Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's statement on Military Tribunals:

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
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 12:45 PM
Original message
Obama's statement on Military Tribunals:
Edited on Fri May-15-09 12:46 PM by scheming daemons

"Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered. In the past, I have supported the use of military commissions as one avenue to try detainees, in addition to prosecution in Article III courts. In 2006, I voted in favor of the use of military commissions. But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time. Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years.

Today, the Department of Defense will be seeking additional continuances in several pending military commission proceedings. We will seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process. The Secretary of Defense will notify the Congress of several changes to the rules governing the commissions. The rule changes will ensure that: First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial. Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability. Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel. Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify. And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.

These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. In addition, we will work with the Congress on additional reforms that will permit commissions to prosecute terrorists effectively and be an avenue, along with federal prosecutions in Article III courts, for administering justice. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values."


I'm ok with this. The 4th and 5th amendment are protected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. We can expext a lot of "poutrage" over this
but it sounds reasonable to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. "poutrage"
from Amnesty International: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20090515003&lang=e

“Whatever revisions the Obama administration has made to the commissions do not change the fact that the commissions do not provide an adequate standard of justice for the detainees nor the victims of terrorism--they merely mock the U.S. Constitution, international laws and undermine fundamental human rights standards.

“What happened to President Obama's confidence in the U.S. justice system's ability to try detainees? He himself said that 'we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism.'

"U.S. federal courts are a perfectly sound system to try any and all detainees. They have brought other terror suspects to justice, and there is no reason why these courts cannot continue to do the same."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. ...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustinL Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. more "poutrage"
Human Rights Watch:

Reviving the discredited US military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees would result in needless litigation, delays, and flawed trials, Human Rights Watch said today. To ensure that terrorism suspects are tried promptly and fairly, the Guantanamo cases should be transferred to US federal courts.

Unnamed officials were quoted in the Washington Post saying that the Obama administration is preparing to restart the military commissions under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections. The new rules would reportedly prohibit the introduction of evidence obtained through coercion, tighten the use of hearsay evidence, and allow detainees greater choice in selecting defense lawyers than under existing military commission rules.

"The Obama administration shouldn't tinker with a fundamentally flawed system," said Stacy Sullivan, counterterrorism adviser at Human Rights Watch. "Reviving the military commissions would strip much of the meaning from closing Guantanamo."


ACLU:

"These military commissions are inherently illegitimate, unconstitutional and incapable of delivering outcomes we can trust. Tweaking the rules of these failed tribunals so that they provide 'more due process' is absurd; there is no such thing as 'due process light.' If the administration's proposed rules really bring these proceedings in line with constitutional requirements, there is no reason not to use our tried and true justice system. If they don't, these tribunals have no place in our democracy.

"Despite the administration's efforts to improve the system, the only explanation for reviving it would be to accommodate the damage that has already been done by the Bush administration's policies of torture, illegal detention and denial of fair trials. As unfortunate as it is to inherit that legacy, to accommodate those policies is essentially to ratify them.

"In this case, President Obama would do well to remember his own infamous words during his presidential campaign: you can't put lipstick on a pig."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boomerang Diddle Donating Member (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. It's easy for these groups to second guess the president
After all, they don't have to deal with the realities involved in making decisions. It's easy to criticize when you have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain, ie; $$$$$$$$$$
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustinL Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. now the ACLU is being thrown under the bus?
You're accusing an organization that has worked tirelessly for over 90 years to advance freedom and equal rights of being a bunch of money-grubbers? Unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. On the use of "poutrage"
I can't decide whether someone who uses "poutrage" as a label for principles is more deserving of pity or contempt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Waaaaa! I don't wanna live in a police state! Waaa! I don't wanna be disappeared!
Hey, if you don't want to be treated like a terrorist, don't live in the Middle East or don't practice Islam in Europe or don't be of Arab descent. And for god sakes don't be an immigrant of Middle Eastern origins practicing Islam in Europe who returns to his home country for a wedding. With crazy practices like that, what do you expect? This is a post 9-11 world. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. "Poutrage" is about the lamest thing one can post at DU these days.
It's laughable really.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Right behind:
Obama fanboy/fangirl
Obama cheerleader
Obama apologists
Obama sheep
house gays
"the Messiah"
"those who think Obama walks on water"
"the Obama can do no wrong crowd"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Of course it sounds reasonable to you.
Edited on Fri May-15-09 03:15 PM by Marr
Your guy did it. End of story, yeah?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. We can expect a lot of excuses. The avoidence of the use of the word torture
Edited on Fri May-15-09 01:04 PM by John Q. Citizen
("The rule changes will ensure that: First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial.")

is troubling right off the bat.

Meanwhile, uncharged people still languish in jail for who knows how long?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. woohoo, we're going after those "who violate the laws of war,"?
Edited on Fri May-15-09 12:55 PM by NightWatcher
Like people who were sold to the military as threats who were then renderred to foreign lands?
Ever see Taxi To The Darkside?

Isnt torture against the laws of war?
When do we go after those that set forth torture as a policy?

"laws of war"???? Anyone ever see the declaration of war voted on and passed by Congress?


"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values." ???

I dont feel like "our country" is under attack from anyone in Gitmo, nor anyone that we have killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other place that we are currently engaged in the Middle East.
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 Wed May 15th 2024, 10:50 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