----- From: Linda Boyd Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:43 PM Subject: Rachel Maddow: Indefinite detention? Shame on you... President Obama
Friends, President Obama unveiled his plan to twist our laws even further in order to preemptively detain potential terrorists. This is a far cry from the American standard of being innocent until proven guilty. See Rachel Maddow's report here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/42858 Please tell President Obama that he has violated the law -- and our trust. �http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/� Mr. President, There is no way to "reshape standards," or to create "a legitimate legal framework" for prolonged or indefinite detention without violating the constitution and the rights of human beings. I'm not buying it, and am deeply outraged. Remember your oath of office! Linda Boyd ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does Obama Plan to Give Up a Little Liberty to Get a Little Safety? By: Ian Welsh Thursday May 21, 2009 3:02 pm http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/21/does-obama-plan-to-give-up-a-little-liberty-to-get-a-little-safety/ Obama today, on giving up liberty to get safety: Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. In other words, people who have committed no crime which can be proved in a court of law, including the crime of conspiracy, will be held indefinitely without a trial. Note that Obama wants to use military commissions to try some detainees, which means that these detainees can't be found guilty of anything even under military law. This is tantamount to punishment for a thought crime. It is also strikingly similar to the rationale used by the Bush Administration. And, Obama said something else which is nothing more than a continuation of Bush Administration excuses: In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night. Now, this is simply wrong. Here's the Presidential oath of office, as enumerated in the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Nothing about the most important duty being to keep Americans safe. The first duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. What's the Constitution have to say about punishing people without a trial? Well, the Fifth Amendment says: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In other words, you get a trial. What about the idea that civilian courts shouldn't have jurisdiction? The privilege of the writ habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. Note that America is not invaded, and it is not in the throes of a rebellion. Heck, this isn't even just violating the Constitution, it doesn't even match up to the Magna Carta, a document 800 years old: No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, not will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land. Which is to say, you can't be punished without being convicted by a jury of your peers. The danger here with Obama is, in certain respects, worse than that of the Bush Administration. Bush certainly wrapped his actions in the flag, but less so in the Constitution. The phrase "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" implicitly admitted that what was being done didn't meet a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but hey, they couldn't have really meant those words for "bad people". Obama instead implicitly claims to come to praise and protect the Constitution, not to bury it: The idea that safety can be purchased by giving up liberty is simply wrong. Americans have much more to fear from a President who can lock up folks indefinitely without a trial than they do from al-Qaeda...... And where do we draw the line? Once we've decided that thought crimes are worthy of preventative punishment, once that is a principle embedded in the law, who else are we going to lock up whom we can't prove has committed a crime, not even that of conspiracy, because we think they may commit one in the future? That's not a power any human being should have over another. But it is the power Obama has demanded, has arrogated to himself, just as George Bush does.... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ShadowGovernment" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ShadowGovernment -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
<<inline: unknown.jpg>>
