Obama and the Supreme Court quietly sell out Due Process protection

[girl gone mad]

This one is truly frightening. If the President or one of his subordinates declares a person to be an “enemy combatant”, he or she can be held without due process, stripped of all legal rights.

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html">Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes Stand Up for Slavery
Written by Chris Floyd

While we were all out doing our Christmas shopping, the highest court in the land quietly put the kibosh on a few more of the remaining shards of human liberty.

It happened earlier this week, in a discreet ruling that attracted almost no notice and took little time. In fact, our most august defenders of the Constitution did not have to exert themselves in the slightest to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence.

Here's how the bad deal went down. After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

This extraordinary ruling occasioned none of those deep-delving "process stories" that glut the pages of the New York Times, where the minutiae of policy-making or political gaming is examined in highly-spun, microscopic detail doled out by self-interested insiders. Obviously, giving government the power to render whole classes of people "unpersons" was not an interesting subject for our media arbiters. It was news that wasn't fit to print. Likewise, the ruling provoked no thundering editorials in the Washington Post, no savvy analysis from the high commentariat -- and needless to say, no outrage whatsoever from all our fierce defenders of individual liberty on the Right.

(snip)

The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of "national emergency." And the instigation of torture is, under U.S. law, a capital crime. No person can be tortured, at any time, for any reason, and there are no immunities whatsoever for torture offered anywhere in the law.

And yet this is what Barack Obama -- who, we are told incessantly, is a super-brilliant Constitutional lawyer -- has been arguing in case after case since becoming president: Torturers are immune from prosecution; those who ordered torture are immune from prosecution. They can't even been sued for, in the specific case under review, subjecting uncharged, indefinitely detained captives to "beatings, sleep deprivation, forced nakedness, extreme hot and cold temperatures, death threats, interrogations at gunpoint, and threatened with unmuzzled dogs."

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html">Continued

Change we can believe in.

[Mari333]

1. kick and rec for yet another monstrous blow to the midsection

[roguevalley]

54. ah, more fourth dimensional chest from the master. another thing he

can't *POSSIBLY* be responsible for. Fuck this. I volunteer to get in the front of the line so they can shoot me. Shoot me first and put me out of my misery.

[debbierlus]

2. Kick

[AndyA]

3. If this is true, this puts Obama in the same club with Bush and Cheney and cronies.

Is the Constitution just a G*d damned piece of paper to Barack Obama, too? :shrug:

[snagglepuss]

38. +1

[northernlights]

44. a quaint piece of paper that he vaguely remembers from law school?

:shrug:

[ixion]

4. Obama continues to follow in the footsteps of Booosh

we should be so proud. :argh:

[sad sally]

64. Sounding just like Booosh last week,

while pep-talking at the Home Depot, 'bout fell off my chair when I heard him say, "In other words" - like we're too stoopid to understand what he'd just said...oh my gosh, and now this?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lamp_shade]

11. Oh my !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oreo Cookie covering Obama's face. Nice, Deja Q.

Why did you change from "I am no longer proud of my country."???

[Deja Q]

17. I didn't design it, but when I stumbled across it online this morning,

I laughed.

In another time and place I'd have been disgusted.

But the siding with the large corporations - there is no other cute picture that describes. Even if it is avant-garde.

:(

I will, in all honesty, offer the most profuse apologies if our mindsets are wrong and the President has plans to really help small businesses and those who believed in him. (300 million Americans and a $30 billion assistance program, $100 for each person to start his/her own business is nothing less than a joke... in 2009 wages. $100 in 1945 wages would still have it being too small, despite having far more buying power to actually do something tangible... Or $300 if only 100 million were able/willing to become a small business, of which I want to because I prefer freedom to prosper 9 days out of 10.)

[Deja Q]

24. Why did I change it?

Because I **want** to feel proud. Even now. Maybe there is a greater good. Or maybe I'm fooling myself. I don't know. :(

And it's more inclusive to phrase it as an open question...

[golddigger]

6. Did we elect Bush for a third term? Unfreakinbelievable!

[laughingliberal]

7. Okay, I'm trying to keep up. All corporations are 'persons' but only some people are 'persons'

Got it.

on edit: can we declare a corporation an enemy combatant?

Chains we can believe in

[Deja Q]

8. Unless we all become corporations...

[girl gone mad]

13. Maybe enemy combatants should incorporate.

Not a bad legal strategy.

[Deja Q]

19. Where do we sign up?

Small businesses can be corporations, right?

[laughingliberal]

26. That's priceless!

Picture this. They flush a little guy out of a cave in Afghanistan. During the prosess of taking him into custody, he pulls out his documents of incorporation. I love it.

[leftstreet]

32. !!

Good one!

:thumbsup:

[northernlights]

46. good thinking

we've got to start thinking very creatively if we're going to survive this nightmare within a nightmare. A year ago I thought I woke up from a nightmare, but it seems it was just a nightmare within a nightmare. :scared: Is there any waking from this nightmare?

[Solly Mack]

9. Rule of law! Rule of Law! No one is above the law! No one is above the law!

(THE) Rule of law defined as: Some people are above the law.

[gleaner]

10. This doesn't even surprise me ......

It sickens me, but it is not new for Obama who is turning out to be quite the good little Bush Groupie. Last night I answered another post from one of his acolytes, and yes he still does have them. Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil, that kind of thing. I responded to the inane statement that he had only had a "day" or so to fix things. The implication being that this makes it alright.

I pointed out that it had been a lot longer than a day and he had "fixed" things. But good. He fixed them exactly the way the Republicans wanted them fixed. I know you must have heard the phrase, "the banality of evil," where things previously unthinkable are considered ordinary, business as usual. That is what this administration is doing for torture. Just a job. Just another interrogation tool. Not a crime, not and unfathomable and forbidden act, just old news that has lost its relevance. I will never understand that kind of thinking. Torture is barbaric. It was outlawed by many nations through the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg trials. It is wrong. It is unbearable to think that the US participates in it.

So now we have Obama cheerleader for and defender of torture. Good Republican soldier and facilitator. World class liar and betrayer of trust. I wonder if he sees the reflection of a human being when he looks in the mirror because he isn't acting like a human being. I don't think he ever did. I think he just took greater pains to conceal who he is and what he believes in.

[Goldstein1984]

12. Yes, things are going to get worse before

they get very and and then get better.

At this point I doubt the turning point is going to be nonviolent.

I wonder if the revolt is going to be just in the United States, or if the peasants of the world are going to rise together?

[Deja Q]

21. Neither.

Most people I know of don't or won't, which includes me.

The rest of the world has had incidents where French workers lock up CEOs or China's government executes bankers guilty of fraud (but they like to harm and kill people by default so do they really count? look at the list of poorly made/toxic products always being recalled, right down to medications they export for us to "re-import from Canada")).

[Goldstein1984]

28. Well, I'm already doing it

Without going into tedious detail, I've found many ways to withdraw from the system, and even a few ways to divert charitable contributions that previously helped prop up the system to organizations that challenge the status quo on a daily basis.

[Loudmxr]

14. I had a thought. It will take another Democratic president to finallly rid ourselves of Bush.

I regret not passing that by my congressmember the other night because I had some damage repair to do personally. (I have had a tough year. I've been beat up politically dragged through the mud etc. But I got up fought back and I am now the hero.)

I suspect either Obama or someone(s) close to him is compromised as to the Bush/Cheney prosecutions. I think it will take another Democratic president to really rid ourselves of the stain of the Bushies. Perhaps like Gore would have done because Clinton could not or would not do it with Reagan.

[enlightenment]

15. *Insert the very FOUL language I am thinking right now*

This is awful.
Can't wait for the defenders' to come in and tell us how we've 'misinterpreted' this decision (or rather, lack thereof).

Thank you for posting the link.

[Love Bug]

16. Has this been reported anywhere else? Who is this Chris Floyd fellow and what's his agenda?

Just wondering before I get all hopped up over this. I don't usually believe everything I read on the internets.

[Waiting For Everyman]

18. They overlooked that one little word "inalienable"...

...not alienable even by the Supremes.

Maybe they need a dictionary for Christmas?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights

"Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable.

That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. The personal rights to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States are inalienable. Similarly, various types of property are inalienable, such as rivers, streams, and highways."

[glinda]

20. I do not understand why this is happening, if true.

[Deja Q]

22. "if true"

I agree.

Why are we constantly in "question mode"? :(

[glinda]

35. because we actually don't know what the hell is going on....until after the fact.

[Mari333]

23. Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD31N20091214

[Xicano]

25. Change We Can Believe In!!

Fuck You Obama! You can take your idea of change and stick it up your ass. This asshole has become a mirror image of Bush as far as I am concerned.

:argh:

[Stinky The Clown]

27. I won't buy this until I see it on a serious, reputable site.

[onenote]

29. gee, a link to the briefs and orders in this case would be nice.

All I know is that this was a denial of certiorari -- meaning there weren't four justices that thought the court should take up the case. Far from being "extraordinary" as the article linked in the OP claims, the disposition of a petition for cert by a one line order of denial occurs in about 99 percent of all cases that are brought to the court. The rare thing would be for the court (a) to grant cert or (b) say anything more than "cert denied" when issuing such an order.

So, until someone shares the briefs, I'm going to reserve judgment on exactly what the government argued and how 'passionate" those arguments were (they weren't oral -- just in a written brief on the question of whether the court should take the case). And I think, given Mr. Floyd's hyperbole, I regard what he wrote with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[girl gone mad]

34. Here is the ruling:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200801/06-5209a.pdf

[dana_b]

60. so page 37 says:

While the defendants do not dispute that
“person” is a broad term that has been interpreted as including
aliens, they point out that, under various constitutional
provisions, “person” does not include a non-resident alien.

and on 43:
Because the
plaintiffs are aliens and were located outside sovereign United
States territory at the time their alleged RFRA claim arose,26 they
do not fall with the definition of “person.” Accordingly, the
district court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs’ RFRA claim.

So that's why its okay to torture them - wheeeee!!!!!!!!
:puke:

[northernlights]

48. I would hardly think that torture fits in with 99% of the cases brought into court nt

[Xicano]

30. The Big Question Is: "Who Is This Really Intended For?"

Does anybody really believe this meant only for persons who've committed an act of terrorism? Do we believe that our criminal courts are incapable of putting somebody on trial and reviewing the evidence against them? Remember we have only 5% of the world's population, but, 25% of the world's incarcerated. No, there's nothing wrong with our ability to convict people.

So then why this? The way I see it its laying the ground work for throwing into the dungeon political enemies of the oligarchy.

Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen and ladies, what means this extra judicial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it?

[onenote]

31. The big question is did you read the decisions and briefs?

I didn't, so I can't draw any judgment as to what this is "really intended for"

[newtothegame]

62. It's probably Pawn to Rook 5 in his big intergalactic chess game. n/t

[northernlights]

47. original intent won't matter anyway

because the "president" will be able to interpret it any way he or she likes. Sooner or later, "enemy combatants" will be little old lady with shopping carts or anything else annoying or unsightly to TPTB.

[Solly Mack]

33. More background

Supreme Court Remands Gitmo Torture Damages Case

http://washingtonindependent.com/22163/supreme-court-grants-review-in-landmark-torture-damages-case

[hayu_lol]

37. This has been around for a short while...

but has pretty much been hidden from the mainstream. Reason for the rulings appear to be keeping the truth from exposing a very large number of people for crimes and putting the crimes out in the public eye.

Protecting the Bush/Cheney regime I expect.

Shhhh...the public must not hear of this/that.

[Solly Mack]

40. Pretty much have to check the CCR/ACLU/Reprieve sites for news on the various suits

and rulings/lack of rulings.

Updates are almost always posted on DU. People just seem to miss them I guess.

[girl gone mad]

50. A real cause for concern is how broad the legal definition..

of "enemy combatant" is.

[Raine]

36. I guess nothing suprises me

anymore, we get screwed over again and again from every direction. :-(

[undeterred]

39. Whose agenda is it we are using to replace the Constitution?

[WT Fuheck]

41. dude is rapidly climbing the worst president ever pole.

torturers are immune

war criminals should not be prosecuted

civil liberties that date back to the Magna Carta? Don't need no steenking civil liberties!

[Vidar]

42. Obama doesn't kill as many in the Middle East or abuse as many in the US

as Bush & Cheney, but he's certainly fighting to maintain those powers.

[L0oniX]

43. George W. Obama

[amborin]

45. Scary! k&r

[joeunderdog]

49. The 9th year of the Bush Administration.

When is the CHANGE part?

[IndianaGreen]

53. The change was replacing Barney with Bo

That's the only thing that has changed.

[earth mom]

51. Interesting how so many DUers are extremely furious with Obama now.

I've been trying to inform people about him for over TWO YEARS and few would listen.

And all that time I was almost more furious with DUers than I was with Obama!

Wish I could say it's good not to be a lone voice in the wilderness, but honestly, I would rather have been proven wrong. :argh:

[Libertas1776]

52. Boo hoo

sorry Obama couldn't just wave his magic wand and make it go away:sarcasm: Well, at least that's what the Obamapologists have been saying about pretty much every other inexcusable Bush like action this president has committed thus far.

[Dragonfli]

55. The "magick wand" talking point is getting way past stale, time for a new fax from Rahm

[Heywood J]

56. Here's a great sentence.

The court held that the ATS and Geneva Conventions claims were covered by the Westfall Act because the defendants’ authorization, implementation and supervision of the alleged torture and detention of the detainees was within the scope of their employment.

It falls within the scope of an American federal job to allegedly-torture someone?

[G_j]

59. sounds like Alberto Gonzales speaking nt

[bullwinkle428]

57. Meh..."Due Process" protection always was overrated!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[dana_b]

58. so corporations are persons

and people are inhuman. War is peace and so on.

omg - i'm literally sick to my stomach.

[hfojvt]

61. this would be funny if it wasn't so sad

I mean DU's reaction. We are apparently upset because Obama didn't support this right of suspected terrorists to sue the US government, because we would just love to see Kalid Sheik Mohammed win a huge settlement against American taxpayers. It's a key principle of civilization to demand this!!! It sorta reminds me of all the weeping and gnashing of teeth here when Saddam's sons were killed.

I think sometimes the moonbat flies at noon, because in this alternative universe we hate police, Democrats, the US government and the American economic system, and we love suspected terrorists and the sons of dictators, and absolutes and hyperbolic attacks on our own country. "The Obama administration just destroyed civilization! (again)"

Can't we see the positives here? Rush Limbaugh could be declared an enemy combatant!!


p.s. to the dittoheads. The last line was a joke, and I would truly be worried and upset if something like that happened.

[immoderate]

63. Most of the detainees have already been released.

So they spent a few years in detention in a hellish place. If they were falsely imprisoned, whom should they complain to? :shrug:

--imm