ACLU director announces ad campaign condemning Bush-Obama Doctrine

[billyoc]

...

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony D. Romero, said he was preparing an advertising campaign that would call the use of what he considered an inferior legal system to try detainees “the Bush-Obama doctrine.”

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16gitmo.html?_r=2&ref=politics&pagewanted

Picture thread, STAT!

[Arkana]

1. Commence the circular firing squad!

[livefreest]

39. oh boy it would be so stupid to tie Obama to Bush

[FrenchieCat]

2. So what system does he want to use?

Any information gained through torture will almost certainly be excluded from court in any criminal prosecution of the tortured defendant. And, to make matters worse for federal prosecutors, the use of torture to obtain statements may make those statements (and any evidence gathered as a result of those statements) inadmissible in the trials of other defendants as well. Thus, the net effect of torture is to undermine the entire federal law enforcement effort to put terrorists behind bars. With each alleged terrorist we torture, we most likely preclude the possibility of a criminal trial for him, and for any of the confederates he may incriminate.
Snip

This is true both in federal courts, which operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and military courts, which operate under the Military Rules of Evidence. Both the Fifth Amendment's right against compulsory self-incrimination and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process preclude the use of a defendant's coerced statement against him in criminal court. In addition, any evidence gathered because of information learned through torture (sometimes called "derivative evidence") will likely also be excluded. Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggested in its landmark Fifth Amendment case, Oregon v. Elstad, that it might exclude evidence gathered after the use of any coercion, regardless of attempts by police and prosecutors to offset the coercion with measures like a Miranda warning. If Mohammed were prosecuted, and a court followed the line of reasoning set forth in Elstad, he might well see the charges against him evaporate entirely for lack of evidence.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100543/

[billyoc]

3. "Any information gained through torture will almost certainly be excluded from court"

Case dismissed.

Didn't you watch Perry Mason as a kid?

[FrenchieCat]

4. Apparently, Pres. Obama isn't interested in using technicalities as a way

of dealing with the issue at hand.

[billyoc]

7. What technicalities? Having evidence? Having witnesses? The right to face your accusers?

What are the technicalities that he's trying to avoid?

[Better Believe It]

12. All of those and more

[ThomCat]

17. Apparently equality before the law and the right to

due process are technicalities. Who knew? :shrug:

[billyoc]

40. They do seem time consuming, the military tribunals will be MUCH faster.

How long have they been in custody, again? :eyes:

[vaberella]

45. Uh...hence the problem with them that President Obama

talked about in 2006...so I don't know what you're talking about. It's one of the problems O wants to change...but whatever..you've been saying the same BS in the face of the same evidence over and over again. So proof means nothing to you.

[billyoc]

46. Some evidence of a change in the status quo, rather than "O wants to change" is what I want.

Otherwise, the Bush-Obama Doctrine it is.

[Aragorn]

52. you mean

that Constitutional stuff? What the HECK is the ACLU doing addressing stuff like that? I want my donations back..... :)

[rug]

5. Clearly you don't want one that includes a presumption of innocence.

If the generals say they're terrorists then we bettter not let them anywhere near a forum that may in the end actually release them.

Why not just shoot them?

[Aragorn]

53. if they die

they are exonerated - like Ken Lay. So if somebody - just sayin' - tortured them to death, they would be exonerated!

You know, like when you throw a witch into the lake.....

USA! USA! USA! Clawing and crawling into the 17th century!

[high density]

8. I guess he wants them to flown to California or something so we can have a show trial on CNNHN

Obama was put in a horrible situation here by the Bush admin. I do not see any good options he has.

[Clio the Leo]

22. Judge Judy. NT

[Mojorabbit]

60. I cannot believe your post

We had no trouble trying the people who did the first bombings in regular court. No way will I approve of military tribunals.

[bluestateguy]

6. Good luck with that. They'll fail.

Doesn't the ACLU have some Nazis to go help who want march in Skokie? Or maybe they're busy defending Rush Limbaugh's privacy to help him get off on a technicality.

The majority of Americans support President Obama's sensible compromise.

[billyoc]

You're portraying the ACLU as Nazi sympathizers?

Really?

[bluestateguy]

16. History lesson

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html

[Forkboy]

19. And thank God they did it.

[freddie mertz]

81. Defending the UNPOPULAR is the whole point.

Nazis suck, but they have the same rights under the Constitution as we all do.

Or else no one does.

Do they teach civics anymore?

[vaberella]

9. Oh is that what its called now?! Bush-Obama?! Give me a f'in break. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

58. Obama has bought Bush's policies on extra-judicial military kangaroo courts

as he has bought Bush's wars.

[SeattleGirl]

80. So I suppose the changes he made to the "kangaroo courts" don't

mean a fucking thing, huh?

[billyoc]

84. Of course they do. They permanently attach his name to them.

Hence, Bush-Obama Doctrine.

[Thrill]

10. That will be productive

NOT

[vaberella]

13. Isn't O even completely revamping the tribunals?!

What are they talking about?!

[Thrill]

18. Like all the critics of Gitmo. They complain but offer no viable solutions.

[vaberella]

21. Okay...good to know I'm not blind the article even says as much. These people confuse me. n/t

[crikkett]

48. the problem is people like you who will accept no alternatives

Alternatives are being offered. Like face the music: rehabilitate, compensate and free the wrongly imprisoned.

[Tesha]

93. Actually, they *DO* offer a solution: Trial in the existing American justice system.

But I realize that doesn't support your point-of-view so I can see
why you omitted it.

But all sorts of people support the idea that our existing, Constitutionally-
founded justice system is still able to handle this situation. This even
includes John Hutson, a Republican ex Judge-Advocate General and
now dean of Franklin-Pierce Law School.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutson

Tesha

[bluestateguy]

20. I know

As the ACLU bashes Obama, they'll only succeed at making him look like a reasonable centrist ("Oh, the ACLU doesn't like him?"), thereby deflating conservative claims that he's "soft" on terror.

[Clio the Leo]

23. And IMPROVING his standing with moderates.....

..... in THAT case .... go get him ACLU! Go ahead and sure up them 2012 votes! lol

[billyoc]

29. He could probably get even more white votes if he just shot them.

That would be a masterful "chess move".

[Clio the Leo]

37. Yeah and he would TOTALLY do that!

Hyperbole gets us nowhere my friend. ;)

[NYC_SKP]

11. Sometimes the ACLU is just Fucking Wrong....

[QC]

27. They are enemies of the people. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

30. No, but when they resort to making associations like Sean Hannity might.

"Bush-Cheney Tribunals", then they've left behind what gave them integrity: objective reporting.

So yes, they are fucking wrong on this.

[MarjorieG]

14. Sorry, not the same in principle or practice. Most will be sent to other countires, released, so

a dozen people get better representation, and it's still Bush?

Times like these I remember why I stopped donating to the ACLU.

[vaberella]

15. Isn't the military tribunals completely different under O, so how is this Bush-Obama?!

:wtf:

[Clio the Leo]

24. Would you please STOP asking questions that make SENSE!!!! :-)

WHY must you insist on applying SOUND LOGIC in this matter?

All you Tweety supporters are all alike! ;)

[vaberella]

28. Hah!!

Yeah, you have to be a bit emotionally hardwired to handle Tweets. The man drives me up the wall and especially when he brings up his tag-team racist partner, PB (&J). :rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

36. oh, but Uncle Pat is a HOOT...

.... my ideal Tweety show is one where he interrupts the person he's asking the question of THREE or more times in a 10 second time frame AND Pat spins some BS so unbelievable that HE starts to laugh at it!

.... oh, and when he has Todd Harris on there as he's my secret GOP crush. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

25. I just finish writing the ACLU a letter......

They might as well just insist to let the detainees go free.....

At least that would be more upfront and principled on their part.

[vaberella]

31. They don't make sense to me.

I know you were on the thread where the guy was asking about the the use of military tribunals. I figured based on a few things I've read (which by the way he didn't respond too when I explained it to him); that it might be to do with trying one based on a panel of peers.

There seems to be thing of why we can't use US laws to try the detainees. Most of the time when looking at military tribunals this was done in the time of war or act of war and these were against enemy combatants or soldiers. This was also done before a panel of military judges and officers. So the military would judge other military officials who were believed to have committed a crime. So the ultimate purpose besides the efficiency of providing a military tribunal, this to speed up the process and limit the amount of tax payer money and backlog that normal court proceedings take, is to basically have the "enemy defendants" judged by fellow military officers based on the same sort of frame work. I could be wrong, but that was my estimation from a few of my readings on the matter.

What do you think?

[ibegurpard]

34. the efficiency argument

doesn't seem to have held up in the situation of Guantanamo detainees. Most of them have been held there indefinitely still awaiting their "trials."

[vaberella]

38. Exactly...That's what Obama argued in the video and wanted to change.

What was supposed to be used for efficiency turned into a political ploy. He's planning and is changing that or did you not read the links that both myself and FrenchieCat provided to you (which I'm sure in some cases were similar)? He clearly explains his reasons there and what the changes are...even an NYT article on this thread states a few of the changes. Read everything please, not what you want to read.

[billyoc]

41. The Bush doctrine of denying due process is continuing under the Obama administration.

Ergo, Bush-Obama doctrine.

[vaberella]

42. That's untrue. But thanks for the misleading information. n/t

[billyoc]

43. The burden is on YOU to show a change in the status quo.

[MadBadger]

68. What a cop out

[billyoc]

78. Oooh, snap! You oughta send that one to Gibbs for his next presser.

dumbass.

[snowdays]

50. WH is still afraid to try some of them in Fed. courts cause the standards are lacking-so

they are now going back to the military courts. So, what does that tell you?



............Officials said the decision to proceed with military commissions came partly as a result of concerns that some detainees might not be successfully prosecuted in federal courts. They said that questions surrounding confessions made after the brutal treatment of some detainees had become an obstacle. Though some detainees, in so-called clean confessions, admitted to terrorist activities in 2007, they were not given the warnings against self-incrimination that are standard in law enforcement.

Federal courts would likely ban such confessions, lawyers said, and, in some cases, convictions may be nearly impossible without them. The most prominent of the military commissions cases seeks the death penalty for five detainees charged with planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including the self-described mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Administration officials said that some detainees would be prosecuted in federal courts, but did not specify which ones.

[ibegurpard]

26. He could've scrapped them

but he didn't
sorry, i don't have his back on this one.

[vaberella]

33. Of course not... n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[firedupdem]

35. That sounds really bright. That should go over well. The ACLU

is off base with this one. It won't help their cause.

[vaberella]

44. The article even states this...

Administration officials said they were making changes in the system to grant detainees expanded legal rights,

Secondly you suggest that O is the only who has done it when it has been used in this country for centuries. So it's not the Bush-Obama doctrine. Third, Obama wanted to backtrack entirely on the methodologies expressed in the Bush doctrine and put in reformation and mandates that's not damn flip-flopping and it's wholly different from Bush's plan. So for you to suggest that its the same thing is BS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8411447&mesg_id=8411738

[billyoc]

47. "you suggest that O is the only who has done it"

If that were the case, I wouldn't be calling it the Bush-Obama Doctrine.

Now, technically, it was Bill Clinton who started the extraordinary rendition program in the first place, but Clinton-Bush-Obama Doctrine is a bit of a mouthful, wouldn't you say?

I'll consider it, though.

[grantcart]

49. So the ACLU is unable to discuss nuanced legal distinctions - who knew.

You may be against Obama's military tribunal changes but to consider them the same is political theater.


One was found unconstitutional and one is probably going to be accepted by the Supreme Court.


Again you might be against it anyway but to call it the same is like calling an apple and a pineapple the same.


Makes me wonder what other intellectual shortcuts the ACLU has been taking.

[Aragorn]

56. nuance?

From the posted link above: The Pentagon's procedural rules for tribunals allow evidence to be admitted if it "would have probative value to a reasonable person." These rules contain no provision for the exclusion of involuntary statements, and on their face, do not allow the presiding officer of such tribunals to rely on Supreme Court precedent or federal case law to decide issues of evidence.

[grantcart]

63. The fact that one system was rejected by the Supreme Court and another (assumption) is

accepted by the Supreme Court indicates that they are not the same system.

Now you still may be against the second system but to lable them as simply being the same is absurd, and without nuance.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. The Supreme Court has only ruled on the first one

The second ruling is your own prediction. Talk about your absurd arguments. Calling another argument absurd because of a decision that does not yet exist and may never is farcical.
I am amazed to be reading that argument. It is nonsense.

[cali]

51. that's sadly lame.

And makes me reconsider my longtime membership.

[Aragorn]

54. this happens to US citizens too

1) The commissions are run by the Pentagon under a 2006 law passed specifically for terrorism suspects, in part to make it easier to win convictions than in federal courts. The Obama administration suspended the military commission system in its first week in office.

and

2) The added rights proposed by the administration still fall far short of the protections provided defendants in federal court, lawyers said, predicting that the administration would encounter vigorous new legal challenges that could end up in the Supreme Court.

In Texas the medical board has been in a scandal for the past few years because they use this same process, and with a law about to pass which would stop this, they are shifting tactics to get around the new law. I know an attorney who said no doc should even speak to them (under that bill of rights thingy) with the current MO they use.

The point is, doctors in general have the means to get defended, but they don't have the right to defend themselves, etc etc. So what about those of us who don't have the money OR the right? That is what ACLU stands up for, not the particular group whose rights are being ignored. I am sad to see that point overlooked on DU. I know on this forum it is not out of ignorance.

Note the Texas thread about wrongful convictions, today on DU.

The ACLU's use of the term doctrine is fair.

[Old Hank]

55. Let's not forget the mention the State Secrets invocations

Used as a means to toss whole lawsuits by torture victims. This tool has been used by Obama in 3 or 4 occasions. Bush loved the tool as well. This bolsters the ACLU's case.

[IndianaGreen]

65. Obama must think that we have an Official Secrets Act like the UK does

L'etat, c'est moi!

[IndianaGreen]

57. I support the ACLU, as I do Human Rights First.

Obama has morphed into Bush on this issue.

[quiller4]

59. When I read that I shredded my latest mailing from the ACLU n/t

[asphalt.jungle]

61. Oh silly people trying the same failed tactic ...

the right wing uses every time the President does something that isn't in 100% agreement with their viewpoint. "He's a socialist." With them it's "he's like Bush." They don't realize that when you toss things around like that when for the vast majority of Americans he's clearly not like Bush, they harm their own credibility to the detriment of us all. The right and center right in this country already dismiss what they say, we don't need to start chipping away at the center and center-left.

[Cha]

72. Yeah, exactly.

This shows me they have no idea what they're talking about. They didn't get their pictures for now..so time to jump on the RageWagon with all fours...rabid fangs bared.

[mix]

62. Nothing demonstrates Obama's shortcomings as a leader more

than his failure to stand up to the decayed establishment he inherited, particularly the military, the CIA and Wall Street.

Nor has Obama reformed Bagram prison in Afghanistan, another war crimes/human rights time bomb that will only alienate us further from Muslims and Afghanis.

Excellent framing ACLU.

[Cha]

64. Fuck him.

dumb shit.

[freddie mertz]

66. As a member for 20 years, I support the ACLU on this issue.

Human Rights is not a partisan matter.

[billyoc]

67. Of course not, why would it be.

But you'll hear plenty of good old partisan moral clarity here.

[freddie mertz]

69. I suppose so. But I don't pay much attention to it...

I understand why people want to defend the current administration after eight years of horror.

Not to mention the relentless attacks of the Republicans since before day one.

But for me, its a matter of good or bad policy and equal rights under the law--US law and international law.

I believe the current policy is bad. I supported the original one, before the reversal.

And so I support the ACLU in this case.

[CBR]

70. They have never received my money and now they never will.

Too many causes with much less pretentiousness.

[freddie mertz]

71. I thought it was Republicans and wingnuts who demonized the ACLU...

Guess I was wrong (?)...:shrug:

[CBR]

73. Criticizing and demonizing are not the same thing. I will give to

the local homeless shelter, ilovemountains.org, DU, my collegiate alma mater... I am sure you are not trying to stifle my dissent against the ACLU.

[freddie mertz]

75. No, just responding to it....

I'm glad you donate to the homeless shelter.

When they come and kick your door down, however, don't look to me for assistance.

They will have come for me long before, I am sure.

[CBR]

76. Don't be so sure... I do work at a University -- I am sure

I will be at the top of the list.

[freddie mertz]

79. So do I.

And just working for one will not get you on the "list."

We have plenty of right wing, ACLU-bashing types at our universities.

Especially in the business schools and applied sciences.

[QC]

85. No, you were not wrong.

It's just that DU's membership has changed dramatically in recent months, that's all.

[freddie mertz]

88. Remember how Bush I used it against Dukakis?

Card-Carrying Member," "I pledge allegiance," etc.

That was the late 80s version of right wing, Repug red-baiting and fear-mongering.

My sense is that little has changed in this regard.

[QC]

89. Yes, I remember the "card-carrying member of the ACLU" line.

I don't remember seeing so much red-baiting on DU until very recently, though, and I have been here since early 2001.

[freddie mertz]

90. It seems to be part of a general move to the right.

Obama has moved to the right on national security and health care.

I suppose the red-baiting is one of the cruder byproducts of the effort to discredit the critics?

[QC]

91. Precisely. DU has lurched hard to the right since fall 2007.

That's when homophobes began to come out of the closet and express their bigotry more openly, and when the "far left" began to be talked about in terms that one would expect to find on Freak Republik.

All this is, so we are told, "pragmatic" "centrism."

Sounds like the same old hateful right wing bullshit to me.

[freddie mertz]

92. Was there any particular event

... that you think triggered the move to the right?

That seems a curious time to go in that direction.

But I was not posting here back then.

[ProgressIn2008]

74. K&R for the ACLU, international law and the UN Convention Against Torture. nt

[leftofthedial]

77. Time to re-up the ACLU membership

before Obama becomes any more extreme.

[jgraz]

82. Yep. I just sent them a few more $$

It looks like we'll need the watchdogs for a few more years.

[ClarkUSA]

86. ACLU has jumped the shark with this brain fart. I'm glad I didn't re-up my membership.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. The ACLU is a crucial watchdog group in this country but I disagree with them on this one

You can't try people captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan in a civilian court. These people have rights that are explicitly spelled out in the Geneva Conventions and it seems that Obama is fulfilling our obligations to respect those rights.

If he starts trying people captured in a law enforcement action in military tribunals then I will agree with the ACLU. But prisoners of war don't get civilian trials. They never have and they never will.