Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Greenwald And Peter King Are Wrong About Obama's New Combatant Status Review Policy (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The policy should follow international standards (5+ / 0-)

    It is quite apparent to me [and Greenwald] that what you consider acceptable...is not acceptable.

    Are we talking in circles or your goal is just to "correct" Greenwald and paint him as exaggerating in his analogy of Bush=Obama?

    That Cheney, Bolton, Gingrich and the rest of the gang "praises Obama" for what he is doing on the subject should give you pause.

    •  What do you think I conider acceptable? (5+ / 0-)

      What do you think "international standards," as expressed by the Geneva Conventions,considers acceptable?

      You know, what is "constitutional," and what "complies with the Geneva Conventions"is not the only questions. They are threshold questions only.

      Bush failed these threshold questions. Obama has not.

      His failure is that the policy is deeply flawed.

      Attempts to say"Obama = Bush" on THIS issue are not only wrong, such claims obfuscate the real discussion we should be having - what SHOULD the policy be?

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:33:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The policy (4+ / 0-)

        should be to put people on trial in federal courts or let them go. You know, respect human rights, the Bill of Rights, and all that good stuff. And yes, it really is that simple, morally and legally and even strategically. Politically problematic, sure, but tough shit. Some things are bigger than politics.

      •  seems like word games (3+ / 0-)

        The fundamental, core issue is that both Bush AND Obama are claiming the right to lock people up for the rest of their lives without judicial process. By Presidential fiat.

        That they get to the same hellish place by somewhat different routes doesn't obscure the fact (although you seem to be trying to do so).

        You--although I think you aren't necessarily trying to do so--are missing the forest for the trees. The forest is human beings locked up for life without fair judicial appeal. The trees are the thicket of varying rationalizations offered by Bush or Obama.

        Obama AND Bush both claim that the executive can lock up people indefinitely. Obama=Bush on the core issue.

        •  Obama does not claim that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mikidee, Imhotepsings

          The policy expressly recognizes habeas rights.

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:21:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Disingenuous--not a judicial venue (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vigilant meerkat

            According to the Washington Post article:

            A Periodic Review Board, composed of military, intelligence, Homeland Security, State and Justice Department officials, will consider each case. A detainee will have the right to appear before the board, introduce his own evidence and call witnesses "who are reasonably available," the order says.

            That is not true judicial review. So your assertion that the policy "expressly recognizes habeas rights" is disingenuous. An executive committed to indefinite detention stacks a board with his stooges and what you have is a phony show rather than true judicial review.

            I voted for Obama, I gave money to the Obama campaign. I volunteered. Civil liberties was an issue of foremost importance to me. He's a fraud. There isn't a chance, as things stand, that I will vote for this s.o.b. again. I refuse to vote for anyone who cements indefinite detention in place or who countenances psychological torture as that being done to Bradley Manning.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (65)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site