On Detainee Treatment, Sanity Still Prevailing at the White House (from the Heritage Foundation)

[mmonk]

From February 18th, 2009

On Detainee Treatment, Sanity Still Prevailing at the White House

Obama Administration for choosing the security of the American people over the bumper sticker slogans of the far left. Today, the New York Times details the Obama Administration’s continued prudence on some key national security issues:

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield” amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials.

-snip-

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/18/on-detainee-treatment-sanity-still-prevailing-at-the-white-house/

You see, for some of us, it is not about left or right, or dissing Obama at every turn. For some of us, it is about right and wrong and due process under the law. This appraisal from those against these principles is our legitimate concern over this nominee. Remember someone in our country (supposedly) is a suspect with presumption of innocence until found guilty or not guilty in a court of law.

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[G_j]

2. I feel better now...

:-(

[time_has_come]

3. they can judge sanity? n/t

[mmonk]

4. Nope.

[Rex]

5. Always be wary of insane people talking about sanity.

As if they have any. The HF is an evil group of malcontents bent on world dominion.

[DBoon]

6. so now the Bill of Rights is a "bumper sticker of the far left"?

Of course it isn't like the authors of that document had any idea a religious inspired terrorist could cause mass murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes

[rudy23]

7. According to some here today, pissing off the left AND right is a good thing. Someone should remind

this admin to piss of the left every once in awhile, for a genuine reason.

[mmonk]

9. This is a partcular bad piss off.

The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the constitution and its principles and its Bill of Rights. A nominee should reflect those principles of freedom.

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. Bravo!

Specifically in regard to indefinite detention, this nominee is should be rejected regardless of party affiliation or place on the political spectrum.

The continuation of the Bush era policies in this realm is unacceptable, but not unexpected. It is a craven political choice made at the expense of the Constitution and this choice is lubricated with fear by this Admin. just as it was in the GW Bush reign of terror.

[G_j]

11. that is frightening to me nt

[Luminous Animal]

10. Thank you, mmonk.

Given that she has a scant record with which to judge her, Ms. Kagan's answers during her SG confirmation hearing are the best we are going to get in regards to assessing her commitment to the rule of law. With the Heritage Foundation and other reactionaries on her side, it doesn't look good.

[mmonk]

13. You're welcome.

I thought if I showed those which do not support the rule of law and the rights of the individual in our legal tradition put forward through the Bill of Rights supporting her and her answers, that it may open some eyes.

[Orsino]

12. And there's the next Republican government's 6-3 Court.

I assume that any bumper-sticker sloganeering found on heritage.org is at least mostly a lie, but Kagan seems to have given them a money quote.

[mmonk]

14. Yes, at least in the area of being a suspect and detention.

This makes the protection and guarantees of the rule of law and trial more difficult and is a 180 degree departure from the retiring justice.

[ima_sinnic]

15. just more confirmation that "restoring habeas corpus" was another LIE

I thought "restoring habeas corpus" was of such supreme importance that it was going to be done "immediately" upon Obama assuming office?

For almost a year and a half now--ever since he became president--it has been hinted at (in some cases, more than "hinted at") that habeas corpus is still not restored and in fact that detainees are still being abused and held without trial.

I am disgusted beyond words. This president is nothing but a marketing gimmick, an eloquent and high-tech Teddy Ruxpin who will say whatever he is trained to say in a way that is completely convincing but completely fake. He has no more interest in "restoring habeas corpus" than he does of lifing Don't ask don't tell, of getting at least a public option for health insurance (let alone single-payer), of actually having health care "reformed," or of ending offshore drilling for oil.

What kind of "constitutional scholar" would even dream of appointing such a soulless, constitutionally INcorrect person to the highest court in the land after giving eloquent speeches about the rock-bottom fundamental importance of habeas corpus?

he lost me back when he made his little deals with health insurers and Big Pharma at the expense of We The People while pretending he "couldn't get the votes" for something he had already ensured we would never have, so I am surprised I could feel even more disgusted and outraged now than I did then, but the bottomless pit of lack of principles, the absolute zero when it comes to really standing for anything and feeling no shame about pretending to do so is absolutely astounding.

but what does he care if he loses the loyalty of those who voted for him? he's got something far far better than We The People to care about--we did him the favor of voting for him, but our usefulness is long over and he's about finished pretending we were anything but a convenient means to an end for him, something he could use to advance his agenda of making the world safe for the soulless elites. Martin Luther King Jr should be spinning in his grave now.

[mmonk]

16. It was the lie that made me an Obama delegate during the election.

It is the lie I will not forgive. When he signed this, not only did I decide I would vote for him, I would work for his nomination and presidency. I will never be fooled again if I can help it but what can you do when they lie?

[ima_sinnic]

20. you know, I remember reading a few warnings before the election about the fact that

he was actually quite unprincipled, from people who had been on the ground in Illinois for a few years.
I felt alarmed and suspected deep down they were right, but by that time we were so far entrenched in the primaries, or maybe even beyond them, and the whole process had become so obviously out of our control (orchestrated and massaged as it was by the media to ensure we would get only the candidates we were "supposed" to get--remember how Edwards came in 2nd in Iowa, between Obama and Hillary, but wasn't even mentioned in the "analyses" of that caucus?--but I digress)--anyway, the momentum for Obama was too strong to reverse by then, so all I could do was switch from Kucinich and "go with the flow"--and his being a "constitutional scholar" was very reassuring to me, as was his bullshit about being a "community organizer" (later, a lot later, I read that all he did was register people to vote or something).

I remember in summer 2007 telling someone I thought Obama was "a tool in the making" and I wasn't that impressed by him--can't believe how prescient I was--there was just something about him that suggested "chameleon"--but what could we do when faced with the choice between McCain and Obama? Next time I'll write in Howard Dean.

[mmonk]

22. I should have listened to a friend of mine.

She told me but she was also against Clinton.

[Hannah Bell]

17. kagan's position apparently is (per the graham questioning)

the world is a battlefield.

the war is forever.

if a court says you're an enemy combatant, the government can do anything it wants to you, without trial.

[mmonk]

18. Yes. The purview of kings, not democratic republics.

[TexasObserver]

19. When the Heritage Foundation endorses an appointment, it's bad.

[Hannah Bell]

21. lindsey graham likes her too.

apparently the only folks who don't are the faux-opposition teabaggers, who are spouting the usual: "she's a socialist! she hates the military!"