RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

ah…forget what i said about all that habeas corpus crap

Obama the candidate:

September 2008



December 2007

September 2006

Obama was a big ol’ candidate for change, and a big supporter of habeas corpus, wasn’t he? In addition to those videos, here are some additional situations, where he discussed civil liberties and habeas corpus here, here, here, and here is McCain discussing a back and forth with Obama.

And back in June, Obama said this:


“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.”

But, apparently that was all campaign rhetoric, because today the New York Times reported that Obama the President is set to appeal a ruling that would allow prisoners in Afghanistan to file lawsuits seeking their release.

“The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.”

This is a perfect summation from Salon.com, by Glenn Greenwald:

So that Barack Obama — the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President — said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Americans generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today’s Barack Obama, safely ensconced in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that.

Obama the candidate spent months, YEARS, trashing the Bush administration for their policies, and is yet again, embracing them. What was that change all about, really?

In this video from This Week, George plays Obama a sound bite of Dick Cheney saying that Obama before he starts to implement his campaign rhetoric, needs to site down and find out precisely what it is [they] did…because it would be a tragedy to throw over all those policies simply because he had campaigned against them.

Wouldn’t it be better to have an idea about the national security BEFORE you hit the campaign trail, and promise all kinds of things to your supporters?

I mean, heck, Hillary could have campaigned on the promise that she would give every American a new puppy, a million dollars, and a new car, and she would sitting in the White House right now….

Glenn Greenwald finishes his article (it’s a great piece, and contains a lot of info) with this comment:

To recap: Obama files a brief saying he agrees in full with the Bush/Cheney position. He’s arguing that the President has the power to abduct, transport and imprison people in Bagram indefinitely with no charges of any kind. He’s telling courts that they have no authority to “second-guess” his decisions when it comes to war powers. But this is all totally different than what Bush did, and anyone who says otherwise is a reckless, ill-motivated hysteric who just wants to sell books and get on TV.

We are definitely living in bizarro land.

  • dianna

    Thank you AGI!

  • Peggy Sue

    Thanks for the recap, AGI. I heard part of this last night and it just made me shake my head. Rendition, “enhanced” interrogation methods, etc., etc.

    So be it for campaign promises.

    Maybe this is why the Neo Dems are jumping up and down on the Tax Day protests. If not that, they might have to really consider how familiar this administration is beginning to sound and look like.

    Same old, same old.

  • Obama: Dubya II Electric Boogaloo

    “Just words?! Just speeches?!”

    Heh-apparently so.

  • ExDemInVA

    People better wake up! This Administration is slowly plucking away at our rights as citizens – right before our eyes. We need to stop the political party bashing and UNITE as a country to stop this madness before it is too late!

  • http://www.dwarfhamster.com dst

    At least even (to what end I don’t know) those on the extreme left who do have some brain power are waking up. If you are not aware of Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone of WBAI’s “Taking Aim Show” (Tue 5PM WBAI) http://takingaimradio.com/ I suggest, being that you are at this blog, you might just find this one hour show:

    Barack Obama and the Finance Capitalists: “On the Same Page” http://takingaimradio.com/m3u/takingaim090331.m3u

    quite interesting and worth listening to. If you do then at

    http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html

    there are may more similar. dst

  • KintheNorthwest

    Obama might be the same old same old — But Obama is going many many steps father than I think the Bush administration even thought about.
    Hang on guys and enjoy your American freedoms and rights for as long as you can…

  • jbjd

    …but at least, he’s still black. After all, isn’t that why most people voted for such an ‘otherwise’ inferior candidate?

  • allimom99

    But who is talking about this? Who will question him about it? I’m not holding my breath, but the whiplash IS stunning, isn’t it? They just wouldn’t listen to us, and now look….

  • Politicalidentitycrisis

    Well, one could argue that he lied about being the first black POTUS. He is in fact only half black. I’m really not concerned with his color though. He could be pink with green stripes and blue polka dots for all I care. I do care that he is a liar and an ass!

  • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

    it doesn’t seem that many people even care… it’s like a ghost town in here. haha

  • http://deleted Buzz Latte

    Habeas Corpus is important, but it’s tax week and so the economy is taking the forefront.

    Next week on this thread may be a different story!

  • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

    maybe we can bump it up next week then. :O)

  • cali

    The new boss is the same as the old boss.

    Yippee skippy.

  • cali

    I care. I will ALWAYS care.

    Thanks for the post, AG! Keep ‘em coming.

  • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

    thank you! :OD

  • Benjamin Cardozo

    The US Constitution is first and foremost a contract between the citizens of the US, acting through their respective state governments, and the federal government. The various articles and amendments to the Constitution specify which powers of governance shall be delegated to the federal government by the states for the common good, which powers shall be reserved to the individual states, and which rights shall be fundamental rights, inalienable in and endowed to the individual citizen,which neither the state or federal government can infringe upon. The US Constitution is a document imposed by the people upon government and not one that has been imposed by the government upon the people (this latter aspect is what Obama has considered a fundamental flaw in the US Constitution, that all rights “negatively” belong to the people because the government can not infringe upon them instead of rights “positively” belonging to government and government decides how those rights are parceled out to the people).

    Habeus corpus is not one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution, it is specified as only a privilege conferred by the government upon the citizens. This is an important distinction. Since we consider fundamental rights to be inalienable in and endowed to the individual, we willingly extend these rights to the noncitizen who has come under the jurisdiction of the US. Otherwise it would be the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to say that only citizens have the right to be protected in their thoughts, words, deeds and property.

    However, habeus corpus as a privilege conferred upon the citizen need not be extended to the noncitizen unless such noncitizen has first subjected himself to the jurisdiction and laws of the US. Should the noncitizen subject himself to US jurisdiction, then such noncitizens wrongful acts are considered as a criminal matter and he should be treated no differently than as a citizen.

    However, there is no rational for for extending the privilege of habeus corpus to the noncitizen whose wrongful acts are the subject of acting as a non-uniformed combatant against a lawfully established and UN recognized government. Such persons are thus outside the scope of US criminal law and governed by international accords and treaties. The matter and manner of detention for such noncitizens becomes one of executive privilege under the Constitution. Obama is right on this one.

  • cali

    Obama is a liar. He is “fundamentally” flawed.

  • elise

    When people stop caring, tyranny is just a heartbeat away. It isn’t even necessary to be a patriot to want freedom yet we are letting it slip through our fingers in our preoccupation with the mundane and trivial. Next to life itself, it is our most precious birthright in the US thanks to a document written two hundred years ago by some wise and intelligent men who, even while writing and signing, were pondering the future generations dedication to it’s protection. What a legacy to leave our children! They won’t thank us for not warning them the government should be kept in chains and it’s power to abridge our rights denied.

  • http://ezinearticles.com/?Three-Basic-Parenting-Styles&id=744499 Northwest rain

    the kool aid drinkers ooze out of the gutter to support 0zero.

  • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

    the point of this post is obama’s campaign promises, he’s Bush bashing, and his subsequent reversal.

  • Benjamin Cardozo

    You are absolutely correct, I could not agree with you more, Obama’s Bush bashing during the campaign was meritless and unfounded in law or fact, which is also to tacitly admit that Bush and the DOJ reached the correct legal opinion regarding the privilege of habeus corpus. Detainees at Bagram are subject to the jurisdiction and procedures set forth in international accords and treaties, and not US criminal law and procedure.

blog comments powered by Disqus