Admin claims right to imprison “combatants” acquitted at trial

[Hannah Bell]

In testimony before the US Senate Tuesday, legal representatives of the Obama administration not only defended the system of kangaroo military tribunals set up under Bush, but affirmed the government’s right to continue imprisoning detainees indefinitely, even if they are tried and acquitted on allegations of terror-related crimes.

The testimony... given to the Senate Armed Services Committee by the top lawyer for the Pentagon and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division came in the context of a congressional bid to reconfigure the military tribunal system set up under the Bush administration.

In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in an attempt to lend legal cover to the system of drumhead courts set up to try so-called “enemy combatants,” which had been found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The high court subsequently ruled against the congressionally revised system as well.

This latest effort, like the one carried out three years ago, is aimed at fending off successful court challenges to the system. The Senate Armed Services Committee introduced new military commission legislation last month as part of the 2010 military spending bill.

As the committee’s Democratic chairman, Carl Levin of Michigan, put it, the aim was to “substitute new procedures and language” that would “restore confidence in military commissions.”

As the administration’s lawyers made clear, however, any changes will amount to mere window dressing in an Orwellian system where the government decides who is entitled to trial, whether defendants are brought before military or civilian courts, and even whether or not to free those who are found not guilty...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/dete-j10.shtml


Have at it, un-reccers!

lol

[ixion]

1. I read stuff like this everyday, and I feel suckered

because I voted for change, and am seeing nothing but maintenance of the status quo.

[Horse with no Name]

2. I am sorry you feel this way

I simply voted for the last man standing.
I didn't expect anything other than what we got.
There was ample evidence that Obama was to the right of center during the primaries.
I'm not disappointed. I'm not surprised.
This is precisely what I felt would happen.
He has not changed his course whatsoever. The rhetoric was intoxicating, to be sure, but I learned long ago you don't change people. They are what they are...no matter what they try to pretend to be, they will always go back to default.

[ixion]

3. well, to be honest, I didn't really expect anything to change, either

and I have the posts to back it up. It just makes me sad to see it come true, and to know that I supported it by voting for Obama.

[Horse with no Name]

4. Yeah.

I know how you feel. :hug:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. +1

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Obama *Never* Promised The Rule of Law!!!!

I can't believe how many people heard what they wanted to hear, instead of what he actually said!!!

He also never said that he wouldn't eat puppies!!! So don't complain if he does!!!

[Hannah Bell]

6. now *that* would drop approval ratings! eating puppies = the new third rail.

[Jim Sagle]

15. And you know this how?

I sense there are devotees who would defend even that.

[Time for change]

8. That is so depressing to me

In my opinion there is almost nothing that undermines our nation so badly as violating the rights of anyone -- American citizen or not -- to a fair trial.

[struggle4progress]

9. Consider the politics of this: if the question is something like "Will you release suspected

Middle Eastern terrorists if they're acquitted?" and the answer is simply "Sure, why not?" then the Republicans will shriek "Terra! Terra! Terra!" in the media endlessly; the answer given is the only possible answer politically, and the only thing that really matters is what the Administration actually does in this regard

[Hannah Bell]

13. i don't get it. if they're acquitted, presumably there's no evidence they're

terrormeisters.

[struggle4progress]

14. Correct. And I'd bet that the Obama Administration plays by that rule book, too.

But politics is not the same as policy: when the rubber hits the road, the Administration is likely to follow the just and proper policy and yet (before then) might be forced by political considerations to sound somewhat like the Bushistas that preceded them

This does not seem to be to be a difficult idea to grasp, nor do its implications seem difficult to me: we ought, of course, to monitor what the Administration actually does in specific cases and react on the basis of those specific cases, rather than pretending we can read the future from pablum remarks

[Orwellian_Ghost]

10. K&R

[Vidar]

11. K&R

[maryf]

12. K&R

thanks Hannah!

[leftstreet]

16. K&R

[ColbertWatcher]

17. K&R. n/t