Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Obama Justice System

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:41 AM
Original message
The Obama Justice System
The Obama Justice System
by Glenn Greenwald

Spencer Ackerman yesterday attended a Senate hearing at which the DOD's General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, testified. As Ackerman highlighted, Johnson actually said that even for those detainees to whom the Obama administration deigns to give a real trial in a real court, the President has the power to continue to imprison them indefinitely even if they are acquitted at their trial. About this assertion of "presidential post-acquittal detention power" -- an Orwellian term (and a Kafka-esque concept) that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares at all about the most basic liberties -- Ackerman wrote, with some understatement, that it "moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective." Law professor Jonathan Turley was more blunt: "The Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies — now clearly Obama policies on indefinite detention."

In June, Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked by ABC News' Jake Tapper whether accused Terrorists who were given a trial and were acquitted would be released as a result of the acquittal, but Gibbs -- amazingly -- refused to make that commitment. But this is the first time an Obama official has affirmatively stated that they have the "post-acquittal detention" power (and, to my knowledge, the Bush administration never claimed the power to detain someone even if they were acquitted).

All of this underscores what has clearly emerged as the core "principle" of Obama justice when it comes to accused Terrorists -- namely, "due process" is pure window dressing with only one goal: to ensure that anyone the President wants to keep imprisoned will remain in prison. They'll create various procedures to prettify the process, but the outcome is always the same -- ongoing detention for as long as the President dictates. This is how I described it when Obama first unveiled his proposal of preventive detention:

If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we'll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm creating. For those we can't convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively detain" them).

After yesterday, we have to add an even more extreme prong to this policy: if by chance we miscalculate and deign to give a trial to a detainee who is then acquitted, we'll still just keep them in prison anyway by presidential decree. That added step renders my criticism of Obama's conception of "justice" even more applicable:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/08-6
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
masuki bance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. This thread will fade away. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes, it will. And quickly, I'm guessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. not if i can help it. rec #5 to the greatest page. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Quick look over there!!!
k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. knr!~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. This development sickens me
Cosmetic change is not change we can believe in and if civil liberties continue to be trampled upon as if Bush never left office, all we have is cosmetic change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats_win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
5. It's the AMERICAN justice system which means INFINITE INJUSTICE!
By now you should realize that our "justice" system is every bit as corrupt as every other aspect of our government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. What will be the bases for these trials? I'm wondering about a few questions.
1. What is the point of having a trial if the evidence used to acquit will be so inconclusive that we can still detain a person?
2. Should there be new criteria established to convict people on a different basis than what we have now?

If there is a real reason that we need to keep these people out of circulation, then that should be able to be proven in court. If the nature of the danger that they pose is insufficiently addressed by current rules, should we change the rules?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
8. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. knr nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is the ULTIMATE betrayal.
Land of the what? Certainly not the free!

We've been had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. G.Carlin nailed it: Rights are non-existent. We have a bill of "temporary privileges."
They're not actually Rights if they can be taken away by those in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Carlin was usually right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steelmania75 Donating Member (836 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
32. If only he were still alive....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. Isn't this the very definition of Tyranny?
Holding someone imprisoned even though proved to be innocent...Obama is wrong on this issue just as he is on allowing criminals to escape prosecution for just political concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. I'm pretty sure this is one of the things prohibited by the bill of rights.
If a member of our current govt decided you could be called a terrorist, off to Gitmo(or whatever new secret facility they have) with you, forever. It doesn't even matter if you are found not guilty at trial, not that you will necessarily get a trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. K&R!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steelmania75 Donating Member (836 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
18. Prosecute the war criminals NOW!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrary1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
19. Why even bother with a trial?
Guilty/Not guilty = imprisoned for life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. Bump
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
21. Greenwald cites Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first--verdict afterward."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/08/obama/index.html

<edit>

UPDATE IV: From Alice in Wonderland, Chapter 12:

"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

"No, no!” said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterward."

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"

"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.

"I won’t!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

The Queen's pronouncement -- "Sentence first -- verdict afterward" -- is a fine expression of Obama's approach here: these prisoners are decreed to be Dangerous and Guilty and are sentenced to prolonged, indefinite, imprisonment; now let's tailor a processs for each of them to ensure that this verdict is produced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
23. Obama is going to be a "one-termer"
People won't vote repuke either. The "third-party" option might now become a REAL POSSIBILITY now.....

Hoo-ray for that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steelmania75 Donating Member (836 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #23
33. People are dumb enough to vote repuke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. No, I don't think most people are THAT dumb (only the 20%'ers)
of which their numbers are most likely dwindling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
24. "abusive Bush policies — now clearly Obama policies"
Maybe http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/i_want_to_draw_attention.php">not crystal clearly:

In May, some members of the task force asked two outside experts, Kate Martin and Ken Gude of the Center for National Security Studies and the Center for American Progress to submit a memorandum on the Thailand question and the scope of the president's authority.

For Gude and Martin, the question of whether the president has the authority to indefinitely detain untriable Guantanamo Bay-held combatants is moot at this point. Hesitatingly, they concede that the decisions made by the Bush administration have tied Obama's hands very snugly.

"We respectfully urge that consideration of such cases should not be the basis for adopting far-reaching policies with substantial counterterrorism costs that are likely to far outweigh any short-term benefits from continuing to detain such individuals," they argue in the brief, which was obtained by the Atlantic.

But they part company on the critical question of whether the president needs any additional authority. They do not believe there is anything terribly magical about terrorism so as to jerry-rig any new court review or supra-congressional authority onto the existing cannons of law and practice. Any preventative detention system, they argue, is not only "illegitimate" from a legal perspective, it will be seen as such by the world, thereby exacerbating the climate that allows terrorists to recruit against America.


While I don't see how the "moot at this point" and "tied Obama's hands very snugly" conclusions can be true, even if it is an accurate characterization of what was written (Obama can certainly decide to abide by and enforce the laws as they've worked for generations), there is at least a chance here that he might listen to people with the courage to "look forward" beyond the beltway's current state of mongered fear/panic.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
25. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
26. Is this the "change" part or the "yes we can" part?
I never did understand the specifics of those two promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. We Changed from a Republican to a Democrat
Yes We Can keep Changing back and forth and still maintain the status quo

I Hope this helps you understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Ah,thanks! That does make more sense now. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
29. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progressive_In_NC Donating Member (448 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
31. These "powers" are really not that important it's the precedent for imprisoning you and me when jobs
are gone and we are all impoverished and looking for food.

Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Growing civil unrest has always been a chief aim of the phony "war on terror" legislation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
35. So American citizens can be held captive forever?
Just by calling them terrorists? Or is it just foreigners right now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
37. Does anybody know if this has been used against American citizens yet? nt
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 May 02nd 2024, 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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