Oh Shit, Obama's New Executive Order-YES TO INDEFINITE DETENTION!

[kpete]

EXECUTIVE ORDER:
SECTION 2
http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files/2011/03/110307-Executive_Order_on_Periodic_Review.pdf

Obama has declared that he has the authority under the 2001 AUMF to indefinitely hold anyone “if it is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States.”

He doesn’t say that person has to be a terrorist, much less part of al Qaeda. He doesn’t say that person has to have any tie to the enemy as defined by the 2001 AUMF, that is, “those nations, organizations, or persons determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” He doesn’t even say that person has to have been rounded up on a battle field, however you define that.

If detaining someone indefinitely is “necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States,” Obama says, he can do it.


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/07/a-modest-proposal-indefinitely-detain-the-banksters/

[louis-t]

1. Sadly, no future president will relinquish this power.

Thanks, bush. Asshole.

[Chris_Texas]

21. Bush?

[Badfish]

34. California already does this.

The indefinite detention of sexually violent predators in Cali has been active for some time now , and it has nothing to do with national security.

[Badfish]

42. Not to mention the Supreme Court has ...

already ruled on indefinite detention. http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/38/4/615

[defendandprotect]

75. Thse are our "Nuremberg Law Judges" -- anything the dictator tells them to do, they do--!!

Presume we all remember the filthy Nuremberg Laws and the Judges who actually

made rulings based on and upholding those laws!!

[WinkyDink]

94. (wrong post place.)

[JDPriestly]

120. But sexually violent predators have, I would assume, committed and

been convicted of a sexual crime -- at least at some point in their lives.

This is not at all comparable. This means that the president is claiming the right to imprison political prisoners for life even when they have not been tried or convicted of anything.

Now what kinds of things might cause a president to put someone who has not committed a crime of any sort, not been tried or convicted in jail?

You got it -- the exercise of free speech, free association and free thought.

This is total dictatorship.

[louis-t]

36. He's the one that opened Pandora's Box.

Precedent was set by the little drunk.

[Chris_Texas]

64. And? Oh. You're right. Obama DOES do everything Bush did.

[louis-t]

111. Just about.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Holding someone indefinitely

Is a threat against the United States.

How stupid is that comment, whoever said it. :rofl: Either such posts are PR, or they just aren't figuring it out.

It doesn't even understand that the concept of due process is part of what the 'United States' is.

I know what they are doing, they think they are right and will prevail, if they think those things, it is opposite syndrome.

And I am still due beer and travel money.

[tomp]

86. in my opinion, they're not thinking about right/wrong....

...because they are corporatist politicians who are generally as sociopathic as the corporations they represent.

but i also believe they want these powers to use against us! one day it will come to us vs them more openly, and they will use this power to try to stop a revolution (which is also why i don't think the timing of this announcement is an accident with the wisconsin battle still going on).

or maybe that's just the paranoia speaking.

[Duval]

129. Nope. Don't think it is paranoia.

Or, I'm being paranoid, too. Remember all the "holding pens" built by Halliburton during the Bush years? I seem to also recall that there were, at one time anyway, Blackwater snots in every state. With what is going on in Wisconsin, gas prices going up, the economy, etc, we may just reach the tipping point when we all take to the streets in protest. It has been too long in coming. I believe Bush would have gathered us all up and detained us indefinitely, but I'm still inclined to believe Obama would not do that. However, I've been disappointed several times in our President, so all bets are off.:think: :shrug: :kick:

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[russspeakeasy]

138. Thanks random...

[Angry Dragon]

3. When is he going to start rounding up the radical right republicans??

[TBF]

30. History tells us it is more likely they will round up the leftists.

Palmer Raids
McCarthyism

Obama's DOJ and FBI target anti-war activists: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/18/obama-doj-and-fbi-target-anti-war-solidarity-activists/

[stillwaiting]

90. +1; They hyperventilate about "FEMA camps" while if said camps were ever used it would be to

lock leftists up.

They're safe as can be.

[grasswire]

4. Hail to King Obama

Ironically enough, successor to King George.

What a bunch of dumb shmucks we've been.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. That makes me sick.

Is this what we are about?

[Badfish]

44. If you live in cali , you should check post #34

Where is the outrage for that ?

[crikkett]

66. NIMBY

that's where your outrage is: not in their backyards. There's nowhere for the sex offenders to go, so they are housed on prison grounds and other places sufficiently isolated from us, the vulnerable public.

[slackmaster]

6. Indefinite detention with military tribunals is the new habeas corpus and civilian trials

Get with the program.

[ReggieVeggie]

7. "You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."

Barack Ob-- Ooops! I mean, George W. Bush

[AsahinaKimi]

49. "A dictatorship would be a lot easier "

New Republican Teabagger meme?

[zalinda]

8. Looks like Manning is never going to see daylight again. n/t

[boppers]

70. He's not at GITMO.

The EO only refers to GITMO.

[rhett o rick]

121. I was going to post this. We are no longer living in freedom. nm

[tekisui]

9. Fucking bullshit. Disgusting. Everyone should be pissed about this.

Fuck off habeas corpus.

This will only get expanded.

[Blue Owl]

10. I'm surprised the former president of the Harvard Law Review

would continue to implement these uneducated, totalitarian policies developed by the least popular pResident in American History.

C'mon Obama, you're better than this.

AMERICA IS BETTER THAN THIS.

[grasswire]

12. apparently, we're not

..and he's not.

[tekisui]

16. No, he is not. We are not anymore.

[StarburstClock]

23. Most people in America are better than this, our leaders are not

They represent us in the world too so the rest of the world does indeed hold this against all Americans.

[MilesColtrane]

53. He wanted to ship them to U.S. soil for criminal trials.

Congress said "No".

[malaise]

85. It's hard to take given the promises

but you are correct

[annabanana]

98. +1000. . The reporting is calling it a "flip flop".. This is clearly having

it's intended effect of fracturing the left. It was LIEBERMAN and the BLUE DOGS in the Senate that made closure impossible during the first 2 years. It is the HOUSE that is making it impossible now.

These obstructions are being helped with great heaping shovelfuls of propaganda from CorpoMedia©.

[poverlay]

117. Exactly. What are we supposed to do? Let 'em go in Boston with lunch money and

a pat on the head?

[readmoreoften]

55. Many scholars study things to find loopholes in them.

The whole "Constitutional Scholar" thing always worried me more than anything else. Being a constitutional scholar doesn't mean you're on the side of the people anymore than being a scholar of Hitler's writings means you're a Nazi.

[mmonk]

88. You're right but some of us fell for it like the public option.

[speltwon]

141. I think it's the reverse of what the right wing does in demonizing intellectuals

often. We tend to assume good motives. Iow, saying he's a constitutional scholar- academic gives the impression that he respects restraint in regards to govt. authority and respects civil rights. Why? I think it's an assumption that is clearly wrong in any # of cases and shouldn't be made.

As the right rails against the academic elite as being "out of touch" etc. we take the opposite position. Recall Buckley's comment about rather being ruled by names taken out of random from the phone book than the Harvard faculty.

[defendandprotect]

77. Really, Obama told us he saw no reason for impeaching Bush - !!

Torture is still going on --

and now Indefinite Detention --

Right Wing America is certainly not better than this -- !!

Right wing America is destroyhing any ideals or decency we ever aimed for--!!


Obama is "better than this" -- see what they are doing to Bradley Manning!!

[tomp]

87. and current rightist president of the u.s. nt

[CoffeeCat]

125. ...and please don't forget that Obama...

taught CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the University of Chicago law school. His job was to remind
young minds of the importance of the Constitution.

Oh the irony.

Also, when Obama was running for President, he disseminated a "Blueprint For America"--a booklet
that spelled out his stances on important issues. This blueprint went into depth and was a
good source of information for voters who wanted more in-depth information about Obama's policies.

Inside that "Blueprint For America" was a paragraph on the importance of restoring Habeas Corpus--
rights that had been a part of our country for hundreds of years. Bush took them away, and Obama
wanted Habeas restored.

Habeas is pretty obscure. Most people don't know what it is, nor do they understand its importance
or that it has been taken away from us. Obama thought it was important enough to include in his
campaign materials. He knew it was wrong to have Habeas stripped from the American people.

Currently, Obama has done everything possible to usurp Habeas and to ensure that it is not restored.

You really have to ask yourself--who the frick is the dark force that looms over this country--that is
MORE POWERFUL than our President and is able to usurp our President? Don't tell me that Obama was
just faking it--only trying to get votes. It wasn't necessary to mention Habeas. He wanted it
restored.

Just what in the hell is going on in this country? The President is not in charge. I'm not saying
that Obama is not at fault. He is. He should be telling the American people what we're up against,
who these thugs are and what we can do to overthrow them. Our entire democracy and our government
is a perversion--a twisted mutation that leaves the President powerless.

That's what we need to be concerned about.

[grasswire]

11. I thought he was a Constitutional expert.

?

Expert enough to know how to attack it, I guess.

[defendandprotect]

78. Remember, Bush simply said, "It's only a GD'd piece of paper-- !!"

Easy to destroy things -- right wing is expert at that --

[Fire1]

13. I think he's been given directives. n/t

[flvegan]

14. Then why isn't he detaining Bush and Cheney?

Biggest threats this nation has ever faced.

[Lorien]

26. Truly. But the laws only seem to apply to us "small people". Cheney said that

Obama would keep all of the Bush imperial powers in place, he also said "nothing will Change" with a smirk. It burns me that he seems to be right about that (first time that he's been right about anything)!

[cui bono]

113. Because Cheney knows who really runs, I mean owns, this country. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

15. This is necessary

They hate us for our freedom, or something like that.

We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Were it not for our troops dropping bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq, we'd all by under Sharia law by now.

[Solly Mack]

17. K/R

[Badfish]

18. California has been doing this for some time now...

The indefinite detention of sexually violent predators has been the norm in Cali.

Even after they serve the sentence handed to them by the State.

And this has NOTHING to do with national security.

[hulka38]

65. Does the person have to be convicted

of a crime first or do they just pull people off the street?

[boppers]

71. In California, if the courts think you are going to be a threat, they keep you in.

If your mental illness prevents you from being released without being harmful to society, the state has an interest to continue to contain you.

[Lucky 13]

101. Those people have at least been convicted of a crime.

[StarburstClock]

19. Another in a series of criminal acts in a corrupt country

People will argue that it's not criminal because it's been made legal by criminals, failing to ever question their belief in a false paradigm. Sad thing is, torture is historically the most sure sign of a corrupt nation.

[leftstreet]

20. Wall Street is "a significant threat to the security of the United States"

Lock the fuckers up

[DFab420]

22. Calling BULLSHIT on FDL, THis only applies to people held in Gitmo!

If you actually read *gasp* the X.O. You'll find that in the FIRST paragraph is ties directly to people detained as defined by the 2001 AUFM.

the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,
including the Authorization for Use of Military Force of
September 2001 (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, and in order to ensure
that military detention of individuals now held at the
U.S. Naval Station, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (Guantánamo), who were
subject to the interagency review under section 4 of Executive
Order 13492 of January 22, 2009, continues to be carefully
evaluated and justified, consistent with the national security
and foreign policy interests of the United States and the
interests of justice, I hereby order as follows




This order is intended solely to establish, as a
discretionary matter, a process to review on a periodic basis
the executive branch's continued, discretionary exercise of
existing detention authority in individual cases. It does not
create any additional or separate source of detention authority,
and it does not affect the scope of detention authority under
existing law. Detainees at Guantánamo have the constitutional
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and nothing in this
order is intended to affect the jurisdiction of Federal courts
to determine the legality of their detention.

[tekisui]

25. It doesn't matter who it is claimed against. It is wrong, wrong WRONG.

And, the statement is bullshit, too. They have no habeas corpus when being held without charge.

It is much easier to go from 100 to 1,000 detainees than to go from 100 to zero. It sets a precedent and is wrong no matter who against.

[DFab420]

29. ?? Except FDL CLAIMED it didn't cite certain legal jargon.

That my statement is from the ACTUAL XO

ALso, how else are we supposed to move people out of Gitmo, if Congress won't fund civilian trials.. What do we do? We start having military tribunals again!!


Just.. let them all go? Are you so positive every person in Gitmo shouldn't be there??

[tekisui]

35. I am positive every person there deserves a fair trial.

Those that are found guilty should be sentenced. Those who are acquitted, released.

Claiming a power to detain indefinitely without charge is unconstitutional and a human rights abuse. There is no defense.

As for FDL's wording, they are technically accurate. It doesn't define the class by any of the terms used. You are also correct in that this E.O. is for those already being detained.

However, as this power is claimed and used, it will likely be expanded and further abused in the future.

[DFab420]

45. I agree

It is unconstitutional and a egregious human right violation.


This however doesn't allow NOR support INDEFINITE detention.

It allows for Military Tribunals to move forward. So they can be sentenced or acquitted.

[tekisui]

48. Ummm...Actually, it very much supports indefinite detention. That is

exactly what it does.

[Badfish]

46. Supreme court already ruled...

see post #34 at the top of the page.

[tekisui]

47. Yeah, that was a bad ruling. Very bad.

[no limit]

99. Well as long as the John Roberts supreme court said so it's a-okay.

[MilesColtrane]

59. "...as this power is claimed and used, it will likely be expanded and further abused in the future."

The AUMF should be absolutely repealed by Congress to prevent that.

That would also put an end to our "adventure" in Afghanistan.

[JDPriestly]

124. I am wondering whether the problem is that some of these suspects

have been tortured and that for that reason, some of the crucial evidence against them cannot be admitted in court. That could explain why they are being held.

There are a couple of other possible explanations. Maybe some of these prisoners are mentally ill, criminally so. That could even be due to their imprisonment or the conditions of their imprisonment. Admitting that would be highly damaging to the reputation of the US around the world.

Some of the prisoners may have been mentally ill to begin with, and the administration is afraid to let them out.

Some of the prisoners may have no safe place to go.

Some might have stories to tell that would be very embarrassing to the US.

Obama may fear what would happen if he released some of these prisoners and they then committed terrorist acts.

Obmaa may fear the political repercussions and hullabaloo that would result if he released some of these people now.

The releases of prisoners in the past (and a number have been released) may not have worked out well.

Obama may be afraid of what would happen to Bush and Cheney if the prisoners were released. And also what Bush and Cheney might do to Obama if the prisoners were released.

The problem is that the Constitution does not give the president the power to hold prisoners indefinitely on American soil. I would argue that Guantanamo is American soil. We are solely responsible for what happens there. The Supreme Court as it is now constituted may disagree with me, but it seems to me that our law should apply to locations in which we are the law and no other law applies.

Those are my thoughts of the moment.

This is utterly shameful.

The whole idea of Guantanamo is paranoid -- the creation of a very sick mind.

[OnyxCollie]

108. "Are you so positive every person in Gitmo shouldn't be there??"

What makes you so sure everyone's guilty? Are you so afraid that you think they should be held without a trial?

THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES: THE GOVERNMENT’S STORY
http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive
affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a
large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist
watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a
large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the
Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States
custody.

Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy
http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/second_report_guantanamo_detainees_3_20_final.pdf

1. The Department of Defense identified 72 terrorist organizations in the Combatant Status
Review Tribunals (“CSRT”). The Defense Department considers affiliation with any one of
these groups sufficient to establish that a Guantanamo detainee is an “enemy combatant” for
the purpose of his continued detention. This report refers to these 72 terrorist organizations
as the “Defense Department List.”
2. Fifty-two of those groups, 72% of the total, are not on either the Patriot Act Terrorist
Exclusion List or on two separate State Department Designated and Other Foreign Terrorist
Organizations lists (jointly referred to as the State Department Other Lists). These lists are
compiled for the purposes of enabling the government to protect our borders from terrorists
entering the United States.
3. Twelve of the organizations, 18% of the total, are on either the State Department Other Lists
or the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List, but not on both.
4. Members of 64 of the 72 groups the Defense Department believes to be terrorist
organizations, 89% of the total, would be permitted in the United States by either the State
Department Other Lists or the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List.

[bergie321]

128. Are you so positive every person in Gitmo shouldn't be there??

Yes. I believe in the Constitution. That EVERYONE is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

[coalition_unwilling]

134. Technically (and no small matter), everyone is PRESUMED innocent

until proven guilty in a court of law. You could be guilty as sin of whatever but are still presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law until the due process of law has run its course and you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers.

These military tribunals the Obama apologists keep trotting out to justify this outrage are nothing more than kangaroo courts.

I won't be voting for Obama in 2012.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. WE'VE ALREADY RELEASED INNOCENT PEOPLE AFTER *YEARS* OF DETENTION THERE

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Better that a thousand 'bad' men go free, than a single innocent man be incarcerated for nothing.

[tblue]

39. +1

[readmoreoften]

56. OOoooh. It only pertains to people we hold in offshore prisons.

Well, GOSH, that makes it so much better! (And as if it doesn't set a precedent.) I remember a time when Obama supporters swore to me he was going to close Gitmo down. Hell, I remember when Obama said that. Now we just have a continuation of Bush policy. Thanks for being okay with that.

[Bluebear]

63. *gasp*! Fail.

[yodermon]

93. EmptyWheel points this out, explicitly, in her post.

Mind you, Obama’s Executive Order laying out this amazing limitless standard specifies that the EO only applies to “those detainees held at Guantanamo on the date of this order.”

but then she immediately try's to weasel out of it with a bunch of hypotheticals:

But we all know that EOs don’t have to say what they mean. We know OLC ruled back in 2001 that, “There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.” We know Bush did just that–change the terms of an EO without changing the text, so none of us had warning we were being spied on. But when national security is threatened–our government has decided–it’s okay to change EOs with no warning.

So all Obama has to do to authorize the indefinite detention of the banksters that represent the biggest threat to our security right now is simply pixie dust his EO, and voila! He can round up the banksters, put them on some tropical island somewhere (I suspect they’ll feel right at home in the Cayman Islands).

It’s as easy as that, vanquishing a security threat, arbitrarily detaining people in the name of security forever.

Right?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/07/a-modest-proposal-indefinitely-detain-the-banksters/

[OnyxCollie]

109. Speaking of past executive orders,

I wonder what the Obama administration's take is on this one:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-51.htm

[cui bono]

114. Weasel out of what? n/t

[chill_wind]

115. It was satire and irony. n/t

[WinkyDink]

96. Your point is?

[JDPriestly]

122. "now held." I think that Obama needs to clarify this.

It has been rendered at a time in which the matter of Assange and Wikileaks is on all of our minds. Obama needs to clarify why he is doing this.

I don't think we know as much as we should about the individual prisoners in Guantanamo. Many of them have been released. Why are individuals still being held there? Who are they?

[Bandit]

24. Thank Goodness Scalia and Thomas said this was Constitutional..

:shrug: Due Process......right...

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[datasuspect]

28. fool me once

shame you you, fool my twice you won't get fooled again.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[DCKit]

32. The problem is: "Who Decides?" nt

[FiveGoodMen]

33. In my book, that makes him a war criminal and traitor.

He's playing the role of King.

He should be in a cell.

Awaiting punishment.

[spanone]

37. read it all....

Obama’s Executive Order laying out this amazing limitless standard specifies that the EO only applies to “those detainees held at Guantanamo on the date of this order.”

[tekisui]

38. One person being held without charge is too many.

It is still a human rights abuse and unconstitutional.

[spanone]

40. i completely agree, but this article implies much more.

[walldude]

50. It's still a constitutional violation...

Doesn't matter if they are in Gitmo or not.


But I digress, the constitution applies only to citizens. I guess wanting to look like we actually believe in the crap we spew by treating all people the same, is asking a bit too much.

[markpkessinger]

81. That limitation ONLY applies to the review process described in Section 3

From the order:

The periodic review described in section 3 of this order applies only to those detainees held at Guantánamo on the date of this order . . .

The periodic review process is limited in scope; the rest of the order is not.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[jsamuel]

43. Is our Constitution just a piece of paper?

[FiveGoodMen]

51. Correction: "Just a god-damned piece of paper"

At least according to our last two presidents.

[MilesColtrane]

52. Since this specific to detainees captured and held by the military under the AUMF,...

it hardly means that he can hold "anyone".

"(This order) does not create any additional or separate source of detention authority..."

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[readmoreoften]

57. (1) hunh? (2) I'm sure it'd be the same if Clinton was president.

Neither intended on changing Bush policy.

[SidDithers]

58. FDL needs a flashing red light .gif...

They're getting more and more Drudge-like every day.

Sid

[Scurrilous]

61. ROFL

:thumbsup:

[tekisui]

62. You have a point. Obama has been claiming this power since he took office.

Nothing new except that it is an extension of a horrid policy.

[grahamhgreen]

60. What a man! What a legacy!

[chill_wind]

67. "A Modest Proposal: Indefinitely Detain the Banksters"

Emptywheel

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/07/a-modest-proposal-indefinitely-detain-the-banksters/

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

69. Somebody didn't read it.

"It does not
create any additional or separate source of detention authority,
and it does not affect the scope of detention authority under
existing law. Detainees at Guantánamo have the constitutional
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and nothing in this
order is intended to affect the jurisdiction of Federal courts
to determine the legality of their detention"

Typical FDL, which is why I don't bother reading their trash.

[Bluebear]

73. Here's 981 other sources you can trash

http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&ncl=dPpNX7R_0TXk7cMIX0NSPK5z5URmM&topic=h

[boppers]

76. Hey, some people can't be bothered to read before typing.

They see a link, and assume the author of a post has actually read it, or that the content accurately reflects the message in a post.

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=winning+sheen

[Bluebear]

79. apropos of nothing. nt

[boppers]

82. The content linked to in the OP refutes the OP.

Indeed, so do many of the sources in the link you provided.

[SidDithers]

91. And those other sources also correct the FDL spin...

thanks for posting them.

Sid

[Major Hogwash]

83. Jane Hamster jumped the shark a long time ago.

She is only in it for the ratings, much like Glenn Beck and Sean Insanity.

[Liquorice]

72. So when he said he would shut it down, was he lying, or did he

change his mind? I can never decide whether he was lying during the campaign, or just naive. I think he was probably lying, and that's worse than being naive, but naive is pretty bad too. Either way, it irritates me that he doesn't come out and publicly explain why he said one thing during the campaign and then goes and does the exact opposite.

[boppers]

80. So, you see, there are different parts to the US government.

Obama ordered it shut down. Two days into office.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS

Congress blocked it, as did countries around the world.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/22/2029364/how-congress-thwarted-obamas-closing.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/20/barack-obama-guantanamo-congress-veto

Got that?

It's been explained more than a few times.

[no limit]

102. Do you know what a veto is? Are you aware that Obama has this power?

When congress decided they wouldn't allow any gitmo detainees to resettle in the US Obama could have used his veto. He didn't. He himself signed the bill in to law.

I am so sick of this bullshit when people try to blame congress alone for bills that Obama doens't have to sign.

[boppers]

143. Obama can't veto a veto.

It doesn't work that way.

[yodermon]

100. He cannot shut it down without an act of Congress.

Congress has no political will to do this, claiming transferring the prisoners to US soil would endanger us, yadda yadda yadda (says the country with the most Serial killers ).

The alternative would be to just release them all, wholesale, to their respective countries, and he'd probably be impeached for that.

[no limit]

103. Only because in 2010 he signed a law that prohibited gitmo detainees from being transferred to US

if he wanted to close Gitmo he wouldn't have signed that law.

[bergie321]

130. Sure he can.

He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Gitmo is a military installation. He could order the military to "open the cages" and pull out tomorrow.

[defendandprotect]

74. And then there's Bradley Manning .... !!! Disgraceful --- !!

[myrna minx]

84. Disgusting. K&R n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

89. I'm proud that our adult President is having a serious conversation

and making tough choices.

It's either this, or President Sarah Palin says yes to indefinite detention. We wouldn't want that!!!

Maybe we can indefinitely detain Social Security recipients without trial, so they can't pick up their entitlement checks. That would be a very responsible and bipartisan way to tackle the deficit.

[pecwae]

106. No, we'd be incensed

if a President Palin did the same. Just as we were incensed that President Bush did. Upset that President Obama follows suit - must be a plant or disruptor.

[bvar22]

92. Roll the tape please:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah


Somebody should tell Mr President that Video is FOREVER!



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[chill_wind]

97. A brilliant summation. Everyone should click that again

and refresh themselves.

:thumbsup:

[Oilwellian]

107. Brilliant response, thanks

I just tweeted the link. :D

[libmom74]

116. +1,000

[WinkyDink]

95. This is the precise and exact definition of "DESPOT."

[DirkGently]

104. Then we live in an authoritarian state, period. Absolutely illegal and unconscionable.

[Le Taz Hot]

105. One more bit of our Democracy

eliminated for political expediency. IS IT TIME TO TALK ABOUT A CHALLENGER YET??????

[AKDavy]

110. Slippery dystopian slope to tyranny

I am ashamed.

I'm only encouraged by my belief that this card house will be crashing down very soon.

[cui bono]

112. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss...

actually, worse.

This is a Democrat doing this shit. That is worse than a Republican doing it. Obama needs to change parties already ffs. Let us have our party back. We don't like this constant drift to the right! I don't want to be in the center!!!

[mistertrickster]

118. Once you give presidents power, they never give it up. We tried to warn the CONs,

but would they listen?

Noooo . . .

[JDPriestly]

119. This is aimed at protecting total information control.

What if, Mr. President, you are placing someone in permanent detention for the exercise of a fundamental right -- like the freedom of press or right of free speech?

This makes Mr. President a major violator of human rights in my book.

If we ever doubted that we live under a dictatorship of the oligarchs, we can set our doubt aside.

[Jakes Progress]

123. But, but. He's only president. He has no power.

The nasty other guys made him do it.

[DeSwiss]

126. POLICE STATE. - K&R n/t

[Lastactiongyro]

127. I 2012 will vote democrat and for Prez a 3rd party like socialists anytone

but Obama.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. OK, he should definitely know better

This is inexcusable.

He's done a lot of inexcusable things, but a Constitutional specialist shouldn't even THINK about this option.

[Blue_In_AK]

132. Fire him.

It has become obvious that he is not who he presented himself to be during the campaign. I'm done with him.

[WiffenPoof]

133. This Is Just Never Going To End, Is It?

Every day I cringe at the thought that there is yet another disappointment from the man that I had such high hopes for.

-PLA

[Enthusiast]

136. Is it fascism yet? nt

[snappyturtle]

137. Bad news. "Threat to security"..wonder what that encompasses?

:hide:

[derby378]

139. Does this mean it's time to primary Obama in 2012?

:shrug:

[WVRICK13]

140. We Are A Lost Nation

Controlled by the wealthy. This represents the desensitization of citizens that has been going on for quite some time. We have allowed the chipping away of freedoms in the name of security and we are now in a position that anyone can be detained for any reason for any length of time. I was warned by a friend (A Russian Jew who had just moved to the US from Israel) about these slow losses of our freedom. He told me that he knew what totalitarianism looked like and he recognized what was happening here. I laughed at his comments, thinking he was overly hyper because of his life in the USSR. Sadly, things have been happening just as he predicted. I am so disappointed in Obama, he has not done much but give me a more pleasing picture to look at on the news while he serves as an extension of Bush. I had the greatest hopes that Obama would bring sanity to our government and be a voice for the people, but we haven't even received very good lip service, except when he berates us liberals for not following his decisions in rank and file. I don't think it matters who is elected they are all playing for the same side and we are merely window dressing for a fake democracy.

[MisterP]

144. well, the Founding Fathers would be okay with this

remember? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
(hey, if it works for Health "Care Reform"...)

[sarcasmo]

145. Raygun 2.0 at it again.