Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely

By John Byrne

President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges.

The move, which was controversial when the idea was first floated in The Washington Post in May, has sparked serious concern among civil liberties advocates. Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold "combatants" without habeas corpus -- a legal term literally meaning "you shall have the body" -- which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect's detention.

Obama's decision was buried on page A 23 of The New York Times' New York edition on Thursday. It didn't appear on that page in the national edition. (Meanwhile, the front page was graced with the story, "Richest Russian's Newest Toy: An N.B.A. Team.")

Rather than seek approval from Congress to hold some 50 Guantanamo detainees indefinitely, the administration has decided that it has the authority to hold the prisoners under broad-ranging legislation passed in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. Former President George W. Bush frequently invoked this legislation as the justification for controversial legal actions -- including the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.


..
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/obama-will-bypass-congress-to-detain-suspects-indefinitely/

Any president who takes power isn't going to give up what the previous president had. To do so would weaken that branch of government. Nevermind that the reason he's going to be able to get away with this is that the monkey boy moron who used to be president and his lawyers decided that THEY could and the then republican controlled congress decided to sit on its hands and look the other way.

republicans were okay with a republican president exercising the extra constitutional powers. Wonder how they're going to feel when a democrat does the same?

Q3JR4.
Not surprised in the least.

Obama is a traitor to America.

Letting up on the gas pedal was nowhere near enough.

He only got it by default the first time.

:banghead:

accept it.

But it seems that he only abuses the power of the Oval Office in the pursuit of bad ends, like this example.

Why won't he fight as hard for liberal ideals?

Guess we know the answer to that question?

There's no reason the next republican president won't just declare that he has them once he is in office. On the other hand, if congress takes those powers away from Obama, they are taken away from any future republican president.
There's method to the madness.

There's a traitor in the White House.

On the other hand, republicans put a two term limit on the presidency and it stuck. You want to limit the power of the executive branch? Make the other side do it.

Stop defending the indefensible.

:dem:

I hate this guy more and more with each passing day.

the constitutionality of these powers the last two Presidents have claimed? Time for some checks and balances. I can't imagine the other two branches feel all fuzzy about him going around them.

DEAD branch of the government tree, the Legislative Branch, is NOT DOING. Presidents have historically taken as much power as the Congress is willing to cede to them. Almost never do they give back the power they are granted by Congress' cowardice or laziness.

I am not happy that President Obama is not dismantling a lot of these military/national security unconstitutional elements, BUT he is rolling back some of the worst stuff and seems to be trying to work on other things.

He is not a dictator or a wizard who can declare that all that bad stuff now becomes gone. He is a mortal who is trying to balance doing the right things against doing what his handlers (the military, CIA, NSA, Wall Street, Big Pharma, etc, etc) demand that he does.

If he moves too fast he will become a martyr and really bad things will happen. I believe that sincerely, so I want him to be steadily but not too abruptly changing the course of the ship of state. If we want abrupt and significant change we will have to enlist the aid of Congress. And we see how well that's going with the healthcare reform effort.

We need some big-time, peaceful demonstrations by the Liberals, Progressives, Independents. So far, the teabaggers are pounding us in the ground.

Democracy requires that the citizens demand good government. We are not demanding it.

which is why they framed the Separation of Powers in our Constitution. Continue down this path at our own peril!

It's a wake-up call to Americans.

Does any of the good Germans among us realize that in the end it will be their hides that will be at risk by the national security apparatus that has been growing in size since the end of World War II?

to end the Bush regime? How has he improved things? I just am having trouble seeing any change and I honestly want to know.
I voted for Obama..I voted for change..but this is just more of the same Bush crap.
I am voting for Kucinich if he ever runs again..even if I have to do a write-in.

It is what Obama's Administration does, or fails to do, that should be the measure by which we judge.

I voted for him and I just want him to step up and restore the constitution and do the things he promised. I have to say though..I am losing heart every time I see his skating around things again.
This last one of letting Bush's indefinite detention stand could be the final straw for me..but hope springs eternal I guess.

Isn't that enough for you people?

Mr. Obama Punts . . .
. . . And the left cheers as the president embraces what it once decried as a lawless detention scheme. TOOLBOX


Sunday, September 27, 2009


THE OBAMA administration announced last week that it did not need and would not seek new legislation to govern indefinite detention of some terrorism suspects at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In so doing, the administration has chosen the politically expedient and intellectually dishonest route.

Like President George W. Bush, President Obama now asserts that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives him the right to hold some terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial. At Guantanamo, this is expected to affect 50 or so prisoners who, the administration has determined, can be tried neither in federal court nor before a military commission but are too dangerous to release.

The White House and its allies knowingly engage in a distortion. The question isn't whether the president may indefinitely hold some detainees -- the courts have ruled that he can under certain circumstances -- but what process should be available to those subject to such detention. This is the debate that Mr. Obama now lacks the courage to engage.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092602004.html

But it's "our guy," so it's all right. :sarcasm:

That's taken a backseat to whatever is seen as political expediency. Not surprising though, really considering the flack that the administration would expect for standing on principles.

Just because someone is well-versed on certain points of the law doesn't mean he/she necessarily obeys them.