(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free

The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

So, tell me, how is this better than Bush? Where's the Change?

Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future

And when you have an indefinite "war", then you can logically imprison almost anyone for as long as you want. I'm curious who here is going to rabidly defend this position.

Comments

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

(http://s265.photobucket.com/albums/ii239/policraticus/?action=view&current=wiygpl.jpg)

[ladypolitik.livejournal.com]

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

My "god" was interred in Paradise Valley, AZ in 1998.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

The main difference is that these people at least had a chance to go to trial -- now before people freak, let me explain.

A number of people held were completely innocent -- literally victims grabbed off the street. THESE are the people who are being released.

Others are known associates of terrorists but who they didnt directly have evidence for other than circumstantial evidence or probable cause. THOSE are the ones being discussed (I believe).

But if a trial has been had, I'm hoping that means it's easier to distinguish truly innocent victims from criminals who who are pretty sure about but may skip on a technicality.

[tridus.livejournal.com]

If they have a trial and are acquitted, then they should be let go. That's the system of justice we apply to our own citizens.

Keeping some other people jailed even though we can't show that they actually did anything is not justice.

[robert-johnson.livejournal.com]

It certainly isn't in keeping with the justice we were taught to expect in the America I grew up with.

[robert-johnson.livejournal.com]

Same OP? Same reply? Same response. Why are being an apologist for this?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

But this is saying that even after a trial finds them innocent, we can still hold them as enemy combatants until the "war" "ends", meaning forever.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

""Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future""

Are these the same officials that said the same thing before Obama was elected, or are these new people saying the same thing?...just wondering.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

well it's Obama officials who are authorized to release that info

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Definitely a good question. However, even if they are the same people, they have a new boss who's supposed to set the policy direction, and they would not have said that this is the policy if he had set something different.

[ladypolitik.livejournal.com]

So, tell me, how is this better than Bush? Where's the Change?

And when you have an indefinite "war", then you can logically imprison almost anyone for as long as you want. I'm curious who here is going to rabidly defend this position.


It isnt better than Bush, though your tie-in question on "change" isn't relevant to the debated issue.

President Obama has been quite different than recent predecessors in his insistence that he isnt infallible and incapable of mistakes. In fact, he's made a point of emphasizing--since the transition interim period--that the notion of "change" boils down to your participation in the process, and not in whining on the internet or screaming "gotcha" solely because you cant quit get over the outcome of Nov 4.

But then, you're not very clear about your intentions of even asking.

Tell us: where do YOU stand? Did you find indefinite detentions deplorable under Bush, or just now that Obama's in power? What did you do about it then, and plan to do about it now?

See, you either (1) plan to do your small civic part to effect pressure on the Obama admin to not carry out in this fashion; (2) are an inexcusably lazy, apathetic citizen under the apparent impression that whining on the internet constitutes political participation; or (3) are just trivializing/exploiting the news on indefinite detention for your own bitter, petty, and immature hang up with partisan oneupmanship.

So far, you dont give a very good impression that your agenda is either (1) or (2). And of course, once you evoke the latest development on indefinite detentions in any way based on (3), you're not entitled to be taken very seriously in the debate to begin with.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It isnt better than Bush, though your tie-in question on "change" isn't relevant to the debated issue.

One of the things people believed Obama was going to change was the way we were handling the "War of Terror". This is showing that there isn't a substantial change.

that the notion of "change" boils down to your participation in the process

And he has no way to give everyone a way to participate in the process.

But then, you're not very clear about your intentions of even asking.

My intention is to highlight hypocrisy.

Did you find indefinite detentions deplorable under Bush

Absolutely.

What did you do about it then, and plan to do about it now?

Highlight the problem to as many people as possible in order to stir people to action.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I'm curious who here is going to rabidly defend this position.

It's indefensible.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Good point. Don't forget to write to your local congress member.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Just because he isn't the complete opposite of Bush doesn't mean there hasn't been any change. It's getting tiring hearing people getting sand in their vag and whining about "where's the change?"

That being said, yes this is disappointing. If they don't have enough evidence for a conviction then they should let them go.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

A product of American politics is subject to business as dictated by the lobbiests. Until the system changes this is the USA, the same old imperial power. Only by revolution will it change.

[ladypolitik.livejournal.com]

This is an inexcusable cop out in the 21st century, under governments where aggressive grass-roots pressure are not met with deadly repression. Lobby interests rule the day in North American politics because citizens' laziness/apathy lets it.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Only by revolution will it change.

I'm sure that can be arranged.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

All hail the rise of the glorious Domination of the Church of St. Chivington! May our glorious black banner with a yellow cross wave high over the repressive state that will poke you with the fluffy cushion and the comfy chair! Hail, Domination of the Church of St. Chivington!

*Merrily dances to the Danse Macabre.*