Obama Admin. Guts Due Process... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Dunedan · 12-22-2009, 07:28 AM

...Bush Regime Sends "Thanks For Your Support" Card.

With thanks to antiwar.com, lewrockwell.com, and keepandbeararms.com:

Supreme Court Guts Due Process Protection naked capitalism
Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes Stand Up for Slavery

Quote:

After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president’s fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a “suspected enemy combatant” by the president or his designated minions is no longer a “person.” They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever — save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

Quote:

The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of “national emergency.” And the instigation of torture is, under U.S. law, a capital crime. No person can be tortured, at any time, for any reason, and there are no immunities whatsoever for torture offered anywhere in the law.

And yet this is what Barack Obama — who, we are told incessantly, is a super-brilliant Constitutional lawyer — has been arguing in case after case since becoming president: Torturers are immune from prosecution; those who ordered torture are immune from prosecution….let’s be absolutely clear: Barack Obama has taken the freely chosen, public, formal stand — in court — that there is nothing wrong with any of these activities.

Change we can believe in? Hope for a better future? An end to torture and PATRIOT ACT "disappearances" while improving America's image abroad?

Sure. Right. Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss.

ratbastid · 12-22-2009, 07:35 AM

I'd like to see the ruling. Following your links, I see a lot of commentary about the ruling, but I'd like to put my eyes on the thing itself.

Cimarron29414 · 12-22-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'd like to see the ruling. Following your links, I see a lot of commentary about the ruling, but I'd like to put my eyes on the thing itself.

Agreed. Without the case number and link to the ruling, this is little more than a story about space aliens abducting Santa Claus.

The_Jazz · 12-22-2009, 07:59 AM

Derwood · 12-22-2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Agreed. Without the case number and link to the ruling, this is little more than a story about space aliens abducting Santa Claus.

hyperbole aside, without a link to the case, all we have are a handful of editorials on it

dksuddeth · 12-22-2009, 08:27 AM

Rasul v. Rumsfeld | Center for Constitutional Rights

Quote:

On January 11, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the constitutional and international law claims, and reversed the district court's decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applied to Guantanamo detainees, dismissing those claims as well. On December 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for further consideration in light of Boumediene v. Bush.

On April 24, 2009, the Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion it had reached prior to Boumediene, this time justifying its dismissal of the case largely on "qualified immunity" grounds — that is, on the notion that courts had not clearly established that the torture and religious abuse of Guantanamo detainees was prohibited at the time those abuses were being carried out against our clients. Plaintiffs sought review of this opinion in the Supreme Court, but on December 14, 2009, the Supreme Court declined to accept the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

so, i'm confused Jazz. Does this mean you think that it's sour grapes crybaby shit that the Obama administration endorses torture and religious abuse of 'enemy combatants' and his political opponents attack him for it?

The_Jazz · 12-22-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so, i'm confused Jazz. Does this mean you think that it's sour grapes crybaby shit that the Obama administration endorses torture and religious abuse of 'enemy combatants' and his political opponents attack him for it?

Thanks for the link.

It was a link to a "Santa Clause is dead" picture, dk. It was based on the post immediately preceding it. Don't read anything more into it than a lame attempt at humor in a thread that (until you added the link) had nothing else to offer.

As for the case, wait, what? The Supreme Court followed precedence (set before Obama took office), and that's what folks are upset about? They closed the case out and decided that the new argument did not merit reopening it. That's kind of the way it works, guys.

roachboy · 12-22-2009, 08:54 AM

it's kinda confusing trying to figure out which cases are actually being talked about here for some reason.
here are a couple henderson rulings from jan. 2008 that bear directly on these questions of torture and person-ness.
in a very general sense, what i see happening here is a bush appointee paying back the administration who appointed her.
but there may be newer cases.
these two do outline the logic however:

rasul et. al. vs. rumsfeld
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...1/06-5209a.pdf

national military institute v. department of defense
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...1/06-5242a.pdf

the upshot of these cases, if i understand them correctly (and i'm not a lawyer) is more about whether it is possible to sue either bush administration officials or the defense department in general for the effects of regulations instituted under their watch which condoned torture.
the ruling is itself in a straight line with the reactionary politics that informed the regulations in the first place, so they're not really a surprise.

bush administration court appointments: gifts that keep on giving....

but it looks like the main question here is really whether and how individuals within the government can be held accountable (same for the dept of defense)....looked at from that viewpoint, that other government appointees would argue in the way they did, not so much on the basis of the consequences insofar as torture was concerned but in order to prevent suits being filed against government appointees...then i don't see the "same as the old boss" line making any sense...mostly because it seems to me to be talking about the wrong thing.

again, i'm not sure whether these are delayed reactions to these rulings of if there was another based on them done this past week by the same judge.
but it's something to chew on.

ratbastid · 12-22-2009, 10:09 AM

Okay, so knowing LITERALLY no more about it than is said here:

Quote:

On January 11, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the constitutional and international law claims, and reversed the district court's decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applied to Guantanamo detainees, dismissing those claims as well. On December 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for further consideration in light of Boumediene v. Bush.

On April 24, 2009, the Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion it had reached prior to Boumediene, this time justifying its dismissal of the case largely on "qualified immunity" grounds — that is, on the notion that courts had not clearly established that the torture and religious abuse of Guantanamo detainees was prohibited at the time those abuses were being carried out against our clients. Plaintiffs sought review of this opinion in the Supreme Court, but on December 14, 2009, the Supreme Court declined to accept the case.

If you actually READ that, what happened is, four detainees sued Rumsfeld personally for being the victim of interrogation techniques that they claimed were illegal. The case was dismissed in District Court, and the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. Then the Supreme Court ordered it back to the Court of Appeals on the basis of a decision they made in a different case.

The Court of Appeals didn't reverse themselves on the basis of the new Supreme Court decision, holding that at the time, the illegality of these interrogation techniques wasn't established in court. When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, they declined to hear it for the second time.

How this adds up to a 3000-word blog post about Obama gutting due process, I'm ENTIRELY unclear.

Also, if you look a little further than the synopsis:

Quote:

After a brief extension of time for filing, on August 24, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their cert petition. The government filed its response on November 13, 2009, which notably does not explicitly argue that Guantanamo detainees should be held to enjoy no constitutional rights, but only noted in its view several courts had stated as much.

So... Did the author of that 3000-word blog post not read the whole timeline of the case?

To be honest, I'm not sure he knows what he's talking about at all. He never mentions this case by name, or any of the actual facts of the case. He spends a LOT of pixels on what the "decision" (it wasn't a decision actually) "means" (although it doesn't as far as my non-lawyer reading can tell mean any such thing). But he doesn't have the rudiments of the case together. I'm not even sure Rasul v. Rumsfeld is the one he's talking about!

So... Is there any "there" there? I don't see any.

EDIT: To be clear, I believe this outcome to be a miscarriage of justice. But to turn it into "Obama guts due process" is absurd. I'm not happy with how the man is handling security and terrorism issues, but JESUS people. Not every leaf falling from every tree validates your political viewpoint.

roachboy · 12-22-2009, 10:36 AM

so both rb's are in the same situation then of not quite knowing what the hell is actually being talked about.
best i could assemble it, the logic of this latest ruling follows from the two cases i linked above. they made even be appeals of the same case.

one way of reading the consequences of the rulings is a legitimation of bush-people views concerning "combattants" as over against "prisoners of war"...but the main arguments are stranger, having basically to do with rumsfeld et al operating "in good faith" on the basis of fucked up interpretations of the legal situation as a whole, the same interpretations which enabled the development of "enemy combattant" as a viable category, separate from "prisoner of war"--relative to which there are rules.
so it amounts to a repetition of the bush administration's "thinking" that resulted in these people sitting in gitmo without access to legal counsel of any due process subject to periods of torture and neglect...

but both rulings are, like i said above, about protecting individuals within the administration from being sued personally for actions carried out on the basis of policies, even those the legal basis for which was at the very best dubious.
which makes me wonder if rasul et al simply sued the wrong people...maybe they shoulda sued the architects of the legal argument itself, folk like john yoo....but i'm sure this "working in good faith" thing would be applied to him as well.

it's all very strange. there seems no place to stop it nor any reason to stop it. no-one is accountable, everyone operates in
"good faith"....it sounds like a version of the nuremburg defense except applied to a curious fiction of a system without a head or center. a kind of hall of mirrors more.

Cimarron29414 · 12-22-2009, 11:43 AM

Regardless of the specifics of these cases, does anyone else see a slippery slope in being able to sue a specific member of the government for the "consequences" of their acts while performing their duties? I guess I envision, 5 years from now, the courts being flooded with "Obamacare killed grannie so I am suing (former) President Obama." ...shit like that.

Then again, if the soldiers can be sued for doing soldier duties (I think that happened, but not sure), why not the politicians for doing political duties?

Hmmmm, I don't know how I feel about this yet.

Wes Mantooth · 01-10-2010, 05:01 PM

Yeah its really a double edged sword. You can't realistically open up every govt official to being sued over enforcing or working under an administrations policies but at the same time you can't completely absolve them of having any consequences for their actions. "I was just following orders" has never been a viable defence as far as I know.

Then again is it fair to hold somebody accountable for just doing a job whose policies are outlined by somebody above them? Whats that individuals proper response? Research the laws behind all policies or duties and resign if anything seems unconstitutional or illegal? Thats not particularly reasonable either.

I don't know its not an easy question to answer

12-22-2009, 07:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	__________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

12-22-2009, 08:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's kinda confusing trying to figure out which cases are actually being talked about here for some reason. here are a couple henderson rulings from jan. 2008 that bear directly on these questions of torture and person-ness. in a very general sense, what i see happening here is a bush appointee paying back the administration who appointed her. but there may be newer cases. these two do outline the logic however: rasul et. al. vs. rumsfeld http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...1/06-5209a.pdf national military institute v. department of defense http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...1/06-5242a.pdf the upshot of these cases, if i understand them correctly (and i'm not a lawyer) is more about whether it is possible to sue either bush administration officials or the defense department in general for the effects of regulations instituted under their watch which condoned torture. the ruling is itself in a straight line with the reactionary politics that informed the regulations in the first place, so they're not really a surprise. bush administration court appointments: gifts that keep on giving.... but it looks like the main question here is really whether and how individuals within the government can be held accountable (same for the dept of defense)....looked at from that viewpoint, that other government appointees would argue in the way they did, not so much on the basis of the consequences insofar as torture was concerned but in order to prevent suits being filed against government appointees...then i don't see the "same as the old boss" line making any sense...mostly because it seems to me to be talking about the wrong thing. again, i'm not sure whether these are delayed reactions to these rulings of if there was another based on them done this past week by the same judge. but it's something to chew on. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-22-2009, 10:36 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so both rb's are in the same situation then of not quite knowing what the hell is actually being talked about. best i could assemble it, the logic of this latest ruling follows from the two cases i linked above. they made even be appeals of the same case. one way of reading the consequences of the rulings is a legitimation of bush-people views concerning "combattants" as over against "prisoners of war"...but the main arguments are stranger, having basically to do with rumsfeld et al operating "in good faith" on the basis of fucked up interpretations of the legal situation as a whole, the same interpretations which enabled the development of "enemy combattant" as a viable category, separate from "prisoner of war"--relative to which there are rules. so it amounts to a repetition of the bush administration's "thinking" that resulted in these people sitting in gitmo without access to legal counsel of any due process subject to periods of torture and neglect... but both rulings are, like i said above, about protecting individuals within the administration from being sued personally for actions carried out on the basis of policies, even those the legal basis for which was at the very best dubious. which makes me wonder if rasul et al simply sued the wrong people...maybe they shoulda sued the architects of the legal argument itself, folk like john yoo....but i'm sure this "working in good faith" thing would be applied to him as well. it's all very strange. there seems no place to stop it nor any reason to stop it. no-one is accountable, everyone operates in "good faith"....it sounds like a version of the nuremburg defense except applied to a curious fiction of a system without a head or center. a kind of hall of mirrors more. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-22-2009, 11:43 AM	#11 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Regardless of the specifics of these cases, does anyone else see a slippery slope in being able to sue a specific member of the government for the "consequences" of their acts while performing their duties? I guess I envision, 5 years from now, the courts being flooded with "Obamacare killed grannie so I am suing (former) President Obama." ...shit like that. Then again, if the soldiers can be sued for doing soldier duties (I think that happened, but not sure), why not the politicians for doing political duties? Hmmmm, I don't know how I feel about this yet. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

01-10-2010, 05:01 PM	#12 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	Yeah its really a double edged sword. You can't realistically open up every govt official to being sued over enforcing or working under an administrations policies but at the same time you can't completely absolve them of having any consequences for their actions. "I was just following orders" has never been a viable defence as far as I know. Then again is it fair to hold somebody accountable for just doing a job whose policies are outlined by somebody above them? Whats that individuals proper response? Research the laws behind all policies or duties and resign if anything seems unconstitutional or illegal? Thats not particularly reasonable either. I don't know its not an easy question to answer __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

12-22-2009, 07:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'd like to see the ruling. Following your links, I see a lot of commentary about the ruling, but I'd like to put my eyes on the thing itself.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/152588-obama-admin-guts-due-process.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Untitled document	This thread	Refback	04-28-2011 04:59 AM