Hope and Change Administration: Detainees have “no constitutional rights”

posted at 9:45 am on February 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

As the Who said, “Meet the new boss — same as the old boss“:

Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.

The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.

Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.

The ruling has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.

Prof Barbara Olshansky, the lead counsel in a legal challenge on behalf of four Bagram detainees, told the BBC the justice department’s decision not to reform the rules was both surprising and “enormously disappointing”.

The exact quote from the Barack Obama-era Department of Justice?  “Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position.”  The DoJ and the DoD consider Bagram detainees “unlawful combatants” without any rights to access the US court system and with no recourse for release.

Just as it did in the George Bush administration.  Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position?  I’d like to see how they square the circle with Obama now.  A few like Glenn Greenwald will rip Obama on principle, but the rest will suddenly discover the reasonableness of detaining terrorists and treating them not like burglars but like enemy combatants who have themselves violated Geneva Conventions through their terrorism.

Just as we did in the George Bush administration.

All statements from Barack Obama come with expiration dates.  That’s something that the HopeandChangizoids have begun to learn just a month after the dawning of the Age of Obama.  A lot of them owe Bush — and us — apologies.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Call the medics another straw man has keeled over dead.

RadioFreeUSA on February 21, 2009 at 9:48 AM

A lot of them owe Bush — and us — apologies.

Perhaps. As we’ve all noticed by now, they just don’t care, though. Their opposition to Bush, Republicans, et al, was never based on issues or principles to begin with. So when Obama violates those same ‘principles’, they don’t care – it was never the principle that mattered in the first place – it was and has always been about the deranged political bigotry.

Midas on February 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM

obama lied, people died

BPD on February 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM

The on-the-job training is working faster & better than I expected.

KS Rex on February 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Look, I dislike the obama admin as much if not more than most. But when something goes right we need to say so. This went right and I ,for one, am saying so.

jeanie on February 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position? I’d like to see how they square the circle with Obama now.

Some how, some way…you just know they will. Delusion has no boundaries. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

javamartini on February 21, 2009 at 9:53 AM

I can’t wait to see how our trolls spin this one.

LASue on February 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM

I for one find this to be a refreshingly good development, especially considering how things have gone during the first month of the hope-n-change era…

But, I believe that the combination of hypocrisy and dissonance will cause a lot of the nutroots heads to explode!

And it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch…

RocketmanBob on February 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Dont hold your breath waiting for an apology.

becki51758 on February 21, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I’m so disillusioned! I thought this administration was going to be different!

I’m looking forward to seeing how the liberal rags spin this.

Tak_Bulgogi on February 21, 2009 at 9:55 AM

add this to the Obama plan that expanded missile strikes into Pakistan and when he have Bush squared.

rob verdi on February 21, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Perhaps. As we’ve all noticed by now, they just don’t care, though.

Totally agree. The opposition to Bush’s policies was purely instrumental, not principled.

I await whichever of Gleen Grenwald’s personalities will emerge to denounce this nonshift in policy.

DrSteve on February 21, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position? I’d like to see how they square the circle with Obama now.

No problem. They know that Bush had bad intentions and the idiot messiah has good intentions. If Bush said, “Could you pass the mustard?” that would be a clear indication that he wants to torture and maim innocent people, just for fun. If the idiot messiah said, “Could you please pass the mustard?” that would be a clear indication that he loves all people and is trying to bring peace to the world. Why is this so difficult to understand?

progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 9:56 AM

I can’t wait to see how our trolls spin this one.

LASue on February 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM

You’re pretty optimistic in thinking this will pass through the media blackout.

P.S. (whispering) Can I still say blackout?

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position? I’d like to see how they square the circle with Obama now.

Heh. Chrissy’s tingle just turned into a trickle.

BacaDog on February 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM

I hasten to add I think it’s the right decision. If some people aren’t exluded from Geneva protections they’re meaningless in incentivizing people away from “war on civilization.”

DrSteve on February 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM

What do you bet the Gitmo gang, one by one, get shipped off to Bagram quietly, secretly with no media attention

katy on February 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Politics vs principles strikes again.

tmi3rd

tmi3rd on February 21, 2009 at 9:58 AM

I’m of two minds about this.

In all sincerity, shouldn’t we be happy that, despite his rhetoric, Obama seems interested in protecting us like President Bush did?

I’m getting old, and my attention is turning toward my kids. I find it somewhat heartening that the Executive Branch just might be ready to defend us after all.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Does this mean no war trials for Cheney & Bush?

Good. Let the libtard foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy begin.

OmahaConservative on February 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM

once again, they do not care because they are anxiously awaiting that big box filled with rainbows and unicorns and free gas cards to show up on their doorstop any day now. plus, they have a “brother” in the white house. not that ignorant white man that they had to suffer under these past 8 years. obama could molest his own two daughters in the white house and his followers wouldn’t even blink an eye. sorry to be so gross, but you know it’s true.

Ghoul aid on February 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM

What do you bet the Gitmo gang, one by one, get shipped off to Bagram quietly, secretly with no media attention

katy on February 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM

And everyone will cheer that the Messiah closed Gitmo, and all is right with the world.

Midas on February 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM

How can you give constitutional rights to detainees in Cuba and not Bagram? Is Cuba part of U.S.? By the way where the hell is Cindy Sheehan? I want to sign up to protest against that warmonger Obama and his illegal war, then camp outside his Chicago home (when it gets warmer). All you folks that despise war and suffering have you lost your voice? CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Huffington have you ALL lost your voice? STOP THE WAR!!

Oh I’m sorry, I forgot. Afghanistan is the good war supported by Democrats.

Herb on February 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM

I can’t wait to see how our trolls spin this one.

LASue on February 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Come on, you know how they do it. They post some hyperventilating nonsense about how some Republican is “worse,” generally by splattering paranoiac copypasta that can only be found in moonbat echo-chambers.

The rest lay low, like D2MH, waiting for safer thread to dump their weapons-grade baloney.

TMK on February 21, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I find it somewhat heartening that the Executive Branch just might be ready to defend us after all.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM

You’re dreaming buddy. It’s politics with Obama. All the time, all the way.
Protect us?
Yes, like the pORkulus bill… IT’S ALL ABOUT PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! HE CARES, HE REEEEALLY CARES!
HAAAAAAAAA! HA! HA!

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Look, I dislike the obama admin as much if not more than most. But when something goes right we need to say so. This went right and I ,for one, am saying so.

jeanie on February 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Jeanie,

Do you think this nation can survive with a President getting “one right” and the next ten wrong?

Rovin on February 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM

once again, they do not care because they are anxiously awaiting that big box filled with rainbows and unicorns and free gas cards

Ghoul aid on February 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Which reminds me, the conservative Alinsky would focus like a laser beam on the progress of stimulus money as it makes its way through the porcine intestines of mid-level bureaucrats, down through the colon of big city mayors and party activists, and finally down onto the people.

Metaphor aside, we ought to be pounding the question home: how much money did YOU get, Jane Q. Public?

To the ACORN street workers: are you making minimum wage? Do you get health care? Does it cover dental work? Company car?

Rabble rousers wanted.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Will Olbergasm name Obama the “Worst Person in the World”?

Hopefully, President Bush, while enjoying his coffee this morning, had a little chuckle and said “See Barney, I told you so!”

BacaDog on February 21, 2009 at 10:06 AM

booooooooooosh’s fault

BPD on February 21, 2009 at 10:07 AM

You’re dreaming buddy. It’s politics with Obama. All the time, all the way.
Protect us?
Yes, like the pORkulus bill… IT’S ALL ABOUT PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! HE CARES, HE REEEEALLY CARES!
HAAAAAAAAA! HA! HA!

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM

I believe you that Obama doesn’t really care.

But I really do look at this war on terror as incrementally picking off one terrorist at a time. I don’t care what the motive or method. Any detained or dead terrorist is a step forward in the war.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM

What do you bet the Gitmo gang, one by one, get shipped off to Bagram quietly, secretly with no media attention

katy on February 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Works for me – way better than the alternatives the left wanted.

zeebeach on February 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM

obama could molest his own two daughters in the white house and his followers wouldn’t even blink an eye. sorry to be so gross, but you know it’s true.

Ghoul aid on February 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I understand the sentiment, but that comment stepped over the line.

jbh45 on February 21, 2009 at 10:10 AM

What do you bet the Gitmo gang, one by one, get shipped off to Bagram quietly, secretly with no media attention

katy on February 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Works for me – way better than the alternatives the left wanted (sorry for double post, forgot to close quotes).

zeebeach on February 21, 2009 at 10:10 AM

The RNC should put out a commercial showing Obama campaigning with his anti-Bush, Gitmo rhetoric, then put the facts of how nothing in that department has changed and Obama is keeping things status-quo. End it with something like, “I guess Bush and the Republicans were right afterall.”

tnmama on February 21, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Herb on February 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Good one,.

becki51758 on February 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Jeanie,

Do you think this nation can survive with a President getting “one right” and the next ten wrong?

Rovin on February 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Exactly.

progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Obama is keeping things status-quo.

tnmama on February 21, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Let’s help the nutroots, they love slogans and bumper stickers:

Status quObama.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Rovin on February 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Probably not. But if we keep saying we want it this way or that way and we actually get it and still keep carping—sooner or later we’ll get the sour grapes award and no one will pay any attention anymore. We have to show some semblance of approval for things we like, at least for the moment.

jeanie on February 21, 2009 at 10:16 AM

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM

We all want them dead. That was not your point. You said …

In all sincerity, shouldn’t we be happy that, despite his rhetoric, Obama seems interested in protecting us like President Bush did?

That’s BS. Obama will never,can never be sincerely interested in this. I am stepping out a limb but I firmly believe this man loathes this country from the inside out. he will only protect his immediate family or make it look like he is exercising his Constitutional duties if we are attacked. He wants this nation decapitated and has from the day he met Frank Davis Marshall!

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:16 AM

I say we should turn them loose at Pendleton’s firing range. Make good target practice for our young marines…

jbh45 on February 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM

“paranoiac copypasta”

TMK on February 21, 2009 at 10:03 AM

:-)

KS Rex on February 21, 2009 at 10:21 AM

jbh45 on February 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Excellent idea. Sort of a “canned hunt”.

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:21 AM

My question is why aren’t these “illegal combatants” summarily executed? They are the equivalent of spies and should be hung or shot moments after their military tribunal finishes. We’re treating this like a boy scout jamboree and this is war. You win wars by killing the enemy. When you’ve killed enough of them, you win. Clever strategy won’t work with the islamic world. Muslim terrorists are not motivated by geopolitical politics; they are motivated by Mohammed’s words in the koran. Only the terrorists’ death will stop their relentless assault on freedom and liberty.

Mojave Mark on February 21, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Oh I’m sorry, I forgot. Afghanistan is the good war supported by Democrats.

Herb on February 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM

+1

Afghanistan = good
Iraq/Gitmo = bad

rockmom on February 21, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I am stepping out a limb but I firmly believe this man loathes this country from the inside out. he will only protect his immediate family or make it look like he is exercising his Constitutional duties if we are attacked. He wants this nation decapitated and has from the day he met Frank Davis Marshall!

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:16 AM

That is 100% correct, katy. People are grabbing at straws with this one, minor instance that is not really going to have much impact, at all. In the meantime, the idiot messiah is working against our strategic interests on all fronts and trying to kill America from the inside, so that his marxist paradise can bloom, or at least exact his “social justice” along the way. Praising him for this is like congratulating a criminal for stopping at a red light … once.

progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Jeanie,

Do you think this nation can survive with a President getting “one right” and the next ten wrong?

Rovin on February 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM

To be fair, Obama was wrong on this issue way before he was right. He either knew and cynically used it to get elected or didn’t know and was hopelessly naiive. I can’t honestly call this ‘getting it right’ as much as ‘inevitable acceptance of reality.’

James on February 21, 2009 at 10:27 AM

this is a really dark mark on an otherwise stellar first month.

/backas$wards comment @ huffpo

tehd on February 21, 2009 at 10:27 AM

And…if we really believe in the good of the country first, then we should at least not criticize when we get it no matter who does it. Makes us look pretty shallow. This is a PR game and it would be wise not to forget that.

jeanie on February 21, 2009 at 10:28 AM

My question is why aren’t these “illegal combatants” summarily executed? They are the equivalent of spies and should be hung or shot moments after their military tribunal finishes. We’re treating this like a boy scout jamboree and this is war. You win wars by killing the enemy. When you’ve killed enough of them, you win. Clever strategy won’t work with the islamic world. Muslim terrorists are not motivated by geopolitical politics; they are motivated by Mohammed’s words in the koran. Only the terrorists’ death will stop their relentless assault on freedom and liberty.

Mojave Mark on February 21, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Because maybe some of them might be innocent and just got caught in a crossfire and rounded up along with the real terrorists. They have to be incarcerated somewhere until we can figure out which are the good guys and which are the bad. By not summarily executing everyone, we are showing the Afghans what the rule of law means. This is important. I’m as hardline as anyone on terrorists, but I never want to see the USA summarily executing people.

This is the whole problem with fighting an enemy of civilian combatants. At least it’s nice to see we have some adults in the Justice Department who understand this.

rockmom on February 21, 2009 at 10:29 AM

It would not suprise me if DoJ and DoD are not even in conslution with O on most of this.
Remember his public FISA stand compared to his actual vote. It goes back to say one thing in public and then the complete opposite in a under the rader sort of way.

Clyde5445 on February 21, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Oh I’m sorry, I forgot. Afghanistan is the good war supported by Democrats.

Herb on February 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Herb,

Our dear liberal “friends” on the left will forsake/abandon the Afghani people the minute Osama is proclaimed dead. They never cared about liberating an oppressed society living in tyranny, or “Bush’s war” in Iraq. (30 million people living in relative peace is too much of a price to pay when we need trillions to socialize our own government) The only thing these idiots grasp is that ONE MAN, (and not an ideology of hate), is responsible for 9/11 and they want only this retribution. They are more interested in saving marsh-rats in San Fran-sicko than nations living in hell.

Rovin on February 21, 2009 at 10:29 AM

A lot of them owe Bush — and us — apologies.

Ed…like I’ve always said:

“Being on the Left means never having to say you’re sorry”.

Like an x-wifes “victim mentality” that says it’s “ALL his fault”.

Not Over.

1GooDDaDDy on February 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

To be fair, Obama was wrong on this issue way before he was right. He either knew and cynically used it to get elected or didn’t know and was hopelessly naiive. I can’t honestly call this ‘getting it right’ as much as ‘inevitable acceptance of reality.’

James on February 21, 2009 at 10:27 AM

It’s called “pandering to your base to win your party’s nomination.” Duh!

rockmom on February 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM

It’s called “pandering to your base to win your party’s nomination.” Duh!

rockmom on February 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Actually, it’s called, “Aiding and abetting the enemy” … or “treason”.

progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position? I’d like to see how they square the circle with Obama now.

Several years ago, the Angry Left formally charged Bush, Cheney, Rice, Colin Powell and others at The Hague with War Crimes.

But the instant the war criminal Colin-Blow endorsed O’bama, he was immediately “rehabilitated” by the Democrats, and all was forgiven.

Joe Stalin would be proud of them.

Del Dolemonte on February 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM

The RNC should put out a commercial showing Obama campaigning with his anti-Bush, Gitmo rhetoric, then put the facts of how nothing in that department has changed and Obama is keeping things status-quo. End it with something like, “I guess Bush and the Republicans were right afterall.”

tnmama on February 21, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Yeah, but then the DNC would run a commercial that says, “Democrats finally do the right thing to keep you safe… and we pay your mortgage and give you lots of cash.”

myrenovations on February 21, 2009 at 10:35 AM

It’s called “pandering to your base to win your party’s nomination.” Duh!

rockmom on February 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Not if he truly didn’t have a clue, as is more than possible judging from his first 30 days in office. Which, incidentally, is just as bad.

James on February 21, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Pretty soon we won’t either, and we’re not enemy combatants…well not yet anyway.

johnnyU on February 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Do you think this nation can survive with a President getting “one right” and the next ten wrong?

Rovin on February 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM

It better…because, news flash, HE IS THE PRESIDENT. The time has long since passed thinking about his presidency as potential. It’s reality now.

He’s been doing all right on the WOT, except in his agreement to meeting with Chavez, Dinner Jacket, et al. Everyone keeps saying he’s playing politics, but at the same time, he’s got a family that could die if attacks occur in DC. No matter how much you dislike him, he’s not only the president, he’s an American. He’s just at risk as we are, and there are plenty around the world that are not dazzled by his celebrity.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

My problem with Gitmo has always been that the government’s position is not that accused terrorists have no constitutional rights, but that there are places in the world where it can act extra-constitutionally. That’s a little hard to see when the government only exists by virtue of the Constitution.

After all, if terrorists had no rights under the Constitution there’d be no reason not to incarcerate ‘em here.

PersonFromPorlock on February 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Their opposition to Bush, Republicans, et al, was never based on issues or principles to begin with. So when Obama violates those same ‘principles’, they don’t care – it was never the principle that mattered in the first place – it was and has always been about the deranged political bigotry.

Midas on February 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM

+100.

Kent18 on February 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Sorry Obama, but the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. If the US Military has jurisdiction over the detainees, then the US Constitution applies.

Otherwise, Obama had better be making the case that the government of Afghanistan has sole authority over captured combatants, and we’re acting under that authority.

Skandia Recluse on February 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM

The Left hated Bush before he was elected. They hated him because he was a born again Christian with an R after his name. It was never about policy.

keep the change on February 21, 2009 at 10:40 AM

“…but the rest will suddenly discover the reasonableness of detaining terrorists and treating them not like burglars but like enemy combatants who have themselves violated Geneva Conventions through their terrorism.”

Nuance. Says it all. No contradictions here.

GarandFan on February 21, 2009 at 10:41 AM

We need to make sure that the news is spread throughout Islamdom. Anyone captured while attacking or even helping in an attack will be imprisoned for the remainder of their miserable lives. That is the result of being a stateless terrorist. As far as Geneva is concerned, thses slugs are more or less POWs and will be held until the US decides to release them.

The bleeding hearts who are defending them and trying to give them access to US courts are also my enemy, the same as if they are supplying weapons.

Pelayo on February 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Helen Thomas is going to fill her Depends over this.

jay12 on February 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM

That’s BS. Obama will never, can never be sincerely interested in this.

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:16 AM

I think you’re wrong, and I think you have lost confidence in human nature.

Remember the days following 9-11-01?

It was like a backward land, where former liberals had bunker conversions and realized the need to defend the country. I’m thinking of Dennis Miller, for example.

Fear and trembling have a way of focusing a man’s attention. Obama is seeing facts and reports we don’t see.

I think you ought not underestimate the man’s ability to recognize a threat when he sees one.

I loathe liberals just as much as you do. I could see myself saying exactly what you just said to some other commenter.

But I try to balance the loathing with a very firm confidence in human nature. Today is one of those days where I’m taking a deep breath and wondering if maybe this might all go better than we thought it would. I see a genuine prospect of republican take-back of Congress in 2010.

Don’t you?

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

My problem with Gitmo has always been that the government’s position is not that accused terrorists have no constitutional rights, but that there are places in the world where it can act extra-constitutionally. That’s a little hard to see when the government only exists by virtue of the Constitution.

PersonFromPorlock on February 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Huh? I guess everyone at the CIA and our other spy orgs should be arrested immediately, along with the President and all of the government beaurocarcy that enable them – Congress, the Courts, …

Do you actually think with that brain?

progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

I find it somewhat heartening that the Executive Branch just might be ready to defend us after all.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM

You’re dreaming buddy. It’s politics with Obama. All the time, all the way.
Protect us?
Yes, like the pORkulus bill… IT’S ALL ABOUT PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! HE CARES, HE REEEEALLY CARES!
HAAAAAAAAA! HA! HA!

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Dead on. Of course the constitution does not apply to terrorists. Most Americans understand that. He really does not care about the rights of terrorists. He used the Iraq war to win the primaries. There is no way he would of won if he had not been the only one who did not support it from the beginning. That was his biggest advantage (in the primaries). Watch the campaign clips from him railing against the war. Listen to him now (or rather, listen to his silence). The anti-war nuts got played. That said, I’m sure he will throw them a bone or two down the road very soon. I’m sure they have all forgotten (with their knat-like memory) about his grand humanitarian acts of “shutting down” Gitmo (see: extending rendition) and “banning torture” (see: making it more secretive), so he owes them another bone. Maybe he will demand that the troops get pulled out a week earlier than originally planned.

Joe Caps on February 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Helen Thomas is going to fill her Depends over this.

jay12 on February 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Helen filling her Depends anew = just another weekly Op-Ed column.

Kent18 on February 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Fear and trembling have a way of focusing a man’s attention. Obama is seeing facts and reports we don’t see.

I think you ought not underestimate the man’s ability to recognize a threat when he sees one.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

+1

When news comes that Obama is pulling all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow, I’ll be the first to say he’s either the biggest moron in the world, or a traitor.

However, when news comes that Obama is doing exactly what we hoped he would do, give him some credit.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Good.

Perhaps you folks will get onn board.

After reading Soros agreeing with Volker about a global depression with no end in sight, it is good to read some Americans are coming together in this crises.

United we stand, divided we fall.

getalife on February 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

No more talk about the Geneva Conventions, please. Our strategic nuclear arsenal violates the Geneva Conventions, along with the fact that no nation, of any size, has ever adhered to those conventions. To refer to Geneva as if it is some sort of law is just ridiculous and a denial of reality.

progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

HopeandChangizoids

Haha, I love it — I’m stealing this phrase ;)

Richard Romano on February 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Rob Long (writing in National Review) coined the term “cranial auto-detonation.”

Lots of cranial auto-detonation going on among the left with this one.
_______

RJGatorEsq. on February 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

If this is the case, then what reason is there to shut down GITMO? Simply because it is a hot button?

Jamewah on February 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

PersonFromPorlock on February 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Could they stop a person in a war zone and search him without probable cause? Must every POW receive Miranda rights? Can you destroy a ship at sea only on the assumption it may attack you? It seems our government can act extra-constitutionally.

Herb on February 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM

If this is the case, then what reason is there to shut down GITMO? Simply because it is a hot button?

Jamewah on February 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

One Word: P O L I T I C S

Joe Caps on February 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM

My problem with Gitmo has always been that the government’s position is not that accused terrorists have no constitutional rights, but that there are places in the world where it can act extra-constitutionally. That’s a little hard to see when the government only exists by virtue of the Constitution.

After all, if terrorists had no rights under the Constitution there’d be no reason not to incarcerate ‘em here.

PersonFromPorlock on February 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

I think this contention of the government’s is fairly reasonable, though. The Constitution is non-specific about the limits on government agents’ activities both in foreign countries and vis-a-vis foreign combatants who sit outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Can you point to specific text of the Constitution that says otherwise or are you inferring certain guidelines based on principles enshrined in other parts of the text, which is a dubious logical extrapolation. I’m not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but have been thinking about this issue for a while because it is clearly significant and it’s important to get it right.

I would also submit that the reluctance to incarcerate ‘em here is as much political as it is legal, if my theory of the limitations on government’s actions is correct.

venividivici on February 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM

After reading Soros agreeing with Volker about a global depression with no end in sight, it is good to read some Americans are coming together in this crises.

United we stand, divided we fall.

getalife on February 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

If the choice is socialism, prepare for divided, and prepare to lose.

Patrick S on February 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM

I can only assume that after sitting through a series of daily security briefings, a newly elected President has a sudden and sharp impact with reality. Even the One has been forced to wake up and see the world for what it is, and not just what he’d like it to be. “I’m gonna close Gitmo….er….but ya know what, it ain’t so bad, plus those guys we’re holding down there are dangerous”.

Regardless of the campaign rhetoric, promises made, and votes gathered, you can’t change the laws of physics.

BobMbx on February 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM

The Constitution is non-specific about the limits on government agents’ activities both in foreign countries and vis-a-vis foreign combatants who sit outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

I should be more clear here, since obviously the Constitution will not address issues delineated in the Geneva Conventions. What I mean to say is that the Geneva Conventions and other international law have filled some of the gap in the Constitution’s treatment of the category of persons in question, but not all of the gap.

venividivici on February 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Their opposition to Bush, Republicans, et al, was never based on issues or principles to begin with.

Midas on February 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM

My two-bit psychological analysis: theses people are still working through the Kennedy era. You should read a really good book by James Piereson, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of JFK Shattered American Liberalism.

The very day JFK was assassinated by a pro-Castro communist named Lee Harvey Oswald, prominent liberal intellectuals including Jackie Kennedy and Chief Justice Warren were starting the meme that JFK was killed as a result of right wing hate, a tactic echoed later by the disgraced and impeached Bill Clinton in 1995 when he shamefully blamed the Oklahoma City Bombing on Rush Limbaugh.

Their derangement has very deep emotional roots, and it cripples their judgment, decade after decade. I fear it won’t end until the baby boom generation has passed on.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM

United we stand, divided we fall.

getalife on February 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

If you don’t think the substantive, as opposed to rhetorical, meaning of that phrase is highly contentious, you are even stupider than others have accused you of being.

venividivici on February 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Knowing full well the democrats and left are hypocrites, even I thought there would be a bit more of an outrage over many of this administrations actions. All we’ve heard is praise for closing gitmo, which is still open, closing cia black prisons, but temporary ones are okay, and aggressive interrogation, prior to 1/20/09, referred to as torture, is still legal.

Where’s that old dog Medea Benjamin when we need her?

Blake on February 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM

No problem. They know that Bush had bad intentions and the idiot messiah has good intentions. If Bush said, “Could you pass the mustard?” that would be a clear indication that he wants to torture and maim innocent people, just for fun. If the idiot messiah said, “Could you please pass the mustard?” that would be a clear indication that he loves all people and is trying to bring peace to the world. Why is this so difficult to understand?
progressoverpeace on February 21, 2009 at 9:56 AM

It’s worse than that. If The One suddenly announced, “I have decided to exterminate the population of Pakistan,” that would be greated as yet another sign of infinte hope and peace for all the world, forever.

Bush Derangement Syndrome may finally have started dying down. But the derangement part of that isn’t going to magically go away just because he did.

logis on February 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Human Nature?

That has nothing to do with what this discussion is about. Yah, I get human nature all too well. Obama’s nature is one of self aggrandizement to a pathological degree. My human nature (instinct) tells me he is a predator. If you don’t discern, you die. I will give anyone the benefit of the doubt with one eye open at all time. Like Reagan said, “trust but verify”. Anything else means death.
Obama has proven to me that he is NOT to be trusted and that is my HUMAN NATURE at work. It’s called survival

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Lots of cranial auto-detonation going on among the left with this one.
_______

RJGatorEsq. on February 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Bingo! And, be honest now: who doesn’t enjoy a little sweet, sweet leftist schedenfreud, early in the A.M….? ;)

Kent18 on February 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM

United we stand, divided we fall.

getalife on February 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Go bite a unicorn.

Kent18 on February 21, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Human Nature?

That has nothing to do with what this discussion is about.

katy on February 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Now I might not have a fancy college degree, but I thought pretty much every topic in politics in some way reflects one’s view of human nature.

But again, I’m no genius so I could be wrong.

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:57 AM

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

jeff_from_mpls on February 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

While I admire both of you for your “hope” that this man is facing a semblence of reality, my confidence is shaken by his handling of these current domestic policy issues. If this is a reflection on how he will effect foreign policy, I’m worried. When Hillary’s kumba-yah tour is over, we will know soon enough how seriously other nations take the U.S., and like Biden said, we will be tested.

Rovin on February 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Hey, I’ve got an idea! How about we go after Obama for war crimes!

Star20 on February 21, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Because maybe some of them might be innocent and just got caught in a crossfire and rounded up along with the real terrorists. They have to be incarcerated somewhere until we can figure out which are the good guys and which are the bad. By not summarily executing everyone, we are showing the Afghans what the rule of law means. This is important. I’m as hardline as anyone on terrorists, but I never want to see the USA summarily executing people.

This is the whole problem with fighting an enemy of civilian combatants. At least it’s nice to see we have some adults in the Justice Department who understand this.

rockmom on February 21, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I agree that we should not go around indiscriminately shooting everyone we see but I really do not understand this whole idea of “wondering around in a battlefield.” Does this really happen? If so, couldn’t you argue maybe it would not be the worlds biggest tragedy if they were imprisoned/killed? I mean if I went outside and wandered around I-95 and I got killed I think people would agree that I am an idiot who was asking for it and I had it coming to me.

Joe Caps on February 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM

along with the fact that no nation, of any size, has ever adhered to those conventions

.

Bullshit, my late father was assigned to guard some German prisoners in Texas in late 1943 or early 1944. He told me several times that the prisoners were treated better than the US Army treated him as a PFC. He said the Germans had better food and better housing.

Pelayo on February 21, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4