Obama Statement on Today's Supreme Court Decision

[Hope And Change]

Obama Statement on Today's Supreme Court Decision

By http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/person/gGxtkQ">Sam Graham-Felsen - Jun 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm EDT


Barack Obama on http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/12cnd-gitmo.html?hp">today's Supreme Court decision...

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gG5Gz5">Link

[SoonerPride]

1. Contrast that with shrub's angry remarks

"We'll abide by the court decision. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

I'll be surprised is he even abides by it.

Since when has the rule of law meant anything to him?

[Cha]

10. Since his numbers took a dive

in the toilet bowl and stayed there.

[xxqqqzme]

2. How refreshing to hear from a person who actually

has respect for the law. Too long have we floundered w/o this respect starting w/ the fatally flawed decision on December 12, 2000.

[JimGinPA]

3. He Always Seems To Say Exactly The Right Thing

K&R

[onetwo]

4. The spin on conservative talk radio is mindnumbing.

Rush and Hannity seem incapable of conceiving that some people at Gitmo might actually be innocent. I wonder what they would think if they were plucked from their chairs and whisked away to a prison for 6 years simply for raising someone's suspicion.

[SeattleGirl]

5. He's a breath of fresh air.

And Chimpy just stomps his feet and HOLDS his breath.

[jazzjunkysue]

6. Note to self: Never, ever, debate Barack Obama on law.

Period.

God, that man can think, and speak.

It's beautiful!

:loveya:

I loves me some habeas corpus!

[Peace Patriot]

7. "Bringing these detainees to justice...". They've already been tortured...

...and detained without charge, in extremely harsh conditions, with virtually no contact with the outside world, for 3-5 years, and many are suffering from mental breakdown.

How can you "bring" such detainees "to justice"? You cannot. In fact, we owe them reparations; we owe them healing; we owe them support for the rest of their lives, in locations of their own choosing.

Obama is certainly better than Bush--and I am a supporter, donor and voter for Obama--but that doesn't mean I can't criticize him.

What has been done, and is geing done, to these prisoners is an on-going CRIME of the first magnitude. What Obama should be saying is, "Why are we debating this? Why is it an acceptable political position in the United States, to shred the United States Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and numerous other laws?"

Or does Obama just want to join the Emperor's Club, and retain the options of torture and detention without trial (a form of torture)? If you don't say it's a crime, if you treat it as a political dispute, or a dispute of legalisms, you're saying that it is an acceptable option. You may not agree with it--but, what the hey, people can disagree and still "work together" come up with a "win/win"? Eh, Obama? Isn't that what you're saying? The Pukes like torture, and piss all over the Constitution, you don't agree, but, no biggee--it's just the wrong STRATEGY for "bringing terrorists to justice."

"...yet another failed policy supported by John McCain." It is not just a "failed policy." It is a CRIME.

"...a dangerously flawed legal approach." It is not a "dangerously flawed legal approach." It is a CRIME. And "traitor to the Constitution" is its name.

"...a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks." It is not a "flawed system." It is a CRIME. And not calling it a crime means that it can be repeated--at the discretion of the Emperor of the U.S.

"We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism...". Yeah, that is the truth. And the Number #1 terrorist group in the world today is the Bush regime--slaughterer of millions of innocent people to get their oil; torturer of thousands for reasons unknown. The sooner we deal with the terrorists running our own government, the sooner we can create a peaceful and just world. We will not be safe until they are brought to justice--because, if their egregious crimes are treated as a "failed policy," or a "flawed legal approach," or a "flawed system," they will be back, to commit these crimes again--and every President/Emperor from this point on will be tempted to commit them, including Barack Obama.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. What a Constitutionalist you are!

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

You are the fool because you defend a way of life that is neither American
nor recognizes the constitution and the rule of law
but is a slave to tyranny and fascism.

[dogday]

12. You really think that holding someone without the benefit of

a trial or the hope of being released and what is going to happen to you being taken from you is not torture every freaking day, it is a mental torture that is driving these guys insane.

How many of these guys were just sold into slavery? Many had no or little part in anything remotely sinister, but that was money in the bank, and they were sold by their own into slavery, that simple... We are no safer when the cook of someone who might of been associated with the Taliban is incarcerated, are we?

Lastly most of your points are right wing in nature and given the fact you are quite new in posting here at DU, we don't like to further the talking points of the right.. We tend to stay on the left side of the equation, like the upholding of our nation's Constitution, not the fear mongering policies of George Bush, or the scare the hell out you policies of the right....

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. take your ignorant - racist hate mongering elsewhere - you un-American creep!!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[dailykoff]

24. There's a difference. POWs are covered by Geneva statutes,

"enemey combatants" is something Buscho made up so they could torture innocent Afghanis.

[dogday]

26. How do you know what they are? They were never tried

and the US was offering money for taliban and the Northern Afghanis sold anyone they could get their hands on for the money the US was offering... So they said they were Taliban and the US bought it (literally). You should look this up, because there is much truth to my slavery statement...

There were a great many sold into slavery and bought by the US.. They sit every day not knowing what their crime was, or how long they will stay incarcerated, or if they will ever get out of that place....

When someone catches Bin Laden, then maybe I will feel safer. But for the most part, I am not going to be a coward and be scared by my President... Hell he scares me enough as it is....

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. "I'm willing to justify 'sacraficing' my safety"

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. how on earth can one even know which of "these people" are anything when there is no

system of independent review?

There is no doubt among sane and rational people that many prisoners held at Gitmo were guilty of only being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is no doubt among sane and rational people that many if not most of the prisoners were subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

There is no doubt among sane and rational people that the entire procedure was carried in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States.

All of these points have been supported and indisputably collaborated by a wide variety of sources. These facts are certainly not in dispute among sane and rational people. It is pure extremist lunacy to deny it. To defend what has happened there is to oppose the democratic way of life, to endanger our own forces, to weaken our own security, to fuel the kind of anger that could likely bread future generations of terrorist and lead to future acts of terror. To defend this policy is to bring shame upon the United States of America.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. I'm glad we have a constitution and American is ruled by a Constitution. not un-American racist

creeps like you!!

[dailykoff]

21. Military tribunals are unconstitutional.

That's the point.

[dailykoff]

23. Those are very good points.

I'd like to see him come down harder on this shit but then, he's running in a GE and lots of brainwashed CNN watchers still believe the terror fairy tale.

[Cha]

9. Obama is so right on this Decision by the Supreme Court..

Thank You, Supreme Court in your 5-4 decision..WHEW!

I can't even fathom what kind of thinking mccain and the bushites have to reject habeus corpus.

This is an important step to re-establishing our credibility.

[Zomby Woof]

15. Scalia is criminally insane

Did anyone read his dissent? He is easily the most reactionary demagogic blowhard in the history of the Supreme Court. He reduced legal opinion to Fox News talking points. It was scary, disgusting, and insane beyond the normally wretched scope of his 'thinking'. It may be the worst Supreme Court opinion I have ever read, and that includes Plessy Vs. Ferguson and other infamous notables.

I often think that when it comes to assessing what was the very worst legacy of Reagan - it has to be the appointment of Scalia to the high bench. It has had the most debilitating effect on our constitution in the generation since he was confirmed.

Obama's statement underscores the utmost importance of his being elected. NO MORE SCALIAS IN THE SUPREME COURT. Because that is EXACTLY what McCain will do. No more Opus Dei, Federalist Society fascists, ever again.

[concerned canadian]

25. this news is cause for celebration

In the case of the youngest detainee, Canadian born Omar Khadr, it has recently come to light

that documents, hand-written notes, were destroyed by his interrogators (funny but not in a haha way, that

the word interrogator has the word terror in it) http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/439532

So now maybe Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative party, will remove his stick up his bum, dumb-dog loyalty

to GW's 'way of doin' things' will follow Obama's lead, see the wisdom in this decision and get behind giving

this young man a fair and speed trial.