doers (and any innocent civilians who might be in the neighborhood)and providing 85 billion a month to relieve the already obscenely rich of their 'distressed' assets.

[randome]

141. I would not mind withdrawing from the world, basically.

Lending more positive support instead of weaponry. Obama has shut down two wars. I think he'll shut down the drone program, too, but that's just a hunch on my part, nothing more.

For all we know, there really are good, demonstrable reasons for going after terrorists. We never cared to know about that during open war, why should it be different now?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

27. what war?

Does the AUMF authorize drone strikes in Pakistan? and what does that matter if the U.S. is violating Pakistan's sovereignty?

Read this:

http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report-legality/

Your post is what's largely uninformed horse shit.

[randome]

31. You know how complicated Pakistan is.

One branch of government condemns us while the other clears airspace for our strikes.

I want it to stop, too. We can probably get more done by helping instead of chasing and killing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

65. that was true in the past. not so much anymore.

[Bonhomme Richard]

133. What war is right.

What should have always been a police action has been sold as a war to gin up the whole patriotic whatever goes syndrome.
What scares me most about our future is the average persons ability to be conned.

[matthews]

142. It amazes me to no end to think that we think we can justify a perpetual state of

war based on a concept, on a 'term' that can mean whatever you want it to, depending on the time, the place, and the nationality of the dead.

Wall Street/corporate America has caused more desolation and destruction that any terrorists I can think of. They got together with the neo-cons of the bush/cheney administration and cooked up a business deal where we would go into a country that had been suffering under 10 years of crippling economic , that was a sovereign nation with 5,000 years of history and culture, and who hadn't done a damn thing to us and we would blow them back to the stone age and commandeer their oil fields. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in an attempt to gain control over the Middle East and its only asset, their oil. And the bloody bastards who were running this mess didn't even take the initiative to try to understand the people they were going to attack.The dumb SOB in the White House, the one who's reputation Obama is working so hard to rehab, didn't even understand that there were Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq and that they hated each other and wouldn't hesitate to start their own little war if the opportunity arose. That would have required some actual planning beyond going in with huge bombs, and terrifying the whole damn country into submission. BUT WE DID WHAT WE INTENDED TO DO, WE ATTACKED A DEFENSELESS NATION. For power and greed. Shock and Awe was just the signing of the contract.

That is my idea of a war based on terrorism.

Now, all the worst policies have been not only retained by the guy who promised to do away with them. The most anti-American acts against the Constitution have been secretly codified and turned lose on us as if we are the terrorists now. They are able to collect even more information than before thanks to better, faster, more sensitive technology. And they don't give a damn whether we like it or we don't. That's why they fight every attempt we make to find out what the truth is with the justification that we have no right to know what our government is doing.

Isn't that terror? It is the same bogey man I was raised to be afraid of. When I was very young, it is what I was programmed to be afraid of. I became aware of the 'red menace' in grade school, when I was taught to hide under my desk when they dropped the big one. That way I might have some chance of survival. You know, them damn Rooskies who were out to get us. You know who I'm talking about if you were alive during the 50's and 60;s at all. Them damn Rooskies didn't live in a democracy like us, and they had no rights. Their government spied on them all the time and you had to be very careful of what you said because it could be taken the wrong way and you'd be sunk. They threw people in jail for a long time if they said things their government did like And they all spied on each other because their government said you had to. You would be punished if you got caught knowing something about someone and you didn't tell it. Even if you were wrong you squealed. It was up to their spies to sort it out. Did they have money? Are they divorced? How do they act? Are they friendly? Do they ask questions? You just never knew who would turn you in, or why. And they all hated each and every one of us because we had rights and they didn't. Yep, we were so lucky to have these rights that it was worth our very life to protect them against the godless commies who wanted to take them away from us.

That's the concept of terror that I was indoctrinated with. By my schools, by the media, and by my own government.

Sound familiar?

[LuckyLib]

160. You are so right. We are living it now.

My Dad had a rifle in the closet, and when I asked him why, he said that it could happen that one day we would not trust the people in power. I thought he was nuts. Now I'm not so sure.

[leveymg]

33. The US did NOT intentionally target US Citizens during WW1 or WW2, even through there were quite a

number of them who fought for Germany in both wars. Nor did we execute American-born propagandists who had gone over to the other side.

Your point is historically unfounded, at least in the last Century. There were some summary executions of Confederate spies and suspected saboteurs during the Civil War and of Tories (British sympathizers) during the Revolutionary War, but those were isolated acts, not an official American policy.

[randome]

55. This is not the 1940's. It's an entirely different century, in fact.

Congress needs to stop giving away their responsibilities to other branches of government. That's how this kind of nonsense will stop.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

59. You know, that is really pathetic.

The Administration can't help themselves. They're only doing these things because Congress has abdicated their responsibility to stop them.

Wow.

[cali]

70. lol. this is NOT the 18th century, damnit! That pesky bill of rights?

fuck it.

Some principles aren't anachronisms.

So let me ask you a question: As you think Congress should stop ceding its responsibilities to other branches, do you support Congress shutting down the President on his much desired fast track for the TPP?

[randome]

75. Congress wields the ultimate power over this country.

They can pass any law, can override any veto.

As for the TPP, I don't have a problem with it being negotiated in as limited a setting as possible because letting 535 narcissistic politicians get their hands on it would doom it.

And Congress can decide if they want to fast-track it or not. They can take their time or they can rubber stamp it. My guess is, that since fully half of Congress do not believe in government, they will pontificate and take the easy way out.

More's the pity.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

87. Sorry, but the SCOTUS disagreed with you in Marbury v Madison, 1803. Justices have ultimate power

in Judicial review of constitutionality of any Act of Congress or action of the Executive. See, http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.

Congress has limited powers under the Principle of Separation of Powers to overrule the Executive, as found most recently in INS v Chadha (1983). See, http://www.justice.gov/olc/delly.htm

Although the structure of the Constitution is designed to obviate the danger to liberty posed by each of the branches,(5) the founders were particularly concerned with the Congress's potential for improvident or overreaching action: "the tendency of republican governments is to an aggrandizement of the legislat[ure] at the expense of the other departments." The Federalist No. 49, at 315-16 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961), cited in United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 444 n.17 (1965). Many specific aspects of the Constitution's separation of governmental powers embody the founders' "profound conviction . . . that the powers conferred on Congress were the powers to be most carefully circumscribed" and the founders' recognition of the particular "`propensity'" of the legislative branch "`to invade the rights of the Executive.'" INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 947 (1983) (quoting The Federalist No. 73, at 442 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961)). Executive branch lawyers thus have a constitutional obligation, one grounded not in parochial institutional interests but in our fundamental duty to safeguard the liberty of the people, to assert and maintain the legitimate powers and privileges of the President against inadvertent or intentional congressional intrusion.

[randome]

92. Thanks for setting me straight on that.

I still maintain that in most cases, Congress has more power than the President in that they can override the Executive branch's veto and can pass laws that specifically address Constitutional provisions.

If they are careful in their wording, they can avoid Judicial vetoes. But you are right in that there are more checks and balances than I had summarized.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

96. my god. how on earth do you maintain such an incredible

balance of cognitive dissonance. It's extraordinary. Or maybe it's because you simply aren't well enough informed about... lots and lots of things. google is a wonderful aid for research.

[randome]

99. Strength of character?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[SwankyXomb]

149. Executive Order 9066. Try again.

[leveymg]

151. That order did not target Japanese Americans for death during WW2.

The internment order was racist, and it was a great injustice, but the intention of the Roosevelt Administration was not to kill the victims. There is really no comparison to the extra-judicial executions of US Citizens abroad carried out more recently.

[sabrina 1]

77. Unbelievable statement! So you DID agree with Bush then. Did you say this when Democrats

were expressing daily outrage at these claims during the Bush years? I never saw such an outrageous statement from any Democrat throughout the Bush era. This is quite frankly, frightening in any democracy.

I guess you never heard of International Law, the Geneva Conventions eg?

Wow, 'I'm not a fan of letting 18th Century politicians run our lives in such detail'. So you're against the Constitution also? What has changed over the centuries in terms of human rights that would make eg, The Magna Carta, or Habeas Corpus irrelevant in today's world?

[randome]

79. As I clarified, there is no 'due process' for enemy combatants.

If you maintain that the Constitution and all our laws apply to everyone on Earth, then you have, in effect, declared us the planet's rulers.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

93. and as I've explained to you literally dozens of times

signature strikes mark people who are NOT FUCKING DESIGNATED AS enemy combatants.

but play cutsie pie and pretend.

bye bye.

intellectual honesty would be refreshing to see from you.

[randome]

97. So you believe we're murdering people for fun?

I agree the process is fucked up from here to Sunday and it should stop. But I don't see that we are casually murdering people, either.

And how do you think we can stop this? Again, it falls to Congress to take back their responsibilities. But that's not a sexy enough issue to get a majority of people into the streets about it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalLovinLug]

122. Uh...yeah

If you've seen "Collateral Murder". One can definitely make a case for "fun". Yes I'm being a little facetious for arguments sake, and that was in a war zone (though not declared), but if it can happen there, why not somewhere outside of that theater since you asked? How would anyone know?

[cali]

123. seriously? just how desperate are you? my advice? stop digging.

Of course I said nothing of the sort. You fabricated that out of whole cloth.

Not only did I never say anything that could remotely be construed as suggesting that the U.S. is "murdering people for fun", I never suggested that it was being done casually.

It can be stopped by the President.

Period and fucking exclamation mark.

There is NO argument that he can't stop this tomorrow.

I can't believe what a sucker I am wasting my time debating someone like you.

[rhett o rick]

139. It is intellectually dishonest to put words in their mouth. No one said that we're murdering

people for fun. You are making the false conclusion that if we murder someone we are justified. There could be a number of reasons why we are murdering people with drones. Committing terrorism could be a reason.

[randome]

140. I'm not concluding anything. I'm not there making the decisons. None of us are.

Could we use greater review of these cases? Hell, yes. Shut it down, I'm good with that. But how will that be accomplished? I don't see people 'up in arms' about it except here on DU.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[MNBrewer]

4. I'll preemptively post a "Would you trust President Cruz?"

But of course, that would be silly because there will NEVER be another Republican in the White House, right?

[eilen]

148. Is that a trick question? nt

[KG]

5. doesn't matter how depraved an action by the prez or the dem party, the cadre

will twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels to justify it. it's been quite an amazing but sad phenomena to witness last 10 years here.

[Broward]

7. It really is a window

into the way many brains are wired. Many of them just can't see themselves.

[Kolesar]

11. "the cadre"

Speak for yourself, country boy

[cali]

12. So what do you think of the admin's drone policies?

[Kolesar]

13. another thread for the zerohedge kids to dance around in ... eom

[JoeyT]

19. Those dead innocents never loved him anyway.

There may be quite a gulf between Obama and Bush, but many of their supporters are exactly the same.

[cali]

28. wowzer. there's some brilliant analysis. defensive much, hon?

[SkyDaddy7]

22. I do.

[randome]

16. Democrats have been in charge for ten years?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[East Coast Pirate]

10. Or, how can a racist white American judge a black presidenr?

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. I trust my President on this....

I kid, I kid.

[msanthrope]

129. You still haven't answered me on your Comicon thread. Why not??? nt

[reformist2]

8. Yet another policy where Obama is virtually the same as Bush. :(

[Riftaxe]

9. I hear civil liberties

are owned by a 3rd party now, I am a bit miffed about not being consulted before they were sold though.

[chervilant]

14. Finally!

My IL must be working. I don't see a single post defending the insupportable actions of the current administration!

[cali]

17. It's early yet and then there's the avoidance-hope-it-sinks-thing.

[wanttosavetheplanet]

18. Related - Take the poll: How do you feel about the FBI using drones?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-fbi-uses-drones-in-united-states-20130619,0,494096.story

[kentuck]

20. In America, nothing is exempt from judicial review.

Those that say so are lying or engaged in a criminal enterprise.

[pwb]

21. An opinion article by a Nixon appointed judge and you want us all to be angry?.

Maybe we should all agree with justice Alito and Scalia too.?

Perhaps you could Consider the source before posting puke Opinion and request that we Democrats criticize our President.

He is trying to close Guantanamo. The Pukes will not let him.

He inherited all these powers from Bush, he did not ask for them.

If An American citizen choses to be a terrorist and arms themselves to fight against the United States then I am fine with treating them as the enemy, no matter where they are in the world.

A person can not be both a terrorist and an American citizen at the same time in my opinion which holds the same weight as this Republican judges opinion does.

[Savannahmann]

23. And we have a winner

Congratulations. You were the first to defend the indefensible.

[truebluegreen]

24. Gag.

[leveymg]

29. Bush did not assassinate US Citizens abroad, AFAIK. That is an Obama expansion of assumed power.

Not to defend Bush who got the ball rolling in that direction, but to point out that some really bad decisions have been taken by this Administration by allowing the intelligence services to pretty much run the show the way they want.

[cali]

32. oh brother. is there a worse argument you could have used? Not likely.

yeah, because all judges appointed by republicans are good and all judges appointed by democrats are bad. bzzzt. giant fail.

And no, he's certainly not the only reason, dear. I've posted scores of threads about the drone policy with links to legal analysis.

[leveymg]

34. Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower. Terrible Judge. A real reactionary that one! ;-)

Do I have to make it rain?

[JoePhilly]

35. Its interesting how the opinion author equates how you deal with

prisoners who are captured already (no longer a threat because you have captured them) with individuals who are (a) still a threat and who are also (b) outside the reach of capture.

[cali]

71. yes, because nothing says threat more than

those who come to the aid of victims in a drone strike. It's known as double tapping and you ought to familiarize yourself with what a signature strike is too.

[Divernan]

36. Due process always, always, alway requires judicial oversight and review.

Bush "only" claimed the right to detain suspects without judicial oversight or accountability. Obama, absolutely incredibly for a man who taught constitutional law, now claims the right TO KILL U.S. CITIZENS WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OR ACCOUNTABILITY. For gods' sake man, THINK about what you are defending!

TAKING THE LIFE OF U.S. CITIZENS (INCLUDING A 16 YEAR OLD NOT EVEN ACCUSED OF WRONG-DOING)WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

When campaigning for office, then-Sen. Barack Obama agreed with the court's decision and criticized Bush's abandonment of basic checks and balances in the so-called war on terror. Yet today, President Obama has taken his predecessor's assertion of executive fiat even further. His administration says it has the power not just to detain suspected terrorists but also to kill them without any judicial oversight or accountability.

That dramatic claim of authority is at issue in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenges the 2011 extrajudicial killing by drones of three American citizens, including an alleged (but never criminally charged) terrorism suspect, Anwar Awlaki, his companion Samir Khan — and, two weeks later and hundreds of miles away, 16-year-old Abdulrahman Awlaki, Anwar's son, whom no one had accused of wrongdoing. The lawsuit charges that the killings violated the Constitution, including its most elementary protection against the deprivation of life without due process of law.

Seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, the Justice Department has maintained that such killings are immune from judicial review. The administration argues that due process does not require judicial process and that we should trust the executive's judgment when it takes the lives of its own citizens abroad. That position — that the government should be able to use lethal force against individuals it deems to be a threat based on a secret executive process using standards and evidence that are never tested by a court — is disturbingly familiar. Indeed, it is just as much an affront to the rule of law as it was in 2004 when it was defended by the Bush administration.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. And yet you fawn over Republicans Hagel and Comey as they drone and judge...

So ironic that you'd try to pretend you despise 'the pukes' while defending an administration with the highest Republican content of any non Republican President in the history of the US. Sure, you use strong rhetoric about Republican when not nodding along in agreement at their appointments to high office.

Here is you touting Hagel:
"Hagel will cut the contractor waste."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2233934
And in this thread, you tout his heroism:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022142451#post8

Consider the source? That's great advice. When some puke loving puke promoter promotes pukes, never listen to them again.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. Rec

[Oilwellian]

89. LOL

Tell it!

K&R

[zeemike]

38. "He is trying to close Guantanamo. The Pukes will not let him

That is completely false...he is commander in chief of the armed forces and Gitmo is a military base and operation...all he has to do is give the order and it will be closed...the congress has nothing to do with it...
And I get so tired of hearing that excuse.

[Progressive dog]

40. Read the Constitution before posting ridiculous claims

If you really believe that all the base closing commissions that the USA has had, the results of which have been made the law were unnecessary because you know the constitution better than 200+ years of US Presidents, Congresses , and Supreme courts then I sincerely hope that you have someone to watch over you.

[zeemike]

44. Well in case you did not know.

The purpose of the Gitmo base is to service the fleet and has done that for many years...and I am not suggestion he close the base, just close down the prison camp that Bush ordered created to house the prisoners where he could torture them out of sight and jurisdiction of US laws.

And If you don't think the president has the power to do that they you are not being honest...I point to Truman who ordered the military to intergate...if it had ben left to the congress they would have said no, and you know it.
And when MacArthur did not do what Truman told him to do he fired him...and the congress h ad no say in that ether, cause if they would have they would have said no.
Ether the president is the CIC or he is not, and what you are suggestion is that he is not.

[Progressive dog]

48. In case you don't know, he can't close the prison

He doesn't get to do stuff like that-period-if he did he could and should be impeached. Thre words do not a Constitution make, Commander in Chief is three words which you don't seem to understand are a small part of the Constitution.
As far as Truman, I would explain about why what Truman did was Constitutional, but since you have a comprehension limit of three words, I'll pass.

[zeemike]

50. Better yet point to where the constitution says that

The president as CIC cannot order his military to do things...And where the congress ordered the prison created in Gitmo...

[Progressive dog]

61. Okay, if you choose to continue your three word

understanding of the Constitution, I can't help you. The President of the USA is not a dictator, his commander in chief role is defined in the Constitution. The Constitution of the USA defines his authority, if it ain't there it doesn't exist.

Better yet point to where the constitution says that
The president as CIC cannot order his military to do things

So your question has no relevance to the US Constitution.

[zeemike]

66. Well then you do not understand the military

Generals ARE dictators of the men under them...and it has always been so...for reasons that should be obvious.
And the CIC is a dictator to the generals...and that too has always been the case...for the same obvious reasons.

But if you read something to the contrary in the constitution then point to it please...or show us the law passed by congress establishing the prison at Gitmo.

[Progressive dog]

73. So the President of the USA is a dictator over the Congress

and can spend money (which the Constitution says the Congress must appropriate) even if Congress says no.

. Obama’s plan in 2009, which asked for $80 million to transfer the detainees to U.S. prisons, was rejected by the Senate 90 to 6. Last November the Senate voted 54 to 41 to prohibit the Department of Defense from transferring the detainees.

Understand now?.

[zeemike]

86. No he is dictator over the military.

And does not need money appropriated by the congress to order the generals to return the prisoners to where they came from...and close down the prison there...whick would save money...I imagine they spend more than 80 million on keeping it going.

Many of them have been cleared for release...and do not need to come to our country and be put in prison...and the others can be dealt with by the country they came from...so all of that is bullshit argument.

And yes I understand....you are using the congress as bad cop, that dictates what the CIC can do to avoid taking responsibility for anything.
But if Obama is as powerless as you say he is, we have a really bad problem here...it means we have a shadow government and they call the shots...which may be true.

[Progressive dog]

88. You sir are either not American or

have absolutely no understanding of the US Constitution.

[zeemike]

90. Well I served 8 years in the military.

and if you don't think that it is a dictatorship you are mistaken...all military are dictatorship and this is a necessary evil...there is no voting or consensus, the officers give the orders any you follow them or face a court marshal.

And there is nothing un American about it...or un American about someone that believes it.

[Progressive dog]

91. And the Congress of the US is not in the military

so your experience in the military doesn't trump the Constitution or over 200 years of precedent.

[zeemike]

100. Again, show me where it says that.

And the 200 years of president is that the president is CIC and dictates what his generals do....without exception...and the congress by the Constitution cannot interfere with that and never has...untill now I guess if we are to believe you.
FDR ordered the military to set up CCC camps and they did, and congress had no say in it,

[Progressive dog]

102. IF CIC is all you know or care to know about the US Constitution,

I feel sorry for you. I do get it however, you are obsessed with having Obama be a dictator so you can blame him for whatever you want.

[cali]

107. I feel sorry for you. misdirection and bizarre nonsense about how people

are obsessed with Obama being a dictator, isn't an argument.

Look, on the issue of drones, the President is directly responsible. How about focusing on that?

[Progressive dog]

114. Now we should change the subject to drones,

because I won't pretend that the president has dictatorial powers.
I get it, you can't make Guantanamo credible and choose to move on.
The President has ordered drone attacks and obviously this is well known by the Congress of the USA, at least if they get the same news that most Americans do. We can argue about whether Congress has tried to stop these strikes, they could cut funding specifically for them, they could even do it in the defense spending bill. Since we both know they haven't, then we could argue about whether they are legal under some international law or other. Since I know of no legitimate attempts to enforce any international laws, I at least have to believe that it isn't high on the list for the UN or whomever to enforce.
Moving on, the last thing that we could argue is whether the drone strikes were moral. As a realist, I can't believe that the US has no moral recourse against admitted members or supporters of a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda, just because they are hiding in a country that allows them or doesn't have control of parts of their own territory.

[zeemike]

112. As commander in chief he IS a dictator of the military

The joint chiefs of staff of all branches of the military are under his direct command, and if the don't follow his orders he can dismiss them as Truman did to Mc Arther.
The congress has no say so in that at all...and never has.
And I only blame him for what he has direct control over...and the Constitution gave him that direct control...and again, for good reason.

[Progressive dog]

116. Repetetion doesn't make arguments stronger

the 3 word constitution that you have in your head is not the full document.
BTW it's not Mc Arther.

[zeemike]

120. Right you are.

so then why don't you give us an argument...cite the part that proves your point instead of repeating the "three word argument"

I have made my argument every way I can and you have not offered anything to back up what you said.

[Vinnie From Indy]

125. Well to be fair, you are correct that Congress voted to not let him send the prisoners

to the US. As I understand it, Obama could let all the men go with the stroke of a pen, but he cannot bring them to US prisons. So, if that is correct, he does have the power to release these men. He could also issue Presidential pardons for these men as an alternative, albeit unlikely, route to end Guantanamo.

[Hissyspit]

155. "President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants; Congress isn’t actually stopping him."

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_obama_can_shut_guantanamo_whenever_he_wants_to.html

President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants
Congress isn’t actually stopping him.

By Eric Posner
Updated Thursday, May 2, 2013, at 5:54 PM

- snip -

If Obama declared hostilities at an end, the Guantanamo detainees would be no different from people who were washed up on U.S. territory by accident, like shipwrecked sailors. Those who pose no danger to the United States (about 86 of the 166), and cannot be returned to their countries, could receive refugee status under existing laws. Those who are known to be dangerous could be arrested under criminal law. If I am correct that section 1027 is unconstitutional, both groups could be brought to the United States. The detainees we cannot convict would be released. That may be politically unpalatable but it is legally unimpeachable.

Congress would squawk, but only a veto-proof majority of Congress would have standing to challenge the president in court, and it is hard to imagine that such a majority would sue. And even if it did, courts tend to duck disputes like this between the branches.

President Obama may worry that if he declares an end of hostilities with al-Qaida, he would need to terminate his beloved drone program, which operates in part under authority of the AUMF. But ample legal precedent shows presidents can use military force under their constitutional powers; and, in any event, nothing would stop President Obama from continuing the AUMF with respect to associates of al-Qaida. And if al-Qaida rises from the dead, Congress will eagerly supply him with a new law to fight it.

The real issue here, of course, is that Congress has given the president a convenient excuse for not doing something he doesn’t really want to do anyway. The public wants to keep Guantanamo open. Shutting it would generate a serious backlash that enraged members of Congress would whip up. It also matters that President Obama does not object to indefinite detention, but to the island prison itself. That is why he wants to move detainees to a supermax in the United States, not release them. But doing so would make clear that his campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay was an empty one. The place of indefinite detention would change; the system supporting it would not. He does better with headlines like “Congress, rules keep Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay” than with “Obama moves detainees to U.S. soil where they will remain forever.” The president will not shut Guantanamo, and the reason is politics, not law. If you don’t like this choice, blame him.

[Progressive dog]

164. That is such garbage that wow just wow

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Mr. Posner can continue to pretend that his vast knowledge trumps 200 years of Congressional and Presidential and Supreme court precedent.
He's right in the ridiculous assertion that he could just invite anyone to attack the US with impunity and pretend that 9/11, the Cole, the embassy attacks never happened. I wonder how long his administration would last after that.
The President doesn't live in Mr. Posner's fairy tale world.
Of course, there is still the problem of where to send the ex prisoners, which Posner avoids. Since no country will take many of them, in fact many are not sent "home" because their "home" governments are likely to torture them. That would be like rendition, which I guess is Okay by Posner. About 40 Chinese prisoners were accepted by the Philippines.
Where would Mr. Posner send the rest, maybe if Congress would allow them to live in the US, church groups could sponsor and protect them.
Oh, right, Posner claims that the President is a dictator, and apparently is advocating that he seize even more power.
I had the erroneous idea that we expected our Presidents to try to follow the Constitution.
BTW Mr. Posner, President Obama signed an executive order closing Guantanamo prison. He has been prevented from carrying it out by Congressional action including a law preventing the prisoners from being transferred or released in the USA. That's why this claim of yours is so stupid. The President is not a dictator and I expect him to obey our laws.

“Obama moves detainees to U.S. soil where they will remain forever.”

[Hissyspit]

165. Yes, I clearly think citing anti.

[Progressive dog]

166. I deleted the incomplete sentence

so at least if you reply, you'll have to read the post.
BTW Hissyspit, with 300 million people in this country, I'm impressed with your selection of people to cite as authorities. His dad (Posner), was one of Reagan's first appointees and is still a federal judge. Eric didn't fall far from the tree.

[Hissyspit]

168. The point wasn't who he is. The point is his argument against claims that Obama

cannot close Gitmo. I disagree with Posner on many things.

By the way, here is one of his "radical" articles, by the way, arguing against originalism:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/81480/republicans-constitution-originalism-popular

Also, by the way, I'm not anything like my father politically.

[Progressive dog]

169. The point is that he is an idiot and

his crap should not be used. You know the moron has a 2011 book out, putting the lie to any claims he makes about his view of the republic. The name of the book is "Executive Unbound:After the Madisonian Republic". It is actually a reply to a book arguing that executive power has gone too far. He is an authoritarian RW Imperial Presidency kind of guy. So when he claims the president has power to do this or that, it's based on his authoritarian beliefs.

[Progressive dog]

167. Eric Posner also advocates abolition of both the

Congress and the Supreme court, he is in favor of one man running the USA, an Imperial presidency. He is a worse nutcase than the the teabaggers or even the delusional anarchists known here as Paulbots.

[hughee99]

111. He absolutely CAN close the prison, what congress is blocking him from doing

is building a new prison somewhere else and relocating the prisoners to it. The president can't close this prison without finding someplace to put the current prisoners (many of whom haven't even been charged yet). If he released all of the current prisoners, which he does have the authority to do, he wouldn't have any problem closing the prison.

[Hissyspit]

154. Eric Posner:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_obama_can_shut_guantanamo_whenever_he_wants_to.html

View From Chicago
President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants
Congress isn’t actually stopping him.

By Eric Posner
Updated Thursday, May 2, 2013, at 5:54 PM

- snip -

The better interpretation of section 1027, one that avoids constitutional difficulties, bans transfers from Guantanamo to the U.S. only as long as hostilities continue. Courts have recognized repeatedly that the president can act on reasonable interpretations of statutes when they are ambiguous or contain internal contradictions; that statutes should be read to avoid constitutional problems like the one mentioned above; and that the president is entitled to special deference when laws touch on his foreign affairs and military powers. Yet another rule discourages interpretations of statutes that violate international law—which requires enemy combatants to be released at the end of hostilities unless they are convicted of crimes. For all these reasons, if President Obama were to declare an end of hostilities with al-Qaida and release detainees, he would be on reasonable legal ground. And it’s not as though Obama has been shy about asserting executive power when Congress blocks an objective he cares about. His military intervention in Libya in defiance of the War Powers Act (and legal advice from some of his own lawyers) is one example.

If Obama declared hostilities at an end, the Guantanamo detainees would be no different from people who were washed up on U.S. territory by accident, like shipwrecked sailors. Those who pose no danger to the United States (about 86 of the 166), and cannot be returned to their countries, could receive refugee status under existing laws. Those who are known to be dangerous could be arrested under criminal law. If I am correct that section 1027 is unconstitutional, both groups could be brought to the United States. The detainees we cannot convict would be released. That may be politically unpalatable but it is legally unimpeachable.

Congress would squawk, but only a veto-proof majority of Congress would have standing to challenge the president in court, and it is hard to imagine that such a majority would sue. And even if it did, courts tend to duck disputes like this between the branches.

[hughee99]

158. This sounds correct, and is certainly more comprehensive than my explanation.

Closing the prison camp isn't the issue, it's what to do with the prisoners. Congress, if I understand correctly, has blocked funding if he wants to try to move the camp in whole (and build a new one). It sounds like 1027 is about the President moving existing Guantanamo prisoners to existing prisons (which avoids the funding issue). Even if he declares and end to the hostilities, how do you put an prisoner who hasn't yet been charged with a crime in a federal prison indefinitely?

He'd take a serious political hit for just releasing all the prisoners, though I believe he does have the authority to do that, and I think they'd have a hard time making a winning case against some of them, even some who they might consider to be "the worst of the worst".

In the end, there are several ways in which the camp can be closed but none of them seem to be palatable to the administration. I think they see the current situation as the best of a bad set of options. I can't see how they do anything about this until at least after the mid-terms, and I wouldn't be surprised to see this just get punted to the next Administration, who will have to deal with the same "political nightmare" options to deal with.

[Hissyspit]

153. "President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_obama_can_shut_guantanamo_whenever_he_wants_to.html

View From Chicago
President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants
Congress isn’t actually stopping him.

By Eric Posner
Updated Thursday, May 2, 2013, at 5:54 PM

In his press conference Tuesday, President Obama repeated that he wanted to shut Guantanamo Bay but blamed Congress for stopping him. “They would not let us close it,” he said. But that’s wrong. President Obama can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever he’s saying, the president does not want to close the detention center—at least not yet.

The relevant law is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the president’s power to wage war against al-Qaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants, and bans him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil.

The NDAA does not, however, ban the president from releasing detainees. Section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept them—the problem is that most countries won’t, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from, can’t guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law.

There is another section of the NDAA, however, which has been overlooked. In section 1021(a), Congress “affirms” the authority of the U.S. armed forces under the AUMF to detain members of al-Qaida and affiliated groups “pending disposition under the law of war.” Section 1021(c)(1) further provides that “disposition under the law of war” includes “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by” the AUMF. Thus, when hostilities end, the detainees may be released.

The president has the power to end the hostilities with al-Qaida—simply by declaring their end. This is not a controversial sort of power. Numerous presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from Congress—this happened with the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, and World War I. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the president has this authority.

Nor is there any reason why President Obama couldn’t declare the war with al-Qaida at an end. The group’s original core is essentially gone. A Department of Defense official recently hinted that the end of the conflict with al-Qaida is approaching, while the troop drawdown in Afghanistan will be completed next year. Associates and fellow travelers continue to exist, but the president is free to end hostilities even so; this, too, has happened many times before, like in Korea and Vietnam.

It’s true that section 1027, the provision of the NDAA that flatly prohibits the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil, appears to make it impossible to transfer them to prisons inside the U.S. But if that’s the case, and detainees can’t be transferred to foreign countries under section 1028 either, then section 1027 essentially orders the president to detain non-combatants indefinitely, and such an order is of dubious constitutionality at best. When the Supreme Court approved indefinite detention of members of al-Qaida and the Taliban in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004, the premise was the president’s military authority under the AUMF and the “active combat operations against Taliban fighters” in Afghanistan. When active combat operations cease, this pillar of the Supreme Court’s opinion falls. And while courts have been reluctant to grant rights to detainees that constrain the president’s power, they are likely to take the opposite view if he advances those rights while declaring that hostilities have ended.

MORE

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is a co-author of The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic and Climate Change Justice. Reach him on Twitter at @EricAPosner.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. Agreed.

He's not powerless.

There is more than one way to do this.

It doesn't have to be complicated. He, for example, controls the officers who control the troops that keep the gates locked. He could easily order the commander of the base to unlock the gates and allow the prisoners to walk through.

[Demit]

41. A person can't be both a terrorist and an American citizen at the same time??

Good heaven above. What a thing to say.

[bobduca]

42. Civilians can criticize the commander in chief

n/t

[Logical]

57. LOL! I hope you are not serious. n-t

[Pholus]

84. WINNER: "no matter where they are in the world. "

This is the problem with the magic word "terrorist" which has no definition past what you feel it has.

Quakers and 82 year old nuns have been called "terrorists" by our legal system as the mood suited some functionaries insulted that someone questioned their actions.

And you, in your infinite short-sightedness just said that you're okay with "treating them as the enemy" within the boundaries of our own country instead of fellow citizens following the same body of laws.

Pathetic.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

110. Quakers are known trouble-makers. They have been for some time. Since the 1600's.

Good for them.

[NealK]

163. Lol!

Congrats.

[another_liberal]

26. We do it to them now . . .

We do it to them now because we have all the power. One day, we will no longer be the World's only super power, and someone else will be able to kill us without charge or trial. When that day comes, Americans will have no grounds on which to complain.

[HardTimes99]

85. Prophetic words that all should listen to. After March 20, 2003, we have no grounds any

longer to complain of any violations of international law, imo. Thus far, we have not had to face the full consequences of our vile lawlessness.

[GoneFishin]

39. This is a scourge on BO and the U.S.. We have allies who were practicing this behavior

before BUSH and BO. I can't help but notice the similarities to the unchecked detentions and executions that occur under some allied leaders, and I think they influenced this administration and the prior one to follow the same practices. I speculate the motivation is to undermine the U.S. moral authority to pressure them to change their own practices.

I believe that is also why 80 innocent people in Guantanamo are being held at a cost to taxpayers of $900,000 each per year.

The plan has worked brilliantly. Now if we tell our allies to review their human rights policies they can answer back, "piss off, you do it too".

It's disgusting and un-american.

[zeemike]

52. The sad answer is.

Probably sheep.

[Catherina]

80. Rec'd with full support

Good morning Cali!

People like you, threads like these keep the real hope, that things can change, alive.

[cali]

98. Thanks Catherina. I'm actually finding this thread heartening

I can't tell you how many dozens of threads I've posted on this over the past few years and usually they sink like a stone. It's good to see people debating it.

Good afternoon to you.

Hope the rest of your day is brilliant.

[xocet]

83. How many have adopted Britney's philosophy?

[Solly Mack]

95. K&R

[MjolnirTime]

101. broken record.

[cali]

104. damned straight. I've posted dozens and dozens of threads on the

evolving drone story and I intend to post dozens more.

Enjoy.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

108. Thank you. And please keep up the good work.

If it ticks off anybody, even better.

[L0oniX]

119. Seems that the broken record is MT's 13 hidden posts.

[L0oniX]

118. Your transparency page also looks like a broken record.

[MotherPetrie]

103. K&R

[cali]

105. Thank you, MP. I really appreciate it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. What the apologists forget is that from the point of view of an Iraqi or Afghan...

we're the REDCOATS, not the heroes.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

113. Here's a solution for those who (1) say that Congress will not allow Obama to close Gitmo and

(2) approve of out-sourcing of American jobs.

Obama could hire the hire the prisoners, especially the ones who have been proven to have done nothing wrong, to operate the prison.

If it costs $900,000 annually for each prisioner, he could simply pay each of the prisoners $900,000 per year.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/17/us/guantanamo-costs

[randome]

115. That's thinking outside the box!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. Who needs courts, laws, and other fripperies when we have a "decider" in office?

After all, it's just life and death.

[WillyT]

121. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Howler]

124. K&R

K&R

[Apophis]

126. SNOWDENS CHARACTER NEEDS TO BE ATTACKED DONTCHA KNOW1111!!!!!

[Vattel]

128. It is sad that John Yoo's stupid positions

on the scope of the President's powers are pushed by Obama's DOJ.

[chervilant]

134. Well, durn...

I got a response, but it was from someone on my IL. I suppose it's best I don't see it.

[blkmusclmachine]

146. +1.

[leftstreet]

147. DURec

[pacalo]

152. Cali, your heart is in the right place. You fought tooth & nail for Obama during the primaries

in 2008 & you were proven correct. Obama is truly a good man & I admire him in many ways. But you are 100% correct now, too, that it is wrong to accept a dismissal of due process. These constitutionally-defiant policies were made acceptable by the Patriot Act that was written by neocon fanatics during our country's most vulnerable hours; it's time to come to our senses while there is still a decent, thoughtful man in the White House.

[cali]

162. thank you for remembering.

I too still think that President Obama is a decent man. Alas, that has proven not to be nearly enough.

[blackspade]

157. +1000

[FourScore]

159. I remember when we were the good guys... n/t