Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The US is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:15 PM
Original message
The US is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws
"The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals."

- Barack Obama in http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16text-obama.html">2009

Consider this quote when you read this about the executive order signed today reaffirming indefinite detention without trial:


A new Obama administration executive order pertaining to Guantanamo detainees held under purported "law-of-war" detention provides an additional layer of review not previously available. However, the order also continues the practice of indefinite detention without trial, a practice that violates international law, Human Rights Watch said today.

...

"Is added review an improvement? Yes. Does it make US detention policies lawful? No"


http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/03/07/us-indefinite-detention-authorized-restricted

When a person does illegal things what do we usually call that person?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. What about when the laws are illegal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Us regular people still go to jail
Edited on Tue Mar-08-11 02:20 PM by no limit
and are called criminals for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I didn't ask what they are called.
or if they go to jail.

Although the fact that they do under illegal laws in a two tier system lacking proper equal enforcement is wrong.

What you posted is part of the problem.

And I am still due beer and travel money and many experiences.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. You lost me again buddy, sorry
Maybe I didn't understand your question, but you said what about laws that are illegal. I simply stated that if I break a law that I think is illegal I am still treated like a criminal by our legal system. Were you looking for a different answer (again, sorry if I misunderstood your question).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm completely and totally sick of this shit.
What the hell good is he, if he does this shit?

Either he doesn't oversee his power very well, and someone else made this decision without him knowing.

Or

He actually made the decision to support this kind of crap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't see how he could be unaware of a executive order he himself had to sign
Edited on Tue Mar-08-11 02:25 PM by no limit
edit: typo, I meant unaware not aware. Sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Yeah, I knew what you meant!
:P

And I agree, but I just wanted to add in that policy.

I mean, if he wasn't aware of it and he approved it, what is this, fucking Colonel Blake on M*A*S*H?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. I AGREE...
HE SHOULD IGNORE CONGRESS AND DO THE WHATEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS TOO....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. Congress had nothing to do with this executive order. Just because you repeat a lie
over and over again doesn't make that lie true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. typing it in all caps over and over and over does make it true tho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #46
57. And also endears us all to the poor demented typist who can't
seem to shut off the caps lock key. Poor ting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not sure what else Obama can do here....
The congress will not let him close Gitmo.....but I guess here at DU we have to blame Obama so let's do it....the RNC could not ask for a better friend than DU.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Did congress force him to put out this executive order yesterday?
Edited on Tue Mar-08-11 02:22 PM by no limit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. YES. OF COURSE....
And here is the statement from the WH:

"In the Archives speech, the President recognized there are certain Guantanamo detainees who have not been charged, convicted, or designated for transfer, but must continue to be detained because they “in effect, remain at war with the United States.” For this category of detainees, the President stated: “We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.”
Today, the President issued an Executive Order establishing such a process for these detainees. A copy of the order is attached.

The periodic review established by this order will help to ensure that individuals who we have determined will be subject to long-term detention continue to be detained only when lawful and necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States. If a final determination is made that a detainee no longer constitutes a significant threat to our security, the Executive Order provides that the Secretaries of State and Defense are to identify a suitable transfer location outside the United States, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and applicable law. As the President has stated before, no Guantanamo detainee will be released into the United States."

THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. pissing on the Constitution and democratic justice makes sense?
Edited on Tue Mar-08-11 02:29 PM by mike_c
What part of "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" don't you understand? Why are we confining 170-some innocent people indefinitely?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Where does it say congress made him put this executive order out?
Edited on Tue Mar-08-11 02:29 PM by no limit
Do you disagree with the human rights watch that what they are doing is illegal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Glenn Greenwald's perspective differs from yours.
The preservation of the crux of the Bush detention scheme was advocated by Obama long before Congress' ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. It was in May, 2009 -- a mere five months after his inauguration -- that Obama stood up in front of the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives and demanded a new law of "preventive detention" to empower him to imprison people without charges: a plan the New York Times said "would be a departure from the way this country sees itself." It was the same month that the administration announced it intended to continue to deny many detainees trials, instead preserving the military commissions scheme, albeit with modifications. And the first -- and only -- Obama plan for "closing Guantanamo" came in December, 2009, and it entailed nothing more than transferring the camp to a supermax prison in Thompson, Illinois, while preserving its key ingredients, prompting the name "Gitmo North."

None of this was even arguably necessitated by Congressional action. To the contrary, almost all of it took place before Congress did anything. It was Barack Obama's position -- not that of Congress -- that detainees could and should be denied trials, that our court system was inadequate and inappropriate to try them, and that he possessed the unilateral, unrestrained power under the "laws of war" to order them imprisoned for years, even indefinitely, without bothering to charge them with a crime and without any review by the judiciary, in some cases without even the right of habeas review (to see why claims of such "law of war" detention power are so baseless, see the points here, especially point 5).

In other words, Obama -- for reasons having nothing to do with Congress -- worked from the start to preserve the crux of the Bush/Cheney detention regime. Even with these new added levels of detention review (all inside the Executive Branch), this new Executive Order is little more than a by-product of that core commitment, and those blaming it on Congress either have little idea what they're talking about or are simply fabricating excuses in order to justify yet another instance where Obama dutifully "bolsters" the Bush War on Terror template. Indefinite detention and military commissions are continuing because Obama worked from the start for that goal -- not because Congress forced him to do so.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Did Congress make him state that he thinks he has the power to indefinitely...
detain people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL STATEMENT FROM THE WH
it's not indefinite....that's a DU talking point.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. So you are looking at the statement from the white house and not the actual executive order?
did you take Bush statements at face value as well? Judging by your avatar you didn't. So what changed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. this did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Ok, so you trust anything Obama says because he is the adult in the room
thank you for clearing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. yep!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Thanks for making that clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedvermoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
49. And he looks great in a bathing suit, too!!!
Amazing how far down the hole we have gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Then what is the definite time frame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. WH never said...
indefinitely....that's a DU talking point....nice fucking try....feel like I am dealing with FOX News....hahaha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. I'll repeat what rucky said above: what is the definite time frame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. huh?
you think Obama should give a time frame...ask congress...they have the power of the purse....don't you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. The power of the purse has nothing to do with this. If you don't know a definite answer
then it's indefinite detention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. it costs money for Obama to do things...
who do you think funds this? CONGRESS....until now they have not provided the funds.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. This was funded until Obama signed a bill that prevented funding
but again you didn't answer the question. If you have no definite date for when a trial will take place then it's indefinite detention.

Are you capable of smashing 2 braincells together to understand this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. FROM THE TALKING POINTS MEMO WEBSITE
Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tells TPM he will introduce legislation barring any government funds from being used to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian courts. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

AGAIN, THIS IS IN CONGRESS' CONTROL....I KNOW YOU ARE A GOOD DU SOLDIER and blame Obama for everything but that does not mean it's right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. I guess the answer is you don't have the 2 braincells needed to understand this
caps lock isn't a substitute for thinking.

Any legislation congress passes Obama must sign in to law. He is under no obligation to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. I think we better stop this debate....
you are not understanding much of anything....it costs money to provide the detainees DUE PROCESS....congress is NOT funding this....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. That funding was there until Obama signed a bill in to law which stopped that funding
yes, we will have to stop this debate. Because I repeated this over and over. The last time I did you pointed to something completely irrelevent. When I pointed out to you that Obama would need to sign that in to law we are back to a totally different argument on your part again.

Plus you already said anything Obama ever says you believe. So I'm not sure what there is left to discuss. The human rights watch isn't good enough for you, Obama's own executive order isn't good enough for you. What's good enough for you is Obama's public justifications for his illegal actions. Simple as that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. Still waiting....
You were so eager to post how we were all so full of shit earlier. What happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
48. what we're blaming obama for is overpromising..
once again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. I guess none of his commitments are really
unshakable. Seems he is all over the place on his commitments depending on what is politically expedient for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. you are so right....
he is king and can do whatever he wants to without congress' approval and funding....Obama shiould know better.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. in this context, we call them war criminals....
I am so disgusted with Obama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. I know...
he should just close down GITMO without congress' approval and funding.....Obama is a wealthy guy....he must have enough money to do it himself...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Obama signed the law that prevented him from closing down Gitmo
it was the defense authorization bill he signed in early 2010 which he had the power to veto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. sure....
Obama should not have signed the defense bill....a president has only signed a bill 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that have things in it they hate but have to sign the bill for other reasons....but Obama does it and he is a bad guy....Am I in the FOX News website now....hard to tell the difference these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
24. I know facts are ignored but here is the WH statement on the issue
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 7, 2011
FACT SHEET: NEW ACTIONS ON GUANTANAMO AND DETAINEE POLICY

In a speech nearly two years ago at the National Archives, the President advanced a four-part approach to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, keeping our country safe, and upholding the law: (1) to bring detainees to justice in prosecutions in either federal civilian courts or in reformed military commissions, (2) to comply with court-ordered releases of detainees, (3) to transfer detainees from Guantanamo whenever it is possible to do so safely and humanely, and (4) when neither prosecution nor other legal options are available, to hold these individuals in lawful military detention. He affirmed that “whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts.”

The Administration remains committed to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and to maintain a lawful, sustainable and principled regime for the handling of detainees there, consistent with the full range of U.S. national security interests. In keeping with the strategy we laid out, we are proceeding today with the following actions:
Resumption of Military Commissions
The Secretary of Defense will issue an order rescinding his prior suspension on the swearing and referring of new charges in the military commissions. New charges in military commissions have been suspended since the President announced his review of detainee policy, shortly after taking office.

The Administration, working on a bipartisan basis with members of Congress, has successfully enacted key reforms, such as a ban on the use of statements taken as a result of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and a better system for handling classified information. With these and other reforms, military commissions, along with prosecutions of suspected terrorists in civilian courts, are an available and important tool in combating international terrorists that fall within their jurisdiction while upholding the rule of law.
Executive Order on Periodic Review
In the Archives speech, the President recognized there are certain Guantanamo detainees who have not been charged, convicted, or designated for transfer, but must continue to be detained because they “in effect, remain at war with the United States.” For this category of detainees, the President stated: “We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.”
Today, the President issued an Executive Order establishing such a process for these detainees. A copy of the order is attached.
The periodic review established by this order will help to ensure that individuals who we have determined will be subject to long-term detention continue to be detained only when lawful and necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States.

If a final determination is made that a detainee no longer constitutes a significant threat to our security, the Executive Order provides that the Secretaries of State and Defense are to identify a suitable transfer location outside the United States, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and applicable law. As the President has stated before, no Guantanamo detainee will be released into the United States.

We are grateful to all of our allies and partners who have worked with the Administration to implement the transfers undertaken thus far in a secure and humane manner, especially those who have resettled detainees from third countries. Our friends and allies should know that we remain determined in our efforts and that, with their continued assistance, we intend to complete the difficult challenge of closing Guantanamo.
Continued Commitment to Article III Trials
Pursuant to the President’s order to close Guantanamo, this Administration instituted the most thorough review process ever applied to the detainees held there. Among other things, for the first time, we consolidated all information available to the federal government about these individuals. That information was carefully examined by some of our government’s most experienced prosecutors, a process that resulted in the referral of 36 individuals for potential prosecution. Since the time of those referrals, the Departments of Justice and Defense, with the advice of career military and civilian prosecutors, have been working to bring these defendants to justice, securing convictions in a number of cases and evaluating others to determine which system – military or civilian – is most appropriate based on the nature of the evidence and traditional principles of prosecution.
In recent months, some in Congress have sought to undermine this process. In December, Congress enacted restrictions on the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees in Federal courts. The Administration opposes these restrictions as a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to Executive authority to select the most effective means available to bring terrorists to justice and safeguard our security. The Executive Branch possesses the information and expertise necessary to make the best judgment about where a particular prosecution should proceed, and Congress’s intrusion upon this function is inconsistent with the long-standing and appropriate allocation of authority between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Time and again, our Federal courts have delivered swift justice and severe punishment to those who seek to attack us. In the last two years alone, federal prosecutors have convicted numerous defendants charged with terrorism offenses, including those who plotted to bomb the New York subway system; attempted to detonate a bomb in Times Square; and conspired in murderous attacks on our embassies abroad. These prosecutions have generated invaluable intelligence
about our enemies, permitted us to incapacitate and detain dangerous terrorists, and vindicated the interests of victims – all while reaffirming our commitment to the rule of law. Spanning multiple administrations, Republican and Democratic, our Federal courts have proven to be one of our most effective counterterrorism tools, and should not be restricted in any circumstances.
Military commissions should proceed in cases where it has been determined appropriate to do so. Because there are situations, however, in which our federal courts are a more appropriate forum for trying particular individuals, we will seek repeal of the restrictions imposed by Congress, so that we can move forward in the forum that is, in our judgment, most in line with our national security interests and the interests of justice.

We will continue to vigorously defend the authority of the Executive to make these well-informed prosecution decisions, both with respect to those detainees in our custody at Guantanamo and those we may apprehend in the future. A one-size-fits-all policy for the prosecution of suspected terrorists, whether for past or future cases, undermines our Nation’s counterterrorism efforts and harms our national security.
Support for a Strong International Legal Framework
Because of the vital importance of the rule of law to the effectiveness and legitimacy of our national security policy, the Administration is announcing our support for two important components of the international legal framework that covers armed conflicts: Additional Protocol II and Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Additional Protocol II, which contains detailed humane treatment standards and fair trial guarantees that apply in the context of non-international armed conflicts, was originally submitted to the Senate for approval by President Reagan in 1987. The Administration urges the Senate to act as soon as practicable on this Protocol, to which 165 States are a party. An extensive interagency review concluded that United States military practice is already consistent with the Protocol’s provisions. Joining the treaty would not only assist us in continuing to exercise leadership in the international community in developing the law of armed conflict, but would also allow us to reaffirm our commitment to humane treatment in, and compliance with legal standards for, the conduct of armed conflict.
Article 75 of Additional Protocol I, which sets forth fundamental guarantees for persons in the hands of opposing forces in an international armed conflict, is similarly important to the international legal framework. Although the Administration continues to have significant concerns with Additional Protocol I, Article 75 is a provision of the treaty that is consistent with our current policies and practice and is one that the United States has historically supported.
Our adherence to these principles is also an important safeguard against the mistreatment of captured U.S. military personnel. The U.S. Government will therefore choose out of a sense of legal obligation to treat the principles set forth in Article 75 as applicable to any individual it detains in an international armed conflict, and expects all other nations to adhere to these principles as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Badfish Donating Member (543 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Yep , facts are ignored here.
It's getting old.

It also seems lying and the liars are protected on this forum.

The DU allows outright lies to be posted , and then deletes posts where the lie and liar is called out.

This behavior encourages liars , I just don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. What are the facts?
Edited on Tue Mar-08-11 02:43 PM by no limit
Are the detention policies discussed here legal according to international law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. yep....
this is turning into a sort of FOX News....it's a 24/7 Obama hate fest that can lead to a repub in the WH for the next 50000000 years....progressives always seem to have a need to complain about things no matter what the facts are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. what is the definite time frame for when these people will have a trial?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Cant answer the question...
I dont have access to the court docket/schedule....that must be a national security issue....how do you expect me to know that answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. Yup. How could an american citizen expect a right to know when people will be given a fair trial
the government can keep wether they are following the constitution or not a secret. And it is your job to believe them as long as that government is ran by someone with a (d) after their name. But if that government is ran by someone with a (R) after the name? War criminal!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

You win this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #35
58. Actually they complain when shit is fucked up.
Yeah you can keep saying the facts are on your side. But the FACT is people are being detained on the word of the government alone no proof, no evidence. "Take my word for it he's a bad guy".
If you don't see the flaws in that logic you have no right calling yourself an American.

This was one of the most basic reasons for the founding of our country. The right of a man to face his accusers, and to provide evidence of his innocence in an open court of law. The right of a man not to be dragged off by men in black in the middle of the night and thrown in a prison never to be heard from again.

Basic. Human. Rights.


But hey, don't let that get in the way of your Chicken Little 5000000000 years of Republican rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
32. ....except when inconvenient, embarrassing, or the Republicans disapprove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
45. Obama certainly talks the talk. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
56. Politicians lie
Almost always. I wish I had kept that more in mind when I jumped on board the hope and change bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
59. Politicians lie to get elected...I know, shocking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. The thing with this statement is it came after he was already elected in 2009
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
60. So he'll just change the laws to whatever he wants them to be.
Constitutional scholar. He knows the ins and outs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC