PDA

View Full Version : White House Terms Permanent Detention Without Trial ‘Regrettable’




Agorism
12-27-2010, 07:37 AM
White House Terms Permanent Detention 'Regrettable'

WH says that they lack evidence!

Link here (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/26/white-house-terms-permanent-detention-without-trial-regrettable)


Speaking today on CNN’s State of the Union, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that the administration views its own decision to hold detainees permanently without trial “regrettable.”

At the same time, Gibbs insisted that the detentions were vital because a lot of the detainees could not be successfully prosecuted so the president is going to simply not bother with the effort of trying to build a case against them.

In January 2009, President Obama promised to see Guantanamo Bay closed within 12 months, suggesting all the detainees could be prosecuted or released. Two years later the administration has restarted the military tribunal system and is also adopting the same stance as President Bush, that the prosecutions are only to happen if they seem convenient at the time, and if not the detentions will continue, forever if the president wants.

But Gibbs insisted that the president still intends to close the facility, and that he has the power to do so whenever he wants. The comment was intended to disavow Congressional efforts to block the closure, but seems to also suggest that the only reason the president didn’t keep his promise was that he didn’t feel like it.

jmdrake
12-27-2010, 07:41 AM
Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.

A lot of people missed the point of why Obama wanted to try KSM in an article 3 court instead of a military tribunal. Military tribunals still require a full trial even if someone pleads guilty when the possible penalty is death. That means the could still lose the KSM trial. In an article 3 court KSM's guilty plea means they would go straight to the penalty phase.

Agorism
12-27-2010, 07:44 AM
Article 3 court?

This is something used in civilian trials?

fisharmor
12-27-2010, 07:57 AM
See, this is why I don't decry Anonymous.
It's regrettable that malicious private property destruction is one of the only avenues left to the public in order to try to curb government.
It's clearly not right that it gets done.
But as long as government doesn't have a problem doing the wrong thing and actually admits that it's doing the wrong thing, why the hell should I care if private actors are doing the wrong thing?
At least I support Anonymous' motives.

Aratus
12-27-2010, 11:23 AM
both jeff davis and abe lincoln during our civil war suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
if barack obama's people are saying george w. bush's people may have been quasi-legal,
are we now closer to rule of law and into less of an institutional paranoia from on high?