SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let‘s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center—we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

GREGORY: All right. We‘re going to pick up on this as we get into “Three Questions,” the big picture question and debate over the war on terror.

well, i don’t recall that they ever got back to it…

but, is that true??? they are NOT incarcerated???

this may have been covered, but my skimming the thread did not pick it up, and i haven’t been reading the comments…

but, REALLY???

————-

Like the Bush administration just did a bit ago?

IOKIYAR!

Mr Julie-Annie was for legal prosecution of detainees before he was against it.

.

How do you know what the Republican nominee stands for? It’s simple just ask any big company CEO and he’ll tell you what he ordered the nominee to stand for. Any Republican President is basically an empty vessle who waits for orders from the rightwing nuts, big business, and special interests. Rudy is for McChange because he will make even more money for his company when McChange gives them federal no bid contacts to spy on the American people. This guy is nothing more than a low life bloodsucker who blows with the wind.

June 18th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
______

No, it doesn’t invalidate what he said. It invalidates the point you were trying to make, which is that Senator Obama supported the current military tribunal kangaroo court system versus giving fair trials to detainees with the right of habeus corpus.

June 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Nice cherrypick. Now let’s try putting that quote in context:

In the five years that the President’s system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we’re here today.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.

Instead of allowing this President – or any President – to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus – the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance – one single chance – to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists.
…

I’ve heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that. The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through. Indeed, the regulations that are supposed to be governing administrative hearings for these detainees, which should have been issued months ago, still haven’t been issued. Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court.

This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism. I know the President came here today and was insisting that this is supposed to be our primary concern. He’s absolutely right it should be our primary concern – which is why we should be approaching this with a somberness and seriousness that this Administration has not displayed with this legislation.

Now, let me be clear – for those who plot terror against the United States, I hope God has mercy on their soul, because I certainly do not. And for those who our government suspects of terror, I support whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot.

But we also know that some have been detained who have no connection to terror whatsoever. We’ve already had reports from the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo shouldn’t have been there – as one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal, “Sometimes, we just didn’t get the right folks.” And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information.

In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. They may remain locked away forever.

McCain is using a strawman with “totally criminal justice approach…” This has nothing to do with following the rule of law regarding the prosecution detainees, which is not only morally and legally correct, but also the most effective way of dealing with the problem. Whenever we’ve stepped outside the bounds of decency, we’ve effectively recruited additional terrorists.

http://progressiveworldreview.com

In the US legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty…

In the Republican legal system, one is guilty.

While using the legal system that was in place has resulted in convictions, the same cannot be said for the bush-league justice currently being used.

Did the Nazis give the Jews writ of habeas corpus or fair trials? What arguement was used to detain the Jews? Maybe that they pose a threat despite lack of evidence? Once the Jews were imprisoned, could they not let them go because they might retaliate, even though they were innocent?

I’m not comparing recent actions to the Holocaust. Although, with ‘black sites’ still in use, we don’t know the full extent of what goes on. I’m just wondering how Hitler’s actions were justified compared to the logic of going against the Constitution and basic principles of the United States of America (such as the right to a fair trial, etc.). Can you simply replace the word ‘Jew’ with ‘terrorist’ and not chage the context of the rhetoric?

And wasn’t Kerry vilified by the right in 2004 for flip-flopping? Geez — these guys make Kerry look about as flexible as granite.

Actually, even groovy democratic USofA has a very long history of imperial colonialism with the use of military force and terror, beginning with the conquest of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines back in 1898.