MIke Malloy is "disappointed" in Obama's speech today, as well. It

seems that Mike, Rachel and I agree that preventive detention is against the Constitution.

They were all in continued state of hostility against the United States.

They were held in 'prolonged detention". None had lawyers or any due process of any kind.

How was their detention, for hostile combatants still in a state of war against the United States, unconstitutional?



In the United States, at the end of World War II there were 175 Branch Camps serving 511 Area Camps containing over 425,000 prisoners of war. The camps were located all over the US but were mostly in the South because of the expense of heating the barracks. Eventually, every state with the exception of Nevada, North Dakota, and Vermont had POW camps.
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
Camp Location
Camp Allegan Michigan
Bradley Field Connecticut
Camp Adair Oregon
Camp Albuquerque New Mexico
Camp Algoma Idaho
Camp Algona Iowa
Camp Aliceville Alabama
Camp Allen Norfolk, Virginia
Camp Alva Oklahoma
Camp Andrews Boston Harbor
Camp Angel Island California
Camp Ashby Virginia
Camp Ashford West Virginia
Camp Atlanta Nebraska
Camp Atterbury (3,500 Italians. Later 10,000 Germans)(www.IndianaMilitary.org) Indiana
Camp AuTrain Michigan, AuTrain
Camp Barkeley Texas
Camp Bastrop

* Kurt Richard Westphal escaped in August 1945, and was recaptured in Hamburg, Germany in 1954.

Texas
Camp Beale California
Camp Blanding Florida
Camp Bowie Texas<1>
Camp Brady Texas
Camp Breckinridge Kentucky
Camp Briner North Carolina
Camp Bullis San Antonio, Texas
Camp Butner

* Kurt Rossmeisl escaped on 4 August 1945, and surrendered in 1959.

North Carolina
Camp Campbell Kentucky
Camp Carson Colorado
Camp Chaffee Sebastian County, Arkansas
Camp Chickasha Grady County, Oklahoma
Camp Claiborne Louisiana
Camp Clarinda Iowa
Camp Clark Missouri
Camp Clinton Mississippi
Camp Como Mississippi
Camp Concordia Kansas
Camp Cooke California
Camp Croft South Carolina
Camp Crossville Tennessee
Camp Crowder Missouri
Camp David Maryland
Camp Deming

* Georg Gärtner escaped on 21 September 1945, and finally surrendered in 1985. He was the last, and had remained at large for 40 years.

New Mexico
Camp Dermott Arkansas
Camp Douglas Wyoming
Camp Edwards Massachusetts
Camp Ellis Illinois
Camp Evelyn Alger County, Michigan
Camp Fannin

* Located on the campus of the now University of Texas Health Center at Tyler.

Tyler, Texas
Camp Florence

* Largest all-new prisoner of war compound ever constructed on American soil <1>it is now used as United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

Florence, Arizona
Camp Forrest

* First attempted escape by two German POWs on 5 November 1942.

Tullahoma, Tennessee
Camp Gene Autry Ardmore Army Air Field, Oklahoma
Camp Germfask Germfask, Michigan
Camp Grant Rockford, IL
Camp Greeley <2> Greeley, Colorado
Camp Gruber near Muskogee, Oklahoma
Camp Hearne Hearne, Texas
Camp Hereford Deaf Smith County, Texas (only for Italians)<2>
Camp Hobart Oklahoma
Camp Hoffman (close to Fort Lincoln and Held over 5,000 confederate soldiers) Maryland
Camp Hood Texas
Camp Horseshoe Ranch Hickory, Oklahoma
Camp Houlton Maine
Camp Howze Texas<3>
Camp Hulen Palacios,Texas
Camp Huntsdale Pennsylvania
Camp Huntsville Texas
Camp Indianola Nebraska
Camp Jerome Arkansas
Camp Las Cruces

* Werner Paul Lueck escaped in November 1945, and was recaptured in Mexico City in 1954.

Las Cruces, New Mexico
Camp Lee Virginia
Camp Livingston Louisiana
Camp Lockett California
Camp Lordsburg

* 1942-1945: held Japanese American internees, and then German/Italian POWs.

Lordsburg, New Mexico
Camp Mackall Hoffman, North Carolina
Camp McAlester Oklahoma
Camp McCain Mississippi
Camp McCoy Wisconsin
Camp McLean Texas
Camp Mackan North Carolina
Camp Maxey Texas<4>
Camp Mexia Texas
Camp Myles Standish Massachusetts
Camp Monticello Arkansas
Camp New Cumbrland Pennsylvania
Camp Ogden Utah
Camp Oklahoma City On site of Will Rogers World Airport.
Camp Opelika Alabama
Camp Owosso Michigan, Shiawassee County
Camp Papago Park

* Germany's 'Great Escape' was from a 200 foot tunnel by 25 prisoners on 24 December 1944.

Arizona
Camp Pauls Valley Oklahoma
Camp Peary Virginia
Camp Perry Ohio
Camp Philips Kansas
Camp Pickett Virginia
Camp Pima Arizona
Camp Pine Grove Furnace / Camp Michaux Gettysburg, PA
Camp Polk Louisiana
Camp Pomona California
Camp Popolopen New York
Camp Pori Michigan, Upper Peninsula
Camp Pryor Oklahoma
Camp Raco Michigan, near Sault Ste. Marie
Camp Reynolds Pennsyslvania
Camp Jos. T. Robinson Arkansas
Camp Roswell

* 1942-1946: German POWs.

Roswell, New Mexico (14 miles SE of town)
Camp Rucker Alabama
Camp Rupert Idaho
Camp Ruston Louisiana
Camp Santa Fe New Mexico
Camp Scottsbluff Nebraska
Camp Shanks New York: Point of embarkation
Camp Sharpe Gettysburg, PA
Camp Shelby Mississippi
Camp Sibert Alabama
Camp Sidnaw Sidnaw, Michigan
Camp Somerset Maryland
Camp Stark New Hampshire
Camp Stewart Georgia
Camp Stockton California
Stringtown POW Camp Atoka, Oklahoma
Camp Sutton North Carolina
Camp Swift Bastrop, Texas
Camp Thornton Illinois
Camp Tipton Oklahoma
Camp Tishomingo Oklahoma
Camp Tonkawa

* Site of murder of Johannes Kunze by five fellow German POWs, who were subsequently tried, found guilty and hanged.

Oklahoma
Camp Tooele / POW Camp, Co.1, Tooele (original postage) Utah
Camp Trinidad

* A 150-foot electrically-lighted tunnel was discovered by authorities.

Colorado
Camp Van Dorn Mississippi
Camp Wallace Galveston County,Texas
Camp Warner Utah
Camp Washington

* Reinhold Pabel escaped on 9 September 1945, and was recaptured in Chicago in March 1953

Washington (near Peoria), Illinois
Camp Waynoka Oklahoma
Camp Wharton Wharton, Texas
Camp Wheeler Georgia
Camp White Oregon
Camp White Rock Dallas, Texas
Camp Wolters Texas
Corpus Christi Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas
Edgewood Arsenal Maryland
Eglin Army Air Field Florida
Fort Benjamin Harrison Indiana
Fort Benning Georgia
Fort Bliss Texas
Fort Bragg North Carolina
Fort Campbell Kentucky
Fort Crockett Galveston, Texas
Fort Curtis Virginia
Fort Custer Michigan
Fort Devens Massachusetts
Fort Dix

* Harry Girth escaped in June 1946, and surrendered to authorities in New York City in 1953.

New Jersey
Fort Drum New York
Fort DuPont Delaware
Fort Eustis Virginia
Fort Gordon Georgia
Fort Jackson South Carolina
Fort Kearny Rhode Island
Fort Knox Kentucky
Fort Lawton (Seattle) Washington

* A riot by Negro soldiers took place over preferential treatment given to Italian & German

POW's. One Italian POW was lynched, and Leon Jaworski was the military prosecutor. The Italian and one German POW who committed suicide rather than be repatriated are buried just outside the post cemetery boundaries.
Fort Leavenworth Kansas
Fort Leonard Wood Missouri
Fort Lewis Between Olympia and Tacoma, WA
Fort McClellan Alabama
Fort Meade Maryland
Fort Niagara New York
Fort Oglethorpe Georgia
Fort Omaha Omaha, Nebraska
Fort Ord

* A 120-foot nearly completed tunnel was discovered by authorities.

California
Fort Patrick Henry Virginia
Fort Reno Oklahoma
Fort Riley Kansas
Fort Robinson Nebraska
Fort D. A. Russell Texas
Fort Sam Houston Texas
Fort Sheridan Illinois
Fort Sill Lawton, Oklahoma
Fort Sumner New Mexico
Fort F.E. Warren Wyoming
Glennan General Hospital Oklahoma
Halloran General Hospital New York
Hampton Roads Port of Embarkation Virginia
Indiantown Gap Military Reservation Pennsyslvania
Holabird Signal Depot Maryland
McCloskey General Hospital Texas
Memphis General Depot Tennessee
New Orleans Port of Embarkation Louisiana
Olmstead Field Pennsyslvania
Pine Bluff Arsenal Arkansas
Richmond ASF Depot Virginia
Tobyhanna Military Reservation Pennsyslvania
Westover Field Massachusetts
Rose Hill Rocky mountain arsenal, Colorado

1. A Declaration of War between countries existed (for the POWs)

2. The POWs were in uniform at the time of capture and then held until the end of war.

3. The detainees (and striping of property) of the Japanese Americans was NOT something that should be looked to as an example of "American Justice" in action.


in the current War on Terror (or whatever the hell it's called today) there has never been a formal declaration of war.

The prisoners that we capture in "hostile territory" might well be considered POWs of some sort, however, it's questionable what that means.

Any "terrorists" we capture committing acts of terror against the US or it's embassies around the world are criminals and deserve to be tried in a court. Sometimes a court in the country where the crime was committed, sometimes in a US court.

So you agree that "prolonged detentions" can be constitutional under the US Constitution?



If yes then the question is what are the standards to meet that condition.



That brings us to the question of whether those standards are being met.

1) Some of the detainees are part of an organized army (not of a nation state army, but an organized pan national jihad army) that has in fact declared war against the US in a number of 'Fatwas'

2) The fact that the POWs are in uniform is what gives them guaranteed rights. Combatants that do not wear the uniform are not covered by the convention and were executed, did not receive prolonged detention.

3) The detention of Japanese Americans was clearly unconstitutional but clearly off point of this discussion because the JA were not in a 'state of war' against the US.


The point is that under certain circumstances 'prolonged detention' (or even execution by military tribunal) is entirely constitutional.

Now it does not mean that simply because it may be constitutional in some circumstances that it is constitutional in all circumstances , and that is Obama's point. In order for it to be legal it would have to meet certain standards, some of them have to be defined by the particular circumstances we are now in.

(edited to fix above sentence)

In conclusion we agree that in certain circumstances 'prolonged detention on US soil' is perfectly constitutional. Simply asserting that 'prolonged detention is Unconstitutional', as the OP does, is nonsense and not supported by history or your reply

Detaining citizens of another country, with which we are NOT at war, who are not in the military forces of that country, IS unconstitutional.


If you want to do that, change the constitution to allow.

Now it is established that detentions are constitutional the burden is on you to show why President Obama's actions differ materially and not nominally again repeating differ materially and not nominally and are therefore unconstitutional.


For example. Being a member of a trans national army that is at war with the US does not differ materially with a national army that is at war with the US, only nominally so. The core defining elements, organization, lethal intent, following command orders, are all exactly the same. The conditions that are different, lack of rank and lack of uniform, actually lessen the bar for establishing constitutionally.


At this point we know two things to be facts; 1) detentions, in some cases can be legal 2)the President is putting forth a possible system that might or might not be used.


To stand up and state that Obama's proposed system of detention is unconstitutional is blather nonsense, because he hasn't released the conditions, the details, the oversight or the legal tests. You might want to say that you are worried that it could be unconstitutional but to state as a fact that anything the President suggests is inherently unconstitutional is foolish nonsense and factually not true. (To begin with it can't be found 'unconstitutional' until it is actually applied to someone but more importantly it seems to parrallel the same kind of detention that was used for 425,000 foreign nationals in WWII.



Here is a hint that your statement that it is categorically unconstitutional is not based on firm ground:

Neither the ACLU or other guardians of the constitution and human rights have pronounced it 'unconstitutional'


"President Obama is absolutely right to emphasize that ignoring our values undermines rather than enhances America's security," Executive Director Kenneth Roth said. "But allowing detention without trial creates a dangerous loophole in our justice system that mimics the Bush administration's abusive approach to fighting terrorism.


This is a very lukewarm criticism and obviously they have decided to actually wait and see what the President proposes in detail before making any sweeping statement that it is 'unconstitutional'

edited to add

(BTW the issue received so little response from the human rights community - the rest of the speech receiving high marks - that when you google ACLU prolonged detention, last 24 hours, the number one citation is this thread!!! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=ACLU+prolonged+detention&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=d&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images)

of "constitutional power" to prove that their actions are constitutional.

I simply can't believe that open ended detention, without trial, without access to legal recourse, is something YOU think is OK simply because Obama has proposed it.

As for "well, the ACLU hasn't objected, therefore it's OK"... is simply too weak for words.

The Center for American Progress did attend this meeting with Obama where this concept was first floated. The meeting was "off the record" and therefore, some of the attendees are not commenting at this time. The CAP, which also provides legal representation for some Gitmo detainees, broke the "off the record" promise and reported on this meeting, and they also state that MANY if not ALL of the attendees expressed unhappiness with the Presidents proposal. When it goes "on the record" (as it must), I think we will find more groups and constitutional lawyers objecting to the concept.

I agree that terrorists should be tried as criminals. But the battlefield isn't a crime scene and there has to be some mechanism to try people who we capture on the battlefield.

is simply being in the country we invaded. For a time, we were paying $5,000 to $25,000 PER DETAINEE to local warlords to turn in "Taliban" or "Al Quida" to our local commanders.

Very few of them are actual "enemy soldiers" (uniformed or not) who surrendered to our armed forces or were otherwise captured.

However, all should be accorded the status of POWs, not terrorists.

The only terrorists are ones that we captured at actual terrorist training camps (and with other evidence that they are actual terrorists) or captured in the act of committing terrorism or planning a terrorist attack.

against the United States in the late '90s. So your statement that there has never been a formal declaration of war is inaccurate.

In addition, we invaded Iraq, again without a declaration of War.

That's the point. Though I agree with you about Iraq.

I think that is their formal declaration of war on the US.

and other terrorist operations in the 1960s 70s and 80s issued many "declarations of war" against "imperialist powers".... They also committed horrible acts. And yet we didn't feel the need to torture their adherents nor treat them as if a state of war actually exists.

However, last I checked, the Congress (who has the exclusive power to declare war) has not taken a vote to declare war on anyone.

This whole discussion is about what the Obama administration is going to do. I dont see how torture is involved.

I added it as the current administration is simply choosing to ignore the actions of the previous administration in regards to torture. To ignore those actions is to give tacit approval of such actions.

because that's what happened in Afghanistan. Not exactly the best way to determine who deserves to be detained.

Prolonged detention is not the same as preventive detention. The former refers to current Gitmo detainees. The latter seems to be a completely new invention, and I hope only an embarrassing misunderstanding somewhere between Obama, ACLU and NYT. But I don't think they're one and the same.

or not.

They like to cite all these people who don't even have his educational pedigree as being more knowledgeable about these laws than him.

The President DOES NOT GET TO DETERMINE WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. That is left up to the Supreme Court, (for better or worse).

she's saying that with his educational and professional background this president should know what's constitutional just as much as jonathan turley and the like do. and definitely more so than mike malloy.

so if "president" Bush said torture was constitutional, you would go along with that?

torture either.

Is the law different for one president and different for another? Or does the constitution only apply to the presidents you don't like?

own fucking ears before I will trash what the hell he said because of what the hell some tv person said. Rachel has never liked this president and that was clear before the election. I will continue to trust and support the President as they try to figure out a not so simple solution to this mess. You do what you want to.

no president has tried to violate the consitution, ever. And if the president does it, that means it's not illegal.

Do you also "go with the president" on who should be imprisoned without charges forever? Really?

vs. rachel and malloy.

Again, I'll go with the President.

why not ?!
am i right or am i right?!


if they say it, it must be true!

the OP discussed rachel and malloy.

Again, I will go with the President over those two and their take on what the hell he said.

Thanks

:eyes:

RL

It was under a man who had a vice president who could only be labeled as hating the US. So, what is the point...don't put the same sort of qualifications on the current president due to the actions of the previous president. You like most others who are hysterical are underestimating our President and basically disregarding his resume and what he brings to the office.

Actually it makes your position even less warranted.

actually eligible for US rights.

As the great philosopher George Carlin once said, Rights are ideas, they are as tangible as a breeze. What we really have are privileges and privileges can and often are taken away, compromised or done away with all together...

So you assume that the detainees are eligible for rights, that they should be treated as any American citizen or American resident even though the so-called crimes they committed occurred on the battle field, meaning anywhere the Bush Administration decided was a battlefield.

I'm just saying. It is not as easy as it sounds. Especially when you take into consideration the Right Wing which seems to be overly willing to play footloose and fancy free with everybody's "rights" in the name of national security.

I don't know. It will and should be decided in the court system but then again, that branch of the government is top heavy with nanny state conservatives who are hell bent on controlling thought, action and intent.

n/t

comment on the seminal American Document.

So who's the "elitist?" The person who asks a question or the person who thinks they can read minds and puts words into people's mouths?

It doesn't matter whose credentials are better. Plenty of people with superb credentials have offered up completely twisted opinions on the document, to justify their own actions. If you wanted to hire a person to make an argument that something you KNEW was unconstitutional, actually wasn't, the best man for the job would be a Constitutional scholar.

You attempted to make the argument that Obama is right because he knows the Constitution better than those who criticize his argument here do. You can deny that if you like but we all know better. Your argument is wrong. Best move on.

Just because two talk show hosts and a message board poster agree on something doesn't make them right either, so we're back to square one.

And where are you guys getting this ability to read minds? I didn't make an argument, I asked a question. I didn't say Obama was right, I asked a question. Instead of an answer I got two people who have never met me telling me instead what I was really, and apparently, secretly thinking!

They are subject to the Geneva Convention, according to the US Supreme Court, and can be held "for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured."




The initial problem is that Bush said that his detainees were subject neither to the US Constitution OR the Geneva Convention. They were Enemy Combatants and he could do with them whatever he darn well pleased.

The President is currently sorting out who can be tried in the US under the laws of the Constitution (and has already begun to try prisoners as he described today) and who would be subject to the Geneva Convention. It is those war criminals to which you are referring.

Again, NOT subject to the Constitution at all.

This part:



Because the current war is only a metaphorical war, and as such it is going to continue forever. You could as well declare a "war on theft" - why not? Would that give you the right to imprison every thief for life? Would that also give you the right to imprison anyone you suspect of having stolen something for life, without charges, without evidence?

It seems to me the core of the issue is whether you accept that the "war on terror" is as much a real, formal, "legal" war as WW2 was. It isn't. It is nowhere near that.

.... and my friend killed in the WTC is not metaphorically dead. She's really dead .... Miracle Max cant even save her at this point.

And the drones we send into Afghanistan aren't metaphorical drones ... they're real drones ... with real weapons.

The President said yesterday that we're at war, by that I take him to mean REAL war .... and I agree with him.

Is the Korean war not a real war because it hasn't had a neat and tidy ending like WWII did?

The 2 US citizens he was ruling on was Jose Padilla and the other was Hamdin. His ruling specified that the President could hold the prisoners indefinitely but only during war time.

So does that mean a declared war by Congress or a war that is prosecuted by a Decider or both?

and those who believe there are easy answers in the political environment that we live in,
don't know shit!

In otherwords, Preventive detention is not indifinite detention.
Too bad Mike, Rachel and you act like you don't know that, when you do.

Plus, I believe the word that Obama used was "MAY".......
and since Obama isn't Bush, I'm thinking he ain't gonna just do something
that goes against his grain.

At some point, some will realize that Obama is eons away from Bush/Cheney....
and he ain't trying to do nothing but to get as close as to what is right,
under the circumstances...and believe you me, the circumstances are
extremely fucked up. No two ways about it.

Is not to continue the things he did that everyone KNOWS were wrong. And "indefinite detention" of someone who has not been charged, let alone convicted, of a crime would certainly fall in that category.

the implications of this is mind-blowing

I'm not up on this as much as others.

hold people in prison for the rest of their lives for a crime they may commit Haven't committed yet, but may commit...and where will it end? What other Preemptive crimes do we list, to place people in prison for life?

Preemptive war.
Preventative incarceration.

How Orwellian

and if you believe this, than you will learn that Barack Obama is not that type of an individual.

I realize that it will take time for many to come to trust him, but believe you me, what you are speaking of is not the plan....and those that think so are wholly misinformed.....and that would include Mr. Mallow and Ms. Maddow.

Knee jerk is an unfortunate reaction after 8 years, so I understand you possible misgivings,
but Pres. Obama does not and will not order what you have described. Mark my word!

honestly, expecting your newly elected president from a different party to actually have policies different from the previous administrations...

how dare them!

how dare them all!


cake, ponies, unicorns ETC !@#@$


HOW DARE YOU QUESTION OUR PRESIDENT MIKE MALLOY! HOW DARE YOU!@#$%#T^&*%^


....
i swear, people on du sound more and more like right wingers everyday.

Talk about crybabies!!!

First of all what he said was applied to current GitMo detainees not to future detainees. Second he also said IF any of them fall into that category. And finally he said that a legal framework would be built with both Congressional and Judicial oversight. Rachel omitted all those facts.

a fig leaf. It doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. We have no business holding anyone without charge indefinitely at all. Period end of story.

WOW! You sound as close-minded as a conservative!

And that still does not excuse Rachel Maddow from distorting what the President said. It's wrong when Hannity and Rush do it and it's wrong for Rachel to do it too.

but completely OK with you if the President continues with ILLEGAL and IMMORAL Bush Crime Family policies??

What the FUCK happened in the minds of you cheerleaders that allows you to make that mental leap in "logic"? :wtf:

continuing Bush policies. It is just spin and distortion to say that he is.

Yes or no?

By asking it you just prove that you are blinded by your ideology rather and are keeping an open mind.
Do you expect him to just release them all without any kind of legal review just because they were imprisoned by Bush?
He was handed a mess and he seems to be doing his best to clean up that mess. He can't be expected to do so in 4 months.

If you suspect someone of being a goddamned terrorist, then put them on trial. If you don't have any evidence against them, then why do you suspect them in the first place.

The flimsy premise here, is why these people were being held in the first place. Basically the Bush Crime Family posted a bounty, and the Northern Alliance assholes in Afghanistan - who were the Bush Crime Family's "allies" - turned in whomever they had a beef with. And many of these Northern Alliance idiots were the opium farmers whose profits were lost when the Taliban burned up the crops, so their motives weren't exactly pure.

If you got evidence against someone, put them on trial. If you don't, send them the fuck home. It is as simple as that.

Why are you so impatient? Why do expect President Obama to fix everything that Bush did in 4 months?

I also don't expect him to continue the Bush fiction. Whether you call people "enemy combatants" or "the nebulous 4th category of people who can neither be sent home or put on trial, so let's just hold them forever anyway" it's the same damn thing.

Put them on trial, or take them back where they came from. Those are the ONLY two options. There is no third category, let alone a 4th.

implemented. Everything is not a black & white issue either. That's what conservatives do. They treat everything as black & white and then run to judgement without all the facts. That is exactly what you are doing.

Do you believe in Habeas Corpus, the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, and the rule of law, or not?

If you do, you cannot defend a continuation of policies that violate all of the above.

If you do not, then you have nothing left to say that I'm interested in reading.

Neither can you. Like I said you're mind is closed making you as bad as any conservative.

time she's omitted facts regarding President Obama.

And put an end to all this hand-wringing