President Obama issues corrections to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights:

[originalpckelly]

These:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
--5th Amendment to the United States Constitution

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
--6th Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
--8th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Shall now read:
"Fuck it, do what you want to."

[Buzz Clik]

1. I hope you didn't spend very long putting that together.

With luck, less time than it took me to unrec.

[originalpckelly]

2. Yeah, when you state you can hold people for an indefinite period of time...

you basically invalidate those portions of our bill of rights.

You might argue that the people in question are not American citizens and are therefore not subject to our constitution, but the problem with that is that this doesn't apply to citizens or non-citizens, it's the law of the government itself.

And if you want to claim that this is a war, then allow the individuals being held to have the rights they are given as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

[demwing]

93. Where did this inane notion originate -

that the Constitution only applies to US Citizens?

the SCOTUS has ruled on separate occasions that Constitutional rights are not a citizen's right, but a human right, and a that these rights are guaranteed through restrictions placed on the powers we have allowed to our government.

I'm frustrated with Pocket Constitutionalists and their Readers Digest Condensed version of the Bill of Rights.

[DirkGently]

144. Correct. It says "persons." Setting aside how depsicable it would be to deny HUMAN rights to anyone.

[stevenleser]

133. The Geneva conventions have a lot of other provisions that apply that you did not cite.

I guess because they are inconvenient. The UN is not on our case regarding Guantanamo. That ought to be a hint to you.

[Better Believe It]

3. So you don't think the Constitution of the United States should be posted on DU when it conflicts

with government policy?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taverner]

7. Pfc Bradley Manning

His torture and cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional

Remember, the constitution isn't just for law abiding citizens, its for law breakers too

[Scuba]

37. Exposing crimes is not criminal.

[Taverner]

45. I know that, you know that - but some here don't

I'm just saying, even if he ate babies, the Constitution applies to him

[avaistheone1]

100. Thank you.

k&r

:kick:

[Buzz Clik]

18. Post what you want. But expect to be called on it when your post is ridiculous.

[no limit]

23. The only ridiculous post in this thread is your own.

[Buzz Clik]

74. "Your mother went to college!"

:eyes:

[originalpckelly]

27. To be honest, it's not that ridiculous.

That's basically what's going on here. They seem to be making this shit up as they go along. They throw away anything when it suits them, and when there is something in the constitution these politicos can use to nail each other with, they use it.

For the powerful in our country there is no rule of law.

We have the rule of men, who decide the law as they feel, and do what they please with no recourse on the part of the common people like ourselves.

We might as well do away with the niceties of having a constitution and let the truth be revealed, this is an autocracy in democracy's clothing.

The common people have no idea what goes on in government, because anything the government sees fit to classify is then illegal to share with us. Um, how are we a democracy, when the President and his advisers and other individuals of lesser position in our government can make the decision on the information shared with us?

They don't cater to the common people, they bend over backwards to serve the rich and powerful, and really in our nation, the powerful are almost synonymous with the rich.

What good is an election when the person you elect makes false statements about their positions on policy, then slowly uncloaks the real policy when in office? Or if you give him a little more credit, you could say he actually truly did believe that those were his real policies, but he sold those old policies, principles and we the people out when he got into government.

We have a fucked up system, there is something profoundly wrong with this nation. And something must be done about it as soon as possible.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truebrit71]

40. What is ridiculous about the post? I am curious..

...seems to me Obama basically codified his predecessors unconstitutional decree.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[timtom]

71. ???

nt

[Buzz Clik]

77. Putting "nt" in the text box?

That's burying the shovel in the hole.

[timtom]

81. I know.

But I liked the composition better.

[tomp]

103. you haven't made a point yet.

right now you just seem ridiculous.

[bvar22]

135. LOL...People unreccing The Constitution on DU...

...because it is bad PR for the President!






Who represents THIS American Majority?

Their words & empty promises mean NOTHING.
"By their works you will know them."

[Wind Dancer]

136. It really makes you wonder....

doesn't it?

[They_Live]

162. That's a very powerful image

Thank you for posting it.

[Webster Green]

5. You don't think the president should uphold the bill of rights?

I'm pretty sure it's in the oath of office.

K&R!

[Better Believe It]

10. Ya needs a little bi-partisan flexibility on it. It just a general suggestion on a piece of paper.

Especially that Bill of Rights stuff.

:banghead:

[demwing]

97. So it's more a "Bill of Recommendations" and a "Suggestitution of the United States?

and a pre-Ramble instead of a preamble?

[Le Taz Hot]

110. THIS needs to be a seperate thread.

Excellent.

Oh, and Rec. for the OP.

[Buzz Clik]

19. Yep. That's exactly what I said, isn't it. Old Pickles "do what you fuckin' want" is current policy.

Hyperbole is worthless. I pointed that out.

[Webster Green]

25. Seems the whole point of the OP went right over your head.

Are you drinking? :shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

79. Oh, yeah. The OP was SO fucking deep, that I just can't think hard enough to figure it out.

Is this what passes for intelligence and wisdom?

[tomp]

104. apparently, you can't think hard enough to make a point.

nt. ( just to fuck with you for fucking with us)

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Only took me a nano-sec. to rec.

:evilgrin:

[Buzz Clik]

20. Looks like we cancel each other out.

[truebrit71]

41. But you didn't cancel out MY rec...

:evilgrin:

Please see upthread, you called the OP ridiculous, I'd like to know why you think that.

[Number23]

48. I got you on this. But you know we'll be outnumbered

by folks who actually classify things like this as "cogent political discourse."

[louslobbs]

51. Nope, I cancelled you out as well.

Lou

[sabrina 1]

63. Well, here's another rec for the Constitution

of the U.S.

Is there something about that you don't like?

[chill_wind]

67. And another right here.

:thumbsup:

[ReggieVeggie]

68. and another

[Shadowflash]

119. Another!

K&R

[bvar22]

137. And another rec from me.

People are actually UnReccing The Constitution on DU.

Twisted.

[Plucketeer]

157. And yet another! nt

[tekisui]

80. Nope, another rec from me.

[BobbyBoring]

167. +1

n/t

[sudopod]

69. Praise the Leader! nt

[tavalon]

82. I'll admit that it was put together in an inflammatory manner,

but the reality on the ground is that this is what was codified with today's capitulation, I mean compromise, when no one was pushing for one.

And your puny unrec. will not keep information like this off of the Greatest Page.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[originalpckelly]

8. Shyeah!

I'm being sarcastic, but I think I have the right when the President who full and well knows what his policies mean has decided to gut some of the most important parts of our constitution.

[Jakes Progress]

9. Yeah. If w didn't believe in the Constitution, why should we?

[Angry Dragon]

11. bush said it was just a piece of paper

[Better Believe It]

13. President Obama is the Harvard trained expert on Consitutional law. So he should be the decider!

:)

[originalpckelly]

17. That's what's so scary.

Bush was a fucking moron, we all agreed on that...but Obama? He's supposed to know why this is wrong. I wonder what his former students think of him now.

[hulka38]

176. Another good point.

K&R

[chill_wind]

73. God knows anybody of moral legal fiber that he brought with him in OLC has long departed.

That's just fact. There's no one left to object.

[SammyWinstonJack]

105. heh.

:evilgrin:

[walldude]

14. For some reason the line from True Lies comes to mind

"Have you killed people?" "Yeah but I swaya dey was all bad"

You have to relax man, they have it under control, and they promise that they are all bad.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The fine print says, "Political expediency overrides all of the above."

[no limit]

16. K&R (only took half a second)

[EOTE]

21. K&Rec. To counter those who couldn't give a whit about the constitution.

[libmom74]

22. But

it only matters when a Republican president is shitting on the constitution, it's ok if it's a Democratic president. Sheesh didn't you guys get the White House memo!

[MissDeeds]

32. Exactly right

K&R

[EOTE]

35. My bad.

Someone needs to let me know when it's OK to dissent again.

[libmom74]

46. I didn't think I

needed the sarcasm thingy for my earlier post, but I guess I did so here it is...:sarcasm:

[EOTE]

47. I didn't think I needed that thingy either. NT

[EOTE]

53. I didn't mean to be so brief before.

I was aware your response was in jest, mine was as well. Sometimes I just don't have the time or motivation to be more clear. Anyway, I think it's clear we're in agreement. Have a good one :fistbump:

[SammyWinstonJack]

106. DINO, appears too be the case. Where is that WH memo?

[ProSense]

24. "The president and the secretary of defense also reiterated the importance

...of trying terrorists in federal courts, but they might as well be shouting into the wind."

[no limit]

26. Who signed the ban on funding for transferring the detainees in to law?

[ProSense]

30. The

bill not only passed with a veto proof majority, it was put into a spending package. A veto would have accomplished nothing. The symbolism of it would mean nothing to those who want to ignore the President's position on the issue.

[no limit]

31. Is Obama forced to sign something just because it gets 68 votes?

[ProSense]

34. No, and I repeat:

A veto would have accomplished nothing. The symbolism of it would mean nothing to those who want to ignore the President's position on the issue.

[no limit]

38. Ok, so a veto threat would just be symbolic so you don't think it was even worth it.

Did he do anything else to try and pressure congress not to pass this provision?

[ProSense]

42. " Did he do anything else to try and pressure congress not to pass this provision?"

Look it up.

[no limit]

56. I did. The answer is no.

[liberation]

86. Yes We Can...

... Tell You Why He Can't.

If only they had told us that second part of the slogan in 08.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truebrit71]

43. The President's position is that he can detain people indefinitely, yes?

Not sure how you square that circle...??

[Recursion]

123. The President's position is that Congress has forbidden him...

...from trying them in the US or returning them to their home countries. So I'm not sure what you think his options are; he doesn't seem to see any.

[truebrit71]

125. Well one of his options was not to piss on the Constitution which he just did..

..He is the CIC and has plenty of options regardless of what the spineless fuckers in congress did..

[Recursion]

126. So, you can't come up with an option either?

Exactly.

[truebrit71]

129. Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo (not quite true) and wouldn't let him move them (not...

...quite true either), so his only option was to shred the constitution?

He is CIC and has plenty of options available to him, but I think that codifying his predecessor's unconstitutional policy shouldn't have been top of the list..

[Recursion]

130. "Plenty of options"? Name one

I'm still waiting.

[truebrit71]

132. Option One: Not shredding the constitution.

.

[Recursion]

134. What is your specific idea?

Seriously. What should he do with the detainees?

[truebrit71]

139. Try them for their crimes as per international law.

..that would be a start..

[Recursion]

141. OK, that's why they're restarting military commissions at GTMO

Which are competent under international law to try alleged unlawful combatants.

[truebrit71]

151. Those commissions are nothing more than jumped-up kangoroo courts...

...they can't present their own evidence, they can't even see the evidence being presented against them and they have no right to appeal..it's total bullshit..

[Recursion]

155. Yes, the bullshit allowed under International law does suck

And I wish I could think of something else to do with the detainees.

[RaleighNCDUer]

159. The kangaroo trials have nothing to do with international law.

They exist is defiance of international law.

They were designed to circumvent international law, not to mention our own constitution.

[RaleighNCDUer]

146. Turn them over to the Hague. If they really are international criminals

then the Hague has jurisdiction. If not, the ICC will release them. And make US look like the idiots we are.

[Recursion]

150. Congress forbade that.

Next?

[RaleighNCDUer]

161. Congress (unconstitutionally) forbade them being tried in Federal courts,

or being returned to their home countries. Sending them to the Hague, for trial by an impartial international body, does neither.

Oh, and before you go their, congress has only forbidden the US from participating in the ICC for US citizens - claiming US citizens are not to be tried by the ICC. Says nothing about the ICC trying international terrorists.

[DirkGently]

166. Thank you. It's a bit tiresome hearing how powerless the President of the United States is.

[sudopod]

70. I don't go in much for Alternate History stories.

A veto would damn well have made a statement.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. A veto would have meant something to me.

I don't get much in the way of crumbs these days, but I would have taken it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

145. But it would mean a LOT to the citizens who hope he's still on their side.

[russspeakeasy]

148. It would have meant something to me.

[originalpckelly]

36. Alright, here's what happened:

The President has decided to unilaterally ignore part of the constitution instead of unilaterally ignoring a law that is unconstitutional.

It's a big conflict, and it would obviously have gone to the supreme court, because this is not merely a political question, it's a real serious matter.

If the SCOTUS is worth is weight in gold, it would have stated that we cannot hold someone indefinitely, that people need to have trials in a speedy fashion, that you need to uphold the constitution, and that the act of congress was unconstitutional.

Obama is mealy mouthing this and avoiding the inevitable conflict, and it shows that he's really willing to give up one of the most basic principles of jurisprudence in order to please the baser instincts of Americans.

[originalpckelly]

28. Yeah, they want them tried in court until they get the result they want...

but if they don't then they'll send them back to GITMO.

[ProSense]

29. The

ACLU wants them tried in a federal court too.

[originalpckelly]

33. Yes, I do as well.

The problem here is that they are not talking about that, they wouldn't need to put out a legal opinion saying they have the right to indefinitely hold someone unless they...PLANNED ON HOLDING THEM FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME!

Shocking, I know.

[Mattylock]

120. Thanks for providing the rest of the story.

[VoteProgressive]

39. There is an average of one person a year taken off Death row because of new...

evidence. How scary is that?

[kctim]

44. Are the Gitmo bums classified as criminals?

[xocet]

54. ...

Are the KC "bums" classified as people?

[Modern_Matthew]

50. RECC'D! More threads like this, please. nt

[jeff47]

52. As usual, blaming the wrong person

The "moderate" democrats in congress tied Obama's hands. They were busy wetting themselves when the GOP made an issue out of trying Gitmo detainees.

And they're very happy that you're blaming Obama for it instead of primarying them.

[no limit]

58. You mean democrats like Harry Reid? And again. Obama could have used his veto power

[jeff47]

61. No, the bill passed with a veto-proof majority.

And yes, I mean democrats like Harry Reid. He's quite the disappointment.

[originalpckelly]

62. Here is his choice:

1. Ignore an unconstitutional law.
2. Ignore part of a higher law, part of the US Constitution, and one of the most basic ideas in jurisprudence.

What did Obama do? Why of course, he ignored the US Constitution!

He could have forced the issue by ignoring the law and refusing to enforce it. He could have argued that he was trying to reverse a wrong by closing down GITMO and transferring people to the new US detention facility.

[jeff47]

65. That's not his choice.

Congress blocked his efforts using their absolute power over federal spending. They blocked any money going to trying Gitmo detainees in civilian courts. There is no law forbidding closing Gitmo that he can ignore. The prisoners are still there, and Congress has blocked all money to get them out of there.

So Obama's real options are:
1) Usurp Congress's power over federal spending, violating one of the major separation-of-powers elements in the Constitution.
2) Do nothing and let the prisoners rot.
3) Attempt to justify the detention with an executive order, with military tribunals providing at least some method of trying the prisoners.

He did #3. It's terrible, but #1 and #2 are worse.

Your problem is with Congress. Stop blaming Obama for their failings, and primary your congresscritters if they're Democrats. Vote them out if their Republicans. If you won't do either, you're absolutely no help to the prisoners in Gitmo.

[SidDithers]

138. Finally, some sanity in this thread...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[RaleighNCDUer]

147. He's CIC. He can order the use of military funds to transfer them to Leavenworth.

If congress doesn't like it, they can cut the Pentagon budget. Next time the budget comes up for a vote.

[jeff47]

168. No, he can't

CIC does not give him any control over the military budget. There are a few emergency powers that the president and DoD can use to get funding if there's an actual emergency, or no budget/continuing resolution. We are not in that situation.

The president can not order the DoD to spend money against the orders of Congress.

[no limit]

64. Just because something has 68 votes doesn't mean Obama has to sign it

the amendment we are talking about had 90 votes for 6 against. So if your beef is with centrst democrats then just about all of them must be centrist. And maybe we should do something about that?

But even with that you can not show me a single thing Obama did to pressure anyone in congress to go along with him. A veto would have gone a long way in that.

[jeff47]

66. Centrists start the ball rolling

And others do not wish to take a stand where they will:
1) lose and
2) have to endure the subsequent assault in the next election.

"But even with that you can not show me a single thing Obama did to pressure anyone in congress to go along with him."

Only because you refuse to acknowledge any. Why waste my time when your next post will be "he didn't do enough!!1!!!1!!!".

"A veto would have gone a long way in that."

How, exactly? They had a veto-proof majority. A veto would literally do nothing.

Your problem is with Congress. Stop whining about Obama and primary your congresscritters who actually caused this problem.

[no limit]

78. we are talking about 90 to 6. Those centrists must be really powerful

to convince that many people who swear they are otherwise progressive.

To say you would be wasting your time by giving examples isn't much of an argument on your part. You want to provide atleast one example (how many exactly do you have)? You're right, I might not buy it. Or maybe I will. But I'll be sure to provide you with more of an argument than simply "he didn't do enough!!1!!!1!!!".

Congress has many problems. But you are using congress as a crutch for Obama's own failures.

[jeff47]

170. Perhaps re-reading my post would help.

Politicians exist to get re-elected. Making a stand on an issue where you will 1) lose, and 2) where the public does not support you is a great way to end up like Feingold and Grayson. Sure, they probably sleep well at night, but they lost re-election. Once the measure to de-fund the closing of Gitmo reached the point where it would pass, standing on principle became a liability. The solution to that is to elect better Democrats to congress.

"You're right, I might not buy it"

There's no might. It's not like I just dropped of the turnip truck.

"But you are using congress as a crutch for Obama's own failures."

You've yet to provide any mechanism by which Obama could do something about Gitmo. So far, you've just waved your hands and say he could have made Congress do what he wants. One would have to have spent the last several years under a rock to not understand that Congress does whatever it wants, not what the president orders it to. Or did W secretly privatize social security with his Republican majority?

[RaleighNCDUer]

152. "A veto would literally do nothing."

It would throw the bill back into congress, with a LOT of publicity. Not only that, it is one thing to pass a bill with a 'veto-proof majority' and something else entirely to pass a bill AGAINST the president's veto.

"Stop whining about Obama and primary your congresscritters who actually caused this problem."

You do understand, they only have a 'problem' if it is made clear that the President OPPOSES what they did? It is that 'do nothing' veto which could spur the primary opposition which YOU say is the solution.

[jeff47]

172. You seem to be forgetting the polling at the time

Closing Gitmo was the unpopular option, thanks to GOP demagoguery that the Democrats failed to counter. Sending the bill back to Congress for an override vote would indeed have created a lot of publicity...that would have made it pass by an even larger margin.

"You do understand, they only have a 'problem' if it is made clear that the President OPPOSES what they did?"

They, meaning the members of Congress who voted to block closing Gitmo, don't have a problem at all. Obama's opposition doesn't matter, since Congress has absolute power over federal spending. He can make all the speeches he'd like about what a terrible thing it is, and that will result in nothing changing.

It's the prisoners in Gitmo that have a problem, and it's the people who want to close Gitmo that have a problem. To solve it, you need to make it a problem for the people in Congress.

[RaleighNCDUer]

175. To solve it, you need to make it a problem for the people in Congress.

And the place to start would be for Obama to take a stand AGAINST congress on it, not to cave to congress and thus give his tacit approval.

It is absurd to think that the best speechmaker in a generation can't come up with an argument in favor of the rule of law and the constitution, and the efficacy of our federal courts.

So why doesn't he?

[jeff47]

178. No, Obama isn't relevant here

The place to start is with your own congresscritters. Right now, any speechifying by Obama would do nothing. But lots of pissed-off constituents would do something.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skeeve]

57. Rec #33 n/t

[mmonk]

59. Add in King's Muslim hearings and there is an ominous tone

in today's America.

[jody]

60. Sometimes you get what you vote for, most often much less than you expected! nt

[Octafish]

72. Obviously you weren't paying attention during the campaign...

...to all the bullfeathers.

Thank goodness.

K & R for the Constitution.

[chill_wind]

75. Neither were those legal sharpshooters like Greg Craig, Phil Carter, Marty Lederman

(to name a few) who thought he actually wanted them to do their jobs, end the Bush Cheney lawlessness and reform the OLC. And then there was Dawn Johnsen, put out there to titillate us, when she didn't have a prayer.

I find it virtually impossible to imagine Dawn Johnsen opining that the President has the legal authority to order American citizens assassinated with no due process or to detain people indefinitely with no charges. I find it hard to believe that the Dawn Johnsen who wrote in 2008 that "we must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power" would stand by quietly and watch the Obama administration adopt the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism. I find it impossible to envision her sanctioning the ongoing refusal of the DOJ to withdraw the January, 2006 Bush/Cheney White Paper that justified illegal surveillance with obscenely broad theories of executive power. I don't know why her nomination was left to die, but I do know that her beliefs are quite antithetical to what this administration is doing.

If you were Barack Obama and were pursuing the policies that he ended up pursuing, would you want Dawn Johnsen in charge of the office which determines the scope of your legal authority as President?

-Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/johnsen

:-(

[OnyxCollie]

83. K&R. nt

[grahamhgreen]

84. How can anyone stand for this evisceration of our rights? Disgusting.

[Major Hogwash]

85. Are the people held at GITMO US citizens?

No, so the Bill of Rights does not apply to them.

Case closed.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JustinL]

90. sorry, non-citzens also have constitutional rights

Glenn Greenwald demolishes the right-wing argument that only citizens have constitutional rights here.

...First, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans. The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible. What's more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices -- and, indeed, not even the Bush administration -- argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens. That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim.

...

The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008. To the contrary, the Supreme Court -- all the way back in 1886 -- explicitly held this to be the case, when, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. In so doing, the Court explicitly rejected what Susan Collins and many others claim about the Constitution. Just read what the Court said back then, as it should settle this matter forever (emphasis added):


The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court...

[Bonobo]

91. Wow. You thought that non-US citizens have no rights? Just wow...

Case closed.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Seriously? Ok then. Nothing to see here I guess. Thanks for you settling that.

Nice to know that people in the US that aren't citizens, or people held under US authority on what amounts to US soil overseas are entitled to no rights at all, and we can just kill them, or take all their stuff, or torture them forever, you know, no biggie.

After all, they are non persons citizens right? Hey, cool deal. The republicans will love this shit.

[demwing]

98. Better check with the SCOTUS on that

Start with BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH (Nos. 06-1195 and 06-1196)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html

"Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, a privilege not to be withdrawn except in conformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2. We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege. Congress has enacted a statute, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 119 Stat. 2739, that provides certain procedures for review of the detainees’ status. We hold that those procedures are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus. Therefore §7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), 28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007), operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. We do not address whether the President has authority to detain these petitioners nor do we hold that the writ must issue. These and other questions regarding the legality of the detention are to be resolved in the first instance by the District Court."\\

again:

"We hold these petitioners (aliens at Guantanamo) do have the habeas corpus privilege"

[originalpckelly]

115. The US Constitution doesn't govern individual private citizens, it is the government's law.

Wherever the US Government goes, it must follow the US Constitution!

[Recursion]

128. A) We don't know who's there

so we can't say whether they're citizens or not (though they probably aren't)

B) The Constitutional issue is not whether or not they're citizens (the amendment simply says "no person") but the scope and effect of the "cases arising from land and naval forces" and "war or time of public danger" clause.

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. Actually, the "cases arising from land and naval forces" and "war or time of public danger" clause

applies to the 5th amendment's reference to indictment by a grand jury - it has no bearing on the right to a speedy trial, or the right to not implicate himself, or the right to be free of coercion and, particularly, to not testify himself under coercion.

Just because someone is under military jurisdiction there is no carte blanch to hold without trial, torture or execute a prisoner.

[Recursion]

158. There's definitely precedent for summary execution

AFAIK under maritime law that's still technically permitted in cases of piracy, though no nation seems to apply that anymore.

[RaleighNCDUer]

160. There's precedent for hanging people who steal a loaf of bread -

that doesn't mean it is still a part of modern jurisprudence. Even in the days of the wooden ship navy, captured pirates were 'hung from the yardarm' only after being shipped back to port and receiving a trial.

[BobbyBoring]

169. And

As things stand now, there's nothing that prevents a citizen, like maybe you or me from being there. That;s the really scary part. Any one of us could be hauled off for what ever reason and be stuck in limbo for years or life.

That's my problem with it~

[RaleighNCDUer]

153. If they are within US jurisdiction the Bill of Rights does apply to them.

Citizenship is not a requisite.

Case closed.

[DirkGently]

165. Wrong. "Persons," not citizens. Case closed.

[DeSwiss]

96. In the future......

...historians will likely conclude that the Nobel Peace Prize was meant to be satirical.



- And the Bill of Rights a farce......

K&R

[JDPriestly]

99. Thanks for your post, originalpckelly

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson must be turning over in their graves.

We fought our Revolution for these fundamental rights asserting then, as we should now remember, that these are the innate righs of every human being, not something that governments can grant or deny at the whim of a few very flawed "leaders."

[sce56]

101. K&R, Even Matt Damon agrees, The President has let us all down!

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/512047/once_big_obama_supporter,_matt_damon_no_longer_a_fan_of_our_president/

Once Big Obama Supporter, Matt Damon No Longer a Fan of Our President

You probably remember Matt Damon stumping for Obama during the 2008 presidential election season -- he was a huge Obama supporter who was as high as any of us on hope and the potential for change, and he helped mobilize Obama's young, connected supporters accordingly. But like many of us progressives, Damon is now somewhat disillusioned with our 44th president. In an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN last night, Damon detailed why he is no longer an Obama fan. " misinterpreted his mandate," Damon said, adding:

"In his State of the Union he didn't even say the word 'poverty,' " said Damon. "You've got millions of people languishing in it." Damon, who backed the Obama campaign in 2008, said he appreciates that the president is a "deep thinker." The actor called Obama brilliant, but said he "definitely wanted more."

When questioned about what he'd do about Afghanistan, Damon said, "I don't think the mission there has been very well articulated. And I think it would help to kind of reframe the way we're thinking about being there and why we're there."

Damon also said there has not been a meaningful reform of Wall Street. He said he believes that is "dangerous" and "shameful" and that the financial crisis is "just going to happen again," because "they don't make anything. They don't build anything."

[Enthusiast]

108. I'm with Matt Damon.

Now he'll probably be blacklisted.

[leftstreet]

102. K&R

[paparush]

107. Oh, cmon! It's not like he was a constitutional law instructor or anything...

oh
wait

[TBF]

109. Another rec for the constitution. Sorry but Obama does not get to pick

and choose which parts he wants to use. I don't care if it started with Bush doing the same thing, it's still wrong.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

111. The evidence strongly suggests that you are wrong.

"Sorry but Obama *should* not get to pick and choose which parts he wants to use" I'd agree with, though.

[VoteProgressive]

112. This is a horrible move by Obama.

[Recursion]

122. OK, what should he do?

I'm furious at Congress, I'm not sure what options are left to Obama after they kept him from trying the people there in the US.

[bvar22]

140. I agree with you.

The President is merely a token position with no real power.
He is just a weak figurehead completely subordinate to The Congress.

We would be better off without a President.
I don't understand WHY they even bother to campaign and make all those promises and stuff
since they can't do anything anyway.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[Recursion]

142. OK, what should he do?

I've asked this several times on this thread and nobody seems to have any ideas.

[chill_wind]

163. He has the option of signing statements, for one. He's used them before

and he's in no danger of catching up with Bush's record by any stretch. There's a certain political irony in that, to be sure, in doing something Bush did in the process of trying to UNDO what Bush did, but he's either committed to his goals and policies on this as Bush was to his, and to using all his tools to push that commitment - or he's not.

The White House has, until now, balked at confrontation even as it watched its policy options dwindle. Not one administration official who spoke about the internal deliberations could say for sure whether the White House, in moving to protect the right to prosecute detainees in federal court, would in fact use it.

"All presidents want to preserve maneuverability and authority, that is natural," said Elisa Massimino, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights First. "But President Obama has had the authority to move prisoners to the United States, he's done the background work to identify people to bring to justice and he's squandered the opportunities to exercise that authority. It is striking to now see a fiercer desire to preserve authority than to use it," she said.

ProPublica Jan 2011
http://www.propublica.org/article/administration-prepares-to-defy-efforts-to-limit-obamas-options-for-guantan

Presidential Signing Statements

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

[jeff47]

173. So....the plan is for Obama to violate the Constitution....great idea. (nt)

[chill_wind]

174. Presidents have used them since James Monroe.

Bush abused them in sheer volume and scope.

[jeff47]

179. So you want Obama to act like Bush

Actually, do even worse than Bush. While Bush did a lot of "I'm not gonna enforce this", he did not rewrite the budget.

[Buddha2B]

113. K&R

Didn't take me long.

OP won me over with the law.

[pecwae]

114. Kick & rec.

[Poboy]

116. R'd

[swilton]

117. Thank you originalpckelly!

[Recursion]

118. "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces..." (nt)

[originalpckelly]

121. Are you capable of reading?

1. That's a different clause, as delineated by the semicolon!
2. That's OUR MILITARY they mean! They don't mean people who our military encounters while doing missions. Basically, that clause creates agreement with the section of the US Constitution proper allowing the Congress to create a separate code of military justice.
3. These people being held at GITMO are not in the military of any nation! The only reason you think this is OK is the name of the guy and where he's from. If this was some English dude named Robert Wilkensoe, you'd see how plainly wrong this is.
4. Even if they were, they'd be subject to the Geneva Conventions, and they'd be guaranteed a whole slew of rights they are being denied!
5. You cannot hold any civilians, like the people at GITMO, without following these laws.

[Recursion]

127. Yes, in particular

... I read that passage that distinguishes between military cases and "war or times of public danger" and civilian courts.

I'm furious Congress won't let the detainees be tried in the US. Since they won't, it's not clear to me what options they executive has.

[blackspade]

124. K&R for a great post.

A good constitutional reminder for the rule of law haters.

[thereismore]

131. Well, you know. Sleeping/standing naked is actually for his protection.

So he can't commit suicide by stuffing his pants down his throat.

:sarcasm:

[chill_wind]

143. But only at night. The other 16 hours he's magically ok.

Ain't that something?

[russspeakeasy]

154. Pfizer probably has a new pill that works for 16 hours.

They developed it with a 50 billion dollar grant that was
diverted from cancer research.

[thereismore]

171. Swine military "justice" system. I bet the Menendez brothers get a good night's sleep. nt

[snot]

149. Need I also mention the ad hoc annulment of the Fourth and First Amendments,

not to mention habeas corpus and the penumbra of privacy rights?

[GeorgiaPeach]

164. K&R

[hulka38]

177. I have a feeling

(no proof mind you) that the WH was encouraging Senate Dems behind the scenes to vote for this bill instead of against it in order to say the President's hands are tied.