home

Obama's Statement On Today's Habeas/Gitmo Decision

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:41:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Link:

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.

[More...}

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.
< Obama On SCOTUS Justices | McCain on Habeas Corpus >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Statement On Today's Habeas/Gitmo Decision | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sounds great (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:56:18 PM EST


    Editing (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    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. I wish he had said "...and respecting the Constitution." I doubt most of the electorate really understands what habeas corpus means, but they would identify with upholding the Constitution. When this gets excerpted and soundbited by MSM, it won't mean as much to them.

    Reading just the statement (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:38:37 PM EST
    on the Obama site that the Link above provides isn't nearly as informative as making sure you open the nearly 800 comment thread to see what his supporters are saying about it :)

    [ Parent ]
    I went (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:18 PM EST
    at your suggestion. Only skimmed, but the highlight for me was the poster whose name is "meri who loves writing haiku about obama." Haiku?? Really??

    [ Parent ]
    How far down would I have to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:55 PM EST
    go before I found a comment that related to the blog post? I felt like I was reading the entries at a middle school myspace page. I did get a kick out of Donna Brazile for Secretary of State, though. She is definitely material for our #1 Diplomat.  I guess they weren't very interested in what Obama's thoughts on the SCOTUS decision are.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:06:55 PM EST
    She will send nasty e-mails to foreign leaders.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny how I was thinking the same (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:05:30 PM EST
    thing. Also, I've heard him speak, this doesn't sound like him at all (his speech pattern).I'd like to see the rough draft in his handwriting> Sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    It's a movement (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    I swear his most active supporters really don't understand the man is running for POTUS, not an MTV music award.


    [ Parent ]
    Good (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:06:22 PM EST
    I believe that this is the Obama who will be appointing John Paul Stevens's replacement.

    Hope you're right. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:07:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I hope he/she is not! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    This press release isn't about the Constitution!  It's about how to effectively convict these "terrorists"!

    [ Parent ]
    Would you prefer he have said (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:14:58 PM EST
    that he thought the decision was bad?

    [ Parent ]
    I would have preferred that (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    he'd said the decision was right and that the "war on terror" he's so enthusiastically supporting here is what led to something more than just flawed legislation, but a violation of the fundmental constitutional principal that you do not deprive people of life and liberty without due process of law even during a war on terror and even if you think they're terrorists.

    I would have preferred that he had said that the Military Commissions Act was flawed NOT because it didn't get any convictions, but because it was set up exactly in order to get convictions and fundamental rights be d*mned.

    [ Parent ]

    He's being cautious (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:21:59 PM EST
    Unnecessarily so, in my opinion. but liberals never held his feet to the fire, so he has no reason to pander now.

    [ Parent ]
    Good read. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    His followers maybe, but (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:16:52 PM EST
    he made sure the other half of the democratic party knew he didn't care what we thought.

    [ Parent ]
    Is this (none / 0) (#30)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:21 PM EST
    criticism, justification, or excuse?

    [ Parent ]
    Criticism of liberals, and justification (4.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
    for Obama. Excuse? That's for you to judge.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:38:09 PM EST
    think it's a very good justification.  "I won't have a strong position for constitutional principles unless somebody forces me into it."

    Obama's positions are up to him, not me. In fact, I have NO ability to "hold his feet to the fire" if I'm required to vote for him just because he's the Dem candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm wondering if Tribe and Sorenson (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    wrote this.  It is pretty good as political campaign press release.  Says Obama is just as strong on war on terrorism as Bush and McCain combined, he'll just go for the correct targets and, meanwhile, support habeas rights for enemy combatants.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I'm pretty satisfied (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:35:14 PM EST
    with O's response.  He got to flash some of his fancy law school perfesser side, while getting in a few political digs at the Constitution -trashing  Junior/McCain.

    And I have no problem with O daring to actually use the term "habeas corpus".  After 800 yrs or so of it being a bedrock principle of western law, you'd think the concept would have sunk in with more people.  Could be that our educational system just doesn't teach it or the Constitution right.

    (nitpick:  Ted SorensEn -- sorry, just looking out for Ted's interests ... )

    [ Parent ]

    You'd think I'd remember how to spell his (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:41:52 PM EST
    name.  I read his Kennedy, pub. 1965, much to my very Republican father-in-law's disgust.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. Thank you. (none / 0) (#49)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    You are so right.

    [ Parent ]
    There seem to be so many versions (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:55:40 PM EST
    of Obama, I don't know how you can be sure "this" is the one who will be nominating SC justices.

    He certainly manages to hit the right notes in speeches and prepared statements, but there isn't much to suggest he understands that action consistent with that rhetoric must follow - or it renders the rhetoric little more than meaningless pandering.

    [ Parent ]

    Because in Democratic Presidential Politics (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:25:10 PM EST
    you must be pro choice. Its a non-negotiable position. Any nomination to the contrary would lose 75% or more of the Democratic base.

    Lets assume you are correct, Obama is just another self serving pol. No self serving pol wipes out 75% of his base. Not. Gonna. Happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Given the cavalier way he has (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:35:53 PM EST
    ignored, dismissed and disrespected people who always thought they were that Democratic base, I don't know why anyone can be confident that not offending the base would be high on his list of things to be careful about.

    I don't know who he is, what things are sacrosanct for him, where he draws the line, if he draws the line, what determines if there even is a line.  I don't know whether he seeks to serve the public or his own ambition.  I don't know if what he says today he will support tomorrow.

    When all is said and done, if people don't know what someone stands for, it is very hard to trust them, and harder still to vote for them.

    [ Parent ]

    But how is this unusual? (none / 0) (#161)
    by holi0023 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    How many presidential candidates haven't waffled or changed positions on something?  (except fringe candidates, perhaps)  And as for not knowing whether candidates seek to serve the public or their own ambition: doesn't this apply to all of them?  Isn't it safe to assume there's a mix of both motivations in all politicians?  These seem to be extraordinarily high standards to hold a presidential candidate to.

    [ Parent ]
    Almost all candidates (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:55:33 PM EST
    waffle on some things, but few waffle on everything.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you suggesting... (none / 0) (#179)
    by holi0023 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:51:24 PM EST
    ...that Obama waffles on everything?  If so, I'm not persuaded.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the most famous (none / 0) (#166)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:56:02 PM EST
    example of changing positions that I can think of was the first George H.W. Bush and his "Read my lips.  No new taxes."  

    And then, of course, there were new taxes.  ;-)

     

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe not 75% (4.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:38:19 PM EST
    but 50%, sure.

    [ Parent ]
    If I'm reading you correctly, I suspect (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:45:53 PM EST
    your comment is flying high above a few heads in the vicinity.  Or else it just flew over mine, LOL.

    I wanted to ask Molly Bloom if she meant he wouldn't turn off 75% of the 50% of the base that is left, or if the dividing line between maintaining self-respect and losing it was beyond the 50% point.

    [ Parent ]

    I mean for 75% or more (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:05:46 PM EST
    of the Democratic base pro choice. He needs every Democratic voter he can get. I think that is simple enough.

    Look its clear you don't think much of Obama. Fine. You think he is just another self serving pol. Again fine. How many self serving Pol writes off 75% of their potential voters? Not gonna happen.
    Being pro choice is non-negotiable in Democratic presidential politics.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#136)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:50:01 PM EST
    You read correctly.  And are better at math than me, because I didn't even think of 75% of 50.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#108)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:28:38 PM EST
    In fact, the pro-lifers are gonna go on the attack to paint him as a pro-choice radical based on some IL senate votes.  He'll be taking a lot of hits for being pro-choice.

    [ Parent ]
    He will not upset his latte liberal supporters (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:57:41 PM EST
    by nominating a conservative to the court. That's basically all we have to go by now.

    [ Parent ]
    So Far Nothing Has Upset His Latte Liberal (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    supporters. They have been able to find ways of rationalizing everything he has done to date. Why would this be any different? A more conservative choice would somehow become the most brilliant move evah.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't be so sure about him not (4.66 / 3) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:08:03 PM EST
    upsetting the latte liberals - if there's anything people should have learned in this election season, it's that Obama regards everyone as expendable.

    His VP pick will tell us a lot about where he might go with a SC justice; if he wins, and if he wins PA, it would not shock me in the least if he nominated Bob Casey.  And for all those who have been nagging us about needing to elect Obama to protect Roe v. Wade from the anti-choice leanings of John McCain, that would be pretty ironic, don't you think?

    [ Parent ]

    Bob Casey is never going to be on (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM EST
    the Supreme Court. Governor maybe, but not Supreme Court justice.

    And FYI, Casey would be unacceptable to many centrists: he's actually a big government liberal and proud of it (when it comes to economic issues).

    [ Parent ]

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM EST
    she was talking about Casey as VP.

    [ Parent ]
    A democratic Congress (none / 0) (#12)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    will appoint him.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, wrong. (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right. Just the Senate. (none / 0) (#19)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:22:33 PM EST
    Filibuster-proof democratic majority.

    [ Parent ]
    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:23:30 PM EST
    The President always appoints, even if his party controls every seat.

    [ Parent ]
    Nominates, subject to advise and (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:25:08 PM EST
    consent of the Senate.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay. Not final (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:27:21 PM EST
    until it's approved.

    Bork.  Harriet Miers.


    [ Parent ]

    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    You're becoming tiresome, so I'm going to ignore you now.

    [ Parent ]
    Pssst. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:30:42 PM EST
    Be polite.  

    [ Parent ]
    With you oculus, I will always endeavor to. (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:32:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And I appreciate your efforts. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:32:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    oculus...I'm trying... :) (none / 0) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:43:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ha. (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:46:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Advice and consent. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:00 PM EST
    Why are you getting nasty?

    [ Parent ]
    Here. (none / 0) (#34)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:35:20 PM EST
    He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint... judges of the Supreme Court...

    [ Parent ]
    Thank god. (none / 0) (#104)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    Molly Bloom gave you a 5.  

    [ Parent ]
    Roberts, Alito (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:48:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Isn't "nominates" a better word? (none / 0) (#23)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:28:40 PM EST
    Whether it's correct or not?

    [ Parent ]
    Probably a mod-lib like Cass (none / 0) (#56)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    Sunstein for his 1st appointment, is the usual thinking.

    The 2d, perhaps he'll be bolder and be able to go more progressive.  A true liberal jurist, like the solid but not radical Arthur Goldberg.  He'll probably even get a 3d pick, even in his first term.

    But I hope he avoids these soft centrist, nontransformational types that Bill was compelled to offer up.  

    I want at least one big bold paradigm-shifting lib out of those 3 picks.  And let 'em all be under age 55.

    [ Parent ]

    Cass Sunstein would be a great choice (3.00 / 3) (#175)
    by sher on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm not crazy about Sunstein (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
    I thought it was funny that he said Obama was qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. From the New York Times, May 28:

    Cass R. Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and an Obama adviser, said in an interview that because Mr. Obama had taught constitutional law for 10 years at Chicago, "he is immersed in these issues."

    "The first thing to know," Professor Sunstein said, "is that he knows this stuff inside and out, and he has the credentials to be easily appointed to the court himself."



    [ Parent ]
    Er, I don't think Cass Sunstein (none / 0) (#61)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:54:44 PM EST
    qualifies as a mod-lib.

    [ Parent ]
    Sunstein seems rather difficult (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    to easily pigeonhole.  He has characteristics of a sane libertarian, liberal and centrist.  He clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and writes for TAP, but also for Volokh's blog, iirc.  Of course he's written a ton, and I've only read a few ounces (one book to be precise) of his overall oeuvre.

    Interesting thinker.  Against the internet (too socially isolating and tends to make people seek only places and people with whom they agree).

    [ Parent ]

    Who does? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:57:35 PM EST
    And why not Sunstein?

    [ Parent ]
    I think he's too liberal to be (none / 0) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    mod-lib.  Unless he's taken a turn to the conservative recently.  I haven't read him lately, so it's certinaly possible.

    [ Parent ]
    Info On Cass Sunstein (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
    He has publicly supported various of George W. Bush judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Sunstein on Roberts per BTD post "Sunstein: The Legal Academy's Broder"

    Sunstein suggested last year that John Roberts would be the quintessential legal craftsman, and thus a judicial minimalist. Conservative to be sure, but carefully so. And what has happened this year? Roberts marching in lockstep with Scalia, Thomas, and the other radicals. You might think that this has given Sunstein second thoughts. But no.

    In The New Republic, he acknowledges

        It turns out that with stunning regularity, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are indeed voting the same way as their conservative colleagues." But he insists that there is a divide, because Roberts and Alito do so on narrower grounds. . . . Here, in a nutshell, is the division between the Court's conservative minimalists and its visionaries," Sunstein proclaimed.

    Sunstein on privacy Roe v Wade:

    Roe vs. Wade, decided in 1973, was founded on the right of privacy in the medical domain, but the court's argument was exceedingly weak. The Constitution does not use the word "privacy" anywhere, and, in any case, the idea of privacy seems to describe a right of seclusion, not a right of patients and doctors to decide as they see fit.

    Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism

    Their anti-conservative, yet also anti-liberal stance is well-expressed in the concurrent belief of many minimalists that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by its overly liberal court, but also that modern conservatives who either sit on or influence the Supreme Court of the United States are wrong to try and overrule that case at one fell stroke, its effect on the law having become a stable precedent. Depending on the minimalist's particular preferences, a minimalist on the court would be likely to either very slowly bolster or chip away at abortion precedents rather than proclaim a lasting ban or legalization on abortion via Constitutional rulings.


    [ Parent ]
    I must admit (none / 0) (#119)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:37:37 PM EST
    This was a good statement, a tad too "tough on terra" for me, but well worded for a candidate in a general election.    

    [ Parent ]
    Um... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:10:30 PM EST
    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.

    Talk about saying all things to all people.  Did he have to use the Bush phrase there?

    Justice has not been done for those detainees.

     

    Obama - what is he saying? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:21 PM EST
    As usual, you think Obama is saying one thing, but then you wind up not knowing what he is talking about because he is playing to all sides.

    In this case, it seems to me that the smoke is aimed at the liberals.
    He seems to be saying that the constitution protects those accused of a crime and that is a good thing. OK.

    But what comes roaring through is his desire to pose as the next crusader against terrorism.

    The phrase that turns my stomach is, "Bringing these detainees to justice is too important..". Blah blah blah. "Bringing someone to justice" is a loaded phrase. It implies the guilt of the accused.
    It means, in common parlance, that you will be punishing the gulity.  A civil-libertarian would have said that giving these people who have been held without a charge a chance to defend themselves in a court of law is a core American value. It should be protected. Period.

    For the conservatives, he is offering the reason for supporting the pursuit of justice as being that the suppression of the rights of the accused hasn't resulted in any convictions. And if they had, then  what Mr. O?

    [ Parent ]

    bringing someome to justice (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:52:54 PM EST
    implies guilt?

    HUH?

    Thats a pretty odd view of justice.
    Justice is the discrimination between guilt and innocence. Bringing someone to justice means establishing the truth of their guilt or innocence.

    At least in the English language that I use.

    [ Parent ]

    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    When Bush says 'bring to justice' he means hunt them down and kill them and ask no questions.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:34:00 PM EST
    So when Bush talks about bringing bin Laden to justice, he's saying we need to adjudicate his guilt or innocence?

    Bringing to justice is a euphemism, in the English language I use.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually it does NOT mean determining (none / 0) (#167)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:56:20 PM EST
    guilt, it means establishing it---in ordinary English, anyway.
    You pick strange nits.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:11 PM EST
    He has bought into the framing of the 'war against terrorism'. That is scary to me.
    I would have preferred if he spoke about holding suspected terrorists accountable while granting them their rights.

    [ Parent ]
    Terror - Schmerror (none / 0) (#196)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:28:13 AM EST
    If a car bomb is "terror"
    what was our delightful display of "shock and awe"?

    Answer:

    One kills innocent civilians.
    The other only kills people identified as "collateral damage".

    Another important distinction:
    The terrorists are unrepentant.
    But the families of those killed as collateral damage are offered a heartfelt apology.

    [ Parent ]

    He has to look tough on terrorists (none / 0) (#83)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    or McCain will paint him as a wimp.

    [ Parent ]
    Bush owns the term "terrorist act" (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    really? Do you think any liberals died in 9/11? Do you think any of their relatives are waiting for justice for the true culprits?

    Give me a break. Terrorism exists, and Dems need to address that. The difference should be that we go after the right people, not the most politically expedient ones.

    [ Parent ]

    Terrorism exists? (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:24:28 PM EST
    In this country, the terrorists are white, dude.

    [ Parent ]
    it's not either, or (none / 0) (#111)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    sorry, try again.

    [ Parent ]
    Either or? (none / 0) (#129)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:43:44 PM EST
    You won't like it.

    White terrorists aren't called terrorists.

    9/11 is a failure of the Bush administration.

    [ Parent ]

    by whom? (none / 0) (#141)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    I call them terrorists. So did Bill Clinton.So will Obama.

    But you basically said that there were only white terrorists in America, and that is factually false.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, who do you think they are (none / 0) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:30:47 PM EST
    and what makes you think democrats haven't addressed terrorism?

    Who are the true culprits?

    [ Parent ]

    Let me clarify: (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM EST
     I remember Bill Clinton specifically speaking about Osama bin Laden WHILE A PRESIDENT.

    In other words, liberals DO attack the problem, it's the perception that we don't that drove people into Bush's arms in 2004. (and some people, like the guy above, refuse to admit that terrorism exists outside of Tim McVey, but I cannot speak to whether that poster is actually a liberal).

    Does that make more sense?

    [ Parent ]

    I repeat... (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM EST
    it's the perception that we don't that drove people into Bush's arms in 2004.

    9/11 was a failure of the Bush administration.

    [ Parent ]

    No DUH!! (none / 0) (#140)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:55 PM EST
    I saw "The man who KNEW" I listened to Clinton's counterterrorist expert try to get Ms. Rice's attention I know about the daily briefing.

    I am talking about perception. If everyone knew the 9/11 was Bush's failure and the they CONTINUE to fail every day...Bush would not now be president.

    I am talking about Obama shouting out the fact that Dems will be tougher, no, MORE EFFECTIVE against terrorism than Bush was. Obama needs to say that Dems WERE more effective than Bush....Remember the terrorist attack that wasn't during Clinton? Remember Y2K?

    So when you say that Obama is using Bush's rhetoric by talking about terrorism I say BULL. It is our issue too, and we are better on it, and we need people to know that.

    [ Parent ]

    I have a dream... (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:23 PM EST
    [sorry about that!]

    But I do. I have a dream that Obama, or some Democrat dagnabbit, points out that if Al Gore had been in the White House on 9/11...

    well...

    think of Al Gore's SNL intro, but not as a joke.

    Can we, pretty please, be proud of our Democratic heroes? Can we make Bill Clinton our Reagan? Can we please stop being our own worst enemies?

    ...OK, that felt good. I'll stop now.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, please (none / 0) (#152)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:26:03 PM EST
    hear, here!

    [ Parent ]
    We didn't convict anybody. That's bad. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:11:47 PM EST
    I don't like the emphasis on "Gitmo is bad because it hinders the war on terror!"  The Military Commission Act was "sloppy", it keeps us from "getting tough on terrorism", its poor drafting undermines the fight against terror, convicting these people is "too important" for this flawed approach which has failed to get any convictions.  

    Oh, and BTW, some core values have been violated, but I won't tell you which.  YOU pick the ones that are important to YOU and fill it in.  War on terror?  Great.  National security through military action?  Wonderful.  The right of habeas corpus?  That's good, too.  Whatever you want.

    Hmm (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with anything he said, but I read it as a lawyer who has a full understanding of the issues involved.  From the perspective of the general audience, it sort of seemed like he spent too much time trying to prove "you can support this decision and still be tough on terror!" that he didn't really find a punchy way to explain the stakes at issue.

    The heart of the issue here is that we've been holding these people for over 6 years in some cases, and the likelihood is that some of them are completely innocent.  That, and not a dusty old English legal principle, is the most compelling reason why we urgently need to implement a procedure that will sort out the guilty from the innocent.

    Obama remains afraid of the terror card (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:40:25 PM EST
    It's depressing to reflect on that as I read Chris Bowers suggesting that Obama attack McCain at the convention. Sorry Chris, but you chose the wrong Democrat for that mission.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:45:54 PM EST
    There's a speech that didn't get given here, something about how giving a fair hearing even to people we believe to be our terrorist enemies is the sort of thing that sends the right message to the world.

    I think most Americans, certainly most Americans who would consider voting for a Democrat, strongly want us to set a moral example for the world.  The idea that granting habeas corpus rights to people we've had in a hole for 6 years makes us look weak is something that shouldn't even be seriously engaged.

    [ Parent ]

    That would be the change I was looking for, (none / 0) (#142)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST

    I think most Americans, certainly most Americans who would consider voting for a Democrat, strongly want us to set a moral example for the world.  The idea that granting habeas corpus rights to people we've had in a hole for 6 years makes us look weak is something that shouldn't even be seriously engaged.


    [ Parent ]
    Just for starters, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:40:54 PM EST
    The heart of the issue here is that we've been holding these people for over 6 years in some cases, and the likelihood is that some of them are completely innocent.

    We've set something up, that the US government is going to want to keep in place.

    I hate saying that.  Believe me.

    [ Parent ]

    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:42:52 PM EST
    Can you explain?

    [ Parent ]
    Just this. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST
    Like Iraq, the organization is in place.  The US has allocated billions of dollars and military personnel (and "others") to the effort.

    I find it hard to believe that it's all just going to go away because a dem like Obama is elected.

    [ Parent ]

    The machinery of power (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    as well as the machinery of the abuse of power is very difficult to dismantle.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought he struck (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:43:43 PM EST
    about the right balance.  Protective and in support of defendants' const'l rights, while at the same time protecting himself politically from charges of being soft on terra.

    We are in a political year, and pols are going to do what they have to do not to be painted in certain ways by the mischievous Rs.  

    O's statement hit the right notes both legally and politically.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST
    Instead of reacting defensively to the idea of being called soft on terror, how about a proactive explanation of why giving rights even to those we believe to be our enemies isn't soft?

    One problem I constantly find myself having with Obama supporters, and your post is a good example, is that the existence of a political reason for doing something always seems to become a justification in and of itself.  Since politicians rarely do anything unless they have reason to perceive some political benefit in it, it's a good all-purpose excuse, but it tends to leave me cold.

    [ Parent ]

    Ultimately, this is who Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:53:23 PM EST
    He doesn't want to fight the political fights of our times, so he'll do what he can get away with.

    [ Parent ]
    Politics is about timing (none / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:25:31 PM EST
    and the better time to fight for the title of America's Finest Civil Libertarian is after winning the election.

    But even better than temporarily placating a certain segment of the left with some gratuitous and unwise political rhetoric, the way to stake a claim to Civil Libertarian Extraordinaire is to put people in the AG post and on the Court and all the fed bench who will reflect that progressive pov which respects criminal defendants' and all citizens' rights.

    [ Parent ]

    oh how badly mistaken you are! (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:41:44 PM EST
    the day is when you step into the politcal arena. it is when you arrive to vote. present doesn't cut it by the way. it ivolves actually standing up to war in iraq while you are in the senate and not before. it involves running a campaign with respect for women and not distain, demeaning, and dismissal. try those on for size. and platitudes about what he'll do after being elected? heck, he never even had a meeting of the plum committee he was given. so don't try and hand me that blather about after he is elected.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure that's what Obama is thinking (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    But remember, there is always another election around the corner.

    And this is one of those issues where I feel certain, as Steve M suggests, that there is a way to be right on the issue, strong, and to win politically. Do you see how lilly-livered McCain's statement is? This was Obama's issue to own, and he didn't even try.

    [ Parent ]

    Remember the rules (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:34:18 PM EST
    no name calling. lilly-livered really wasn't necessary to make your point.


    [ Parent ]
    Understand the rules. (3.00 / 2) (#155)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:37:13 PM EST
    "Lily-livered" was describing McCain's response. not McCain.

    Therefore, not name-calling.

    [ Parent ]

    JavaCityPal (none / 0) (#200)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    Why the troll-rating? Do you have a problem with being corrected? You don't seem to have a problem "correcting" others - when you're wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    And it has eerie echoes of (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:53:25 PM EST
    parents asking their children whether they'd jump off a bridge just because all their friends were doing it.

    If folks don't notice they're projecting their own values onto a blank slate, then our next president will be ... a blank slate.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Belswyn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:01:11 PM EST
    What exactly is your point here? In one sentence you're talking about Obama supporters and in the next about politicians, apparently conflating the two.

    On the statement itself, Obama isn't reacting to being called soft on terror. He's supporting the Supreme Court's decision and giving a cogent explanation of why it's a morally correct decision, as well as distinguishing himself from the Bush/McCain position. Do you have a problem with that?

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:07:13 PM EST
    See, I had two paragraphs.  One was talking about Obama's statement, the other was talking about why I found brodie's justification for Obama's statement to be unsatisfactory.  That's not conflating, that's  being able to convey two thoughts at once.

    If you disagree with brodie's claim that Obama's statement was nuanced in order to protect him politically from charges of being soft on terror, I guess you should take it up with him/her.

    [ Parent ]

    If O had been quite less forthcoming (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:05:59 PM EST
    in his press release about standing up for basic defendants' rights, I'd be a little more inclined to go along with you, but he wasn't soft on the Constitution, au contraire.

    And politics is politics, especially for the WH.  And in this game, unless the Dem in question has squarely established himself in the public mind as tough as nails on tough guys and terrorists, too much rhetoric that pounds the table about defendants' rights will get the guy labeled the wrong way for our interests.

    I want to win, not back another Adlai/Dukakis loser type who wants to prove to everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's the World's Most Committed Civil Libertarian.

    (Btw, for the record, I was a Hillary backer (since Nov 04).  I've now shifted to the GE mode.  I'm a Dem first and will back the Dem nominee even though I strongly favored his opponent.  Nothing is going to happen to change the O nomination, barring the classic Edwin Edwards scenario, or an Eagleton revelation, or a personal admission of Alien Abduction.  So I am posting now in favor of the Dem.  Period.)  

    [ Parent ]

    Well, no fighting Democrat is Obama (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:45:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I am secretly hoping Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    will issue a succinct, spot on summary from wherever she may be lurking.

    [ Parent ]
    he should (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:44:41 PM EST
    hire you to write his statements. You make it a lot clearer than Obama does.

    [ Parent ]
    "Failed to convict" (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:44:08 PM EST
    Sounds like he's chastising them for not being efficient enough, as opposed to being unconstitutional and in violation of human rights.

    Sigh.  I'd love to know what 'our core values' are.

    that's not how I read it at all. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    if you followed this at all, you know that the goal was endless incarceration without trials. But the Bushies always argued that they were guilty. So what happens when there was the rare trial...failure to convict. It's a sham. Obama is pointing it out. He just needs to be more concise in his delivery IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    If you read your own interpretation (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM EST
    into what he said, then that's not what he said.  It's WORM.  Or what you hope he means.

    But whatever it is, it isn't an indication of what he'll actually do.

    There's a reason he avoids conciseness.  

    I noticed a long time ago his responses tend to be much more lawyerly than leaderly.

    [ Parent ]

    Stay tuned, I guess. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:50:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    On an earlier comment on TL (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:03:58 PM EST
    "Lurking behind all the Unitary Executive and "judicial modesty" bullcrap has been, since minute one, an attack on the role of the Courts as enunciated in Marbury - "to say what the law is".  Every one of Bushie's signing statements, decisions that he can waive or not enforce or disobey laws, etc., is predicated, at its core, on his being able to say what the law is, rather than having to let the Courts decide".

    Why has the media and Obama ignore this aspect of the ruling? If this is true, I think it as important if not more than GITMO. It clearly pulls back the over reach of the exec. branch.

    Angel...yep...most of them saying they (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:06:24 PM EST
    liked Hillary, yadda, yadda, yadda, but you don't have to be a brain surgeon to know where they are coming from.  Since obama, the selectee, was announced, they must have joined his anti-smear machine....you know pointing out where he flip-flops, exaggerates, makes things up, etc.  I am sure we have lots of this to look forward to.

    Oh please (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    I make a reasoned criticism of Obama's statement that you're free to agree or disagree with, and instead you choose to take a cheap "there's nothing he can do to please these Clinton supporters" shot at me?

    Unless there is nothing Obama can say or do that would DISPLEASE you, I'd appreciate you addressing the substance of my point, rather than trolling around like this.

    Because... (4.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:19:32 PM EST
    ...it is constant parsing, looking for flaws.  Always. It isn't that you disagree with Senator Obama, it is that you are looking for flaws.  All the time.  

     There was nothing objectionable about this statement, politically or legally.  But it is something that "bothers" you nevertheless: that politicians are politicians.  And so you look for hidden errors.  

    [ Parent ]

    You sound like the people (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:23:12 PM EST
    who used to defend Bush in 2000-2005, before there was no one left who would defend everything he did.

    [ Parent ]
    Please, in your opinion, there is (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:25:51 PM EST
    nothing objectionable about his statement. If he said the world was flat and so