Repost: In Silence, Obama & the Supreme Court imperil Human Liberty with a Sentence

I posted this earlier but I screwed up and put too many paragraphs in the post. Here is the post with the maximum allowed text and the link to read the full analysis.

Thanks

Snip



Snip



I highly suggest you read the entire article with discussion of the Dred Scott case and (the decision that allowed that African Americans could be declared 'non-persons') and the pathetic and sad irony of the current decision will hit you like a punch in the chest....in the heart.

Sorry for the confusion and thanks to the mods for the clarification!

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html

So you just had to post it again.

:eyes:

Ah well, drama is as drama does.

The post disappeared with any notice to her.

It was a good post and deserves reposting.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

says a lot about the post.

and post them there and I had to do it over again, since the post is gone!

from the article. Sinister!:scared: :scared: :scared:

Or maybe the OP reappearing says a lot about the post as well?

... broke DU rules by reproducing too many paragraphs of text copied from another source.

The OP was edited and then reposted, in a form that does not break the rules.

Exactly where do you get the "back by popular demand" crapola?

... asking where the "back by popular demand" BS came from.

Still waitin' on an answer.

Where WeDidIt implied the post was removed for other reasons than the 4 paragraph rule. Read post 22 and then the reply you're all upset about.

.

as appears to be the case with our friend.

Whatever. If that is what you have to make it about. I guess it is easier then reading the article and digesting the implications.

Eatin' up the attention - mmmm - mmmm.

:thumbsdown:

all of the people castigating me for it would not have posted and kicked the OP to the top.

:loveya:

Have fun !

it's that important

It's like, how many times can you really watch Star Wars?

Okay, bad example...

It's inexcusable that THIS administration to do anything that isn't unambiguously anti-torture. We have no need to tolerate ANY grey areas on the subject. Torture is totally wrong and this country must never again have anything to do with it.

How could you possibly disagree?

not because any moderator disagreed. See post 113.

It is so wonderful to have our very own expert on drama who just can't wait to tell us all about it. I can't thank you enough. So I won't.

to get attention. The post disappeared for some reason. You don't pay much attention to what is going on in this world, even the small world of DU, do you?

No wonder you are so mis-informed about everything else.

too bad you can't turn out the light on all the cockroaches you rush to defend and make absurd excuses for--the job is getting a little too big for you and your little band of trollish scum.

now "alert" on me and have my post deleted.

flushing you ...

or is that what we should be proud of doing "WeDidIt"?

LOVE and ADORATION!!

If I were you I'd be embarrassed I wrote that.

Chris Floyd has been on to the gangsters since the time the Peace Dividend got stolen. Dred Scott Redux is right.

How anyone can defend Torturers-R-USA, which is against everything this nation stood for, is beyond my understanding.

well as a few legal blogs so I calmed down after I found those.

K&R!!

http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-0235.resp.html government's argument

Cert. denied, so DC Circuit stands:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rasul-ii-4-24-09.pdf

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not an aged and dyed bleached blonde who worships at the lap of Grover NOrquist. I'm a cute brunette who can smell bullshit a mile away.

something interesting. if you fail, you'll get blocked by me.

I would rather listen to others who have something new to say to me.

I'm kind, so it's your choice! Go on.

adding Hamsher or Norquist.

Well done!! Here are some puppies.

I'm really beginning to think so.

Horrible story, glad it was re-posted.

Darling Goldies, glad to see the pic.

Have no clue who "ignored" is, but seem to be a lot of invisible comments by same.

is getting paid everytime she posts something bashing Hamsher. That's my theory anyway.

"Ignored" says it all. The puppies are adorable.

Again. You need to get someone to read you the difference between right wing and left wing. Your complete lack of knowledge about the political world is on display here.

Right wing: Someone who licks at the lap of the father of right wing extremist, fascist GOPism.

Left wing: Someone who fights that.

Why defend right wing behavior? Why label someone right wing for protesting right wing actions?

You are very confused.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

please get a grip on yourself and stop your ridiculous witch hunting and non-stop personal attacks.

By the way, you aren't keeping track of who you are exchanging texts with. Are you ducking me or the poster you replied to?

I am perfectly happy for you to stay and "argue". Your confusion and misunderstanding of government are perfect examples of those who play this like a high school pep ralley. Thank you for making my point for me.

The current health reform bill I've seen you defend (ad nauseum) is purely fascist. Perhaps you're not as left wing as you think.

yet you fail to detect any kind of, er, "odor" coming from the White House or anyplace around there?
oh, sorry, I guess you're more than a mile away from there :eyes:

let's go over it again.

Left is left. It is the opposite of right. gomer norquist is the ultimate right winger. This decision is one that he celebrates. If you too celebrate the decision, that would put you in his camp, not the OP.

But of course you have no idea what the decision means or even what it is. For your point of view, life is a high school football game and it's your team that matters. No good. No bad. Just the team.

I think you'll find them quite.. uh... refreshing. About as refreshing as having someone throw a hospital bedpan on your head.

got to do with anything that I said? Do you even have any idea how the world of politics and government works?

What exactly is you beef with Hamsher and just how do you feel that she is right wing? Is it possible for you to address it issues of the OP or any of the replies to your incoherent posts?

people with brains find the work too unprincipled.

Grover Norquist, a principal organizer of the conservative movement who is close to the Bush White House and usually supports its policies, says, "If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to mean that the president can do anything he wants and can ignore the laws you don't have a constitution: you have a king." He adds, "They're not trying to change the law; they're saying that they're above the law and in the case of the NSA wiretaps they break it."


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092


Are we still doing warrantless wiretapping, too? If Obama does it, does that mean we're for it, now? Cause apparently now we're supposed to be for saying 'enemy combatants are not persons and can be tortured? Cause I was against those things when Bush was in office and was thinking I might still be against them now. Apparently, I'm just way off message.

to anyone who posts anything with which you disagree as "norquist" this is beyond tiresome.

It is OK with you that people can be declared enemy combatants and, therefore, not persons and can be tortured with impunity? Is that your position? That if there's a (D) after the president's name it becomes acceptable?

Look, over here!! We got Norquist!! We got Hamsher!!! No! Stop! Stay away from the Constitution!!! We got blackface, I tell ya, BLACKFACE!!!!

Sounds like amazing spin.

because subjects like sovereign immunity and the Alien Tort Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are just too boring. The court letting sit a Circuit Decision that such aliens have no civil case against the government is just too legal and dreary and dull, so we must sex it up as part of the grand conspiracy.

Bad.

Like the Obama Admin is condoning torture. What am I missing? Cuz debberlius' explanation and DKos' explanation appear to indicate that the Obama Admin is once again enabling torture.

(and keep it simple for the illiterate legal minds)

This claim is completely false: "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" The lower court's decision did not declare torture to be an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention. Such a declaration is simply no where to be found in the court's opinion.

(citing Authorization for Use of
Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)), and
that “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s
detention of suspected enemy combatants.”

Page 14 of 53

lower court ruling that the SCOTUS let stand

Now, the above is an exact quote but you can decide for yourself if a copy and paste from the ruling means that "Such a declaration is simply no where to be found in the court's opinion."


and this link from CCR gives some more info.

This was a denial of certiorari -- and denials of cert do not signify approval of the opinion below and do not represent SCOTUS precedent binding on any other court. And even the government arguing that the case shouldn't be reviewed by the SCOTUS doesn't represent the government's agreement with any or everything in the opinion below. In fact, if you had bothered to read the government brief, you'd see the following line:

"Torture is illegal under federal law, and the United States government repudiates it. "

However, as the brief goes on to argue (dryly, not passionately): "the availability of claims for monetary damages against
individual officials raises distinct questions."

http://www.ccrjustice.org/files/Rasul%20-%20government%20opposition%20to%20cert%20-%20filed%2011-13-2009.pdf

Hopefully, more and more will go to the CCR site and read about the case.

Torture has been illegal in the US for years(and years)...didn't stop Bush...so the government making that statement doesn't really mean anything considering that torture did take place and it is that torture that concerns the case.

That's a far cry from an "ordinary" and "expected" consequence. Moreover, the district court was not in any way endorsing torture by saying that it can happen.

You most emphatically declared that it didn't say it and you were wrong. I gave you the link to the ruling so you could see that it does indeed say that. I made no claims - just posted the ruling and what it says.

And yes, to say something is foreseeable is to say it is to be expected (as in, expected under these conditions - detention/existing guidelines such as the torture memos, etc....which is why the court mentions acting under/within their jobs/employer - the US govt.). If you can foresee the potential for something to happen then you recognize conditions exist where an action could be expected.

Now, as to where it all goes from here...we'll see.

First, the case you cite was not the one that SCOTUS refused to hear. They considered that case. The relevant case was http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rasul-ii-4-24-09.pdf

Second, there's a big difference between foreseeable and ordinary.

By the way, I think that the opinion in the first Rasul case was terrible. The Supreme Court did rule on that case, telling the lower court to reconsider. I object to the distortion and hyperbole of the OP. You should too.

This is the case link I posted - http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200801/06-5209a.pdf

This is the one you posted - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rasul-ii-4-24-09.pdf

Exact same brief/pdf. Just different sites. One is on scotusblog and the other I got from the CCR site...same brief though

Both are No. 06-5209.

Yes, there is a difference between ordinary and foreseeable...but then I didn't claim otherwise, did I?

I said foreseeable and expected can be synonyms for each other.

If you use a dictionary and look up the word foreseeable you get the word anticipate and if you look up the word anticipate you get the word expected. So I don't object to the use of the word expected in the OP. Nor do I object to the OP because it's gotten a few people on this thread to actually look into the case - and in my book, that's a win.

That said..

I'll stick with what the lawyers actually working the cases on behalf of the detainees have to say about it.


The SCOTUS did tell the lower court to go back - and that was in the case under current discussion in this thread, the exact same lower court ruling we both linked to..and the lower court did...and instead of the original ruling of US territory/habeas corpus, ruled on remand that:

"Last year, the Supreme Court granted the men’s first petition, vacated the Court of Appeals decision and ordered the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which held that Guantánamo is de facto U.S. territory and that detainees have a Constitutional right to habeas corpus.

On remand, the D.C. Circuit reiterated its view that the Constitution does not prohibit torture of detainees at Guantánamo and that detainees still are not “persons” protected from religious abuse. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that, in any event, the government officials involved are immune from liability because the right not to be tortured was not clearly established."

I think this is treacherous ground for the Obama Admin and they are trying to double speak. I agree that the more we talk it through, the more thorough an understanding there will be and that's all good.

I agree. The more exposure it gets, the more we ask questions and talk, the better we understand just what is going.

I agree that it's just plain wrong to act in a manner that denies the victims of America's war crimes justice. The U.S. committed war crimes and there's no good in pretending otherwise.

the one I posted is the reconsideration of the decision you posted.

I'm glad you agree with me that the original OP was distorting the wording of the court by using the term "ordinary."

The only thing it changed was the "why" - as I stated earlier...US territory/ immunity. The original ruling still stands...just with a different justification. That was the result of the SCOTUS not hearing the case.


It still left intact:

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By refusing to hear the case, the Court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law. The lower court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants.” Finally, the circuit court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantanamo had any Constitutional rights.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/supreme-court-refuses-hear-suit-seeking-accountability-guantanamo-torture



"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. "

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/rasul-v.-rumsfeld


And I don't agree with you that the "original OP was distorting the wording of the court by using the term "ordinary." So please refrain from telling a...er.. making the false claim that I do.

did not effectively rule "that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law." The right of Guantanamo detainees to habeas corpus, for example, was affirmed by the supreme court. They are protected under various statutes.


You say: "I don't agree with you that the "original OP was distorting the wording of the court by using the term "ordinary." So please refrain from telling a...er.. making the false claim that I do."

My reply: I forgot the sarcasm thingy.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/detainees-barred-from-challenging-torture-abuse/

"In the one part of the decision with which Judge Brown partially disagreed, the Court ruled that the detainees were not covered by a federal law that protects all “persons” against government action that intrudes on their religious freedom. The four Britons held for two years at Guantanamo had argued that actions by guards at Guantanamo — forced shaving of beards, denying copies of the Koran and prayer mats, throwing a copy of the Koran into a toilet bucket, and harassing prisoners while they were practicing their religion — violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Circuit Court majority ruled that the Act did not apply to non-resident aliens at Guantanamo.

Judge Henderson wrote that the Act was to be interpreted by analyzing the constitutional meaning of its language, because it was designed to restore constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion. Since it had ruled last year, in other detainee cases, that those at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights, they are not covered by RFRA because they are not “persons” in the constitutional sense, she wrote. (The ruling that the detainees have no constitutional rights is now under review by the Supreme Court in two pending cases on detainees’ legal rights,)"


It referred back to other case that had been ruled on and applied that standard.


The Boumediene v. Bush which granted habeas corpus (SCOTUS ruling), wasn't until June of 2008.

One in January 2008...one in June 2008. With the January ruling coming before the June ruling.

The lower court had to revisit its ruling because of the June 2008 ruling and it did...as I've said repeatedly...but it still ruled the same (in its remand), just used a different justification (US territory verses job immunity)...which I have also stated repeatedly, with links...then it went to the SCOTUS...which declined to hear the case in December 2009.

what it means to say that someone is not a person under U.S. law. Without any qualification such a claim suggests that under no federal law can that individual qualify as a person.

That's the problem. You betcha.

Never mind the SCOTUS ruled that the detainees did have rights (which is why the lower court had to revisit its ruling). It's MY lack of understanding.

LMAO

Yes, SCOTUS ruled that the detainees have some rights. So how can it not be at the very least misleading to write, "By refusing to hear the case, the Court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law." If the detainees have rights under U.S. law, how can they not be persons at all for the purposes of U.S. Law? I would not complain if the writer had left out the "effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law." (Even with that omission, the sentence would have made the Court's decision to deny certiori worse than it was if one doesn't understand the background of the case and the historical debate over whether the use of the term "person" in the Bill of Rights, for ecample, extends to non-citizens residing outside of the U.S.)

Setting aside our quibbles, the important point I have been trying to make is that the O.P. distorts the facts so that Obama, DOJ and the Court appear to be monsters who have declared that for the purposes of the law, the detainees are "sub-human," can be legally tortured, and have no rights at all.

As I've said before - I support the lawyers - above ALL others - for the detainees and what they have to say on the subject.

And those lawyers have not spared anyone.

Fact is, I don't care how the government looks with any aspect of the detainee/torture cases. My government committed war crimes. The only thing my government needs to do now is see to it that those war crimes are prosecuted and that the victims get their day in court instead of all the calls for dismissals.


Now, this is far from over and I'm glad those lawyers will continue to hammer the government to do the right thing.


As to the other...one word: timeline

like it is for torture is wrong. And that's the court decision, for which if you blame the administration, you could also blame the Petitioners! Geez, learn about the judicial branch. the basics.

Abuse of these cases to make the administration look like it "supports torture" is so ignorant and shows a predetermination to think ill of it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A new president is not going to just let the Justice Department abandon all cases of the prior administration. It is too complex for that.

Using this case to claim obama is OK with torture is disgusting. A lie. and taking parts of the decision out of context is pretty much the same.

Why not blame the petitioners and their lawyers for not arguing the case hard enough? It makes about as much sense.

This case is about whether the petitioners could bring civil claims. Dislike it all you want, but there is no support for torture either from the courts or the DOJ.

Just disgusting, appealing to the ignorance of others to slam the administration.

Shoo, shoo.

They were on a roll trying to discredit the article.

so you and Obama apparently have that in common. How exciting! TWO "fierce advocates" of war crimes!

Bush torture? Not so much. Unless Obama defends it. Then she's cool with that, too.

I have to say, the lack of a smirk makes it more palatable and really works with those unwilling to look beyond the pretty surface.

the judicial system is way more complex than that. The case itself makes none of the conclusions you state it does and the administration makes none of the arguments asserted it does.

Just read it and be reassured.

Please read the case.

Oh wait, that's too much trouble and too boring.

your blathering about "technicalities" that nobody can understand is sooo "effective."

I'll take the word of a renowned JOURNALIST who did not hold back in castigating and exposing the bush administration over some message manipulator flitting around trying to "convince" everyone that "this case means nothing."

keep spinning.

and cracking at others for "blindly following" the President?

You can read. There is no need to rely on possibly biased journalists for legal matters.

In fact the media coverage of legal cases is horrible and based on the ignorance of lazy journalists. They try to sensationalize it and skirt around the subject. The journalist does not even mention the issues that the case is about.

You can read and there is a link to the case.

Nice bluff, but we know you couldn't have read, let alone understood the ruling. If you had, you'd be able to back up your bogus claims by pointing out *exactly where* the OP's article got it wrong.

Of course, the OP's got it right, and you got nothing.

it seems that you are cool with,and I'll put this mildly, distorting the truth.

Read the cases and learn a bit about judicial procedure.

I'd been looking all over for this post. Recommended (again). Thank you for persevering :)

The original news article by Fisher was 15 dec on IPS http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2740

Guantanamo Prisoners Not "Persons"
William Fisher

NEW YORK, 15 Dec (IPS)

JFYI - Fisher bio from his blog
WILLIAM FISHER
Old Chatham, New York, United States
William Fisher has managed economic development programs for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere for the past 25 years. He served in the administration of President John F. Kennedy.
billfisher.blogspot.com

Why is this so under the radar? Do we (as a nation) really believe that some people do not deserve equal status as human beings? Do we really want to have a military that acts under the premiss, "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military's detention of suspected enemy combatants"? WHAT? I thought that we didn't torture people? OH... never mind, they aren't "persons". Sweet, neat and simple.

I'm relieved this thread hasn't gone into a memory hole all the way, I was worried there for a second...


:hug:

I thought we were against torture and the denial of rights. I thought we weren't in favor of being able to just declare people enemy combatants and deny them any due process. Why am I finding people on a Democratic website who are attacking a poster for posting the story instead of being outraged that, yet another, Bush policy is being upheld by a Democratic president. What's our new slogan? Change You'll Never Notice?

*Void where prohibited.

unlike some, I really do want to keep track of these things.

bookmarking to read in full later.

I want my country back.

There seem to be those who don't see anything wrong with denying people their 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, and those who do.

Worth reading, and worth more research.

This sounds very Bush/Cheney to me. If Obama/Biden are doing it, then add it to the list.

I'm not saying that it wasn't the way that was posted, but it is Chris Floyd's opinion of what happened. And the source is cited in his article as antiwar.com. I would like to read something more than this to back it up.

Dec. 14th

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144568/supreme_court_refuses_to_hear_gitmo_torture_case_claiming_detainees_are_not_

I wouldn't even know where to begin in pointing out the inaccuracies and distortions and hyperbole in this piece. And I am very critical of Obama's lack of meaningful action to prevent torture.

It leaked out in silence because of the clamor over the health insurance bill and seemed to sink like a stone. Thank you for bringing it up again as many times as you had to do it. It is very important and needs to be seen.

At this point when the health insurance shouters have quieted down, you would think this would gain some publicity, but poof! All of a sudden there is a "terrorist" on a plane. Does this seem familiar to anyone else? It is pure Bush. Something bad is going down in your administration and the terrorists are after us again. Do I believe it? No. It was used too many times before, and like the story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," it illustrates that if you try to terrify people with the same boogy man too many times they wind up not being afraid anymore.

Also there is the problem of the White House trying to sink the emergence of wrogdoing by Rahm Emmanual by interfering in his prospective prosecution for possible embezzlement during his time as an official working for a government lending agency. Does that sound familiar to anyone? Remember federal prosecutor Fitzgerald trying to prosecute Scooter Libby and others for the Valerie Plame incident? He suddenly backed off after getting too close to the White House and obviously being warned off.

Remember Nixon firing Archibald Cox who was acting as Special Prosecutor during Watergate and how outraged you were? Ah, yes. An appropriate response. Now it is like Alice through the looking glass. Because it is the ever more corrupt Obama administration behind this everyone else will be blamed by a few, including Jane Hamsher a good progressive and a very brave woman who values integrity, hers and everyone elses over party affiliation. She wrote well and meticulously of the Plame affair under tremendous pressure from the Bush administration to stop, while battling her third occurrence of breast cancer. Now all the Obama can do no wrong ever groupies are vilifying her, and some look to be trashing OP because they are being forced to face an inconvenient truth.

Wonder how they are going to survive in the months to come? This won't get any prettier or smell any better. It will just get uglier and uglier, because their emperor has no clothes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Supreme Court merely refused to hear the case. The circuit court's opinion asserted merely that the plaintiffs did not fall within the scope of "protected persons" under a certain Congressional statute. That hardly amounts to declaring them to be sub-human. The author of this piece is clearly an idiot.

What difference does that make?

and the significance of what the SCOTUS did, as reflected by the dozens of misinformed posts in this thread.

one bit to the OP and the folks rec'ing this.

cross-posted at (sorry for cross post, but people really should understand the details here)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=388&topic_id=6985&mesg_id=8518

All the docs except the official supreme court ruling are here. This is the group actively working to achieve justice in the certified maddness that is called gitmo. Justice Department lawyers under Obama's admin have been directed to proceed with their arguments against the plaintiffs who were found to be not involved with any terrorist activities.

It is easy to see why many people would be disappointed in this outcome.

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/rasul-v.-r...

(link keeps getting mangled, here it is just put http:// in front of it)
ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/rasul-v.-rumsfeld

From the above link:

On October 27, 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights, working with the law firm of Baach Robinson & Lewis, filed Rasul v. Rumsfeld in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of four British detainees released from Guantánamo after more than two years in captivity.

--- snip ---

The suit charges that Secretary Rumsfeld and the military chain of command approved interrogation practices that they knew to be in violation of U.S. and international law, including prolonged arbitrary detention; torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; cruel and unusual punishment; as well as the denial of plaintiffs’ liberties without due process, and preventing the exercise and expression their religious beliefs. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs were imprisoned without charge for more than two years by the U.S. at Guantánamo. They were subjected to repeated beatings, sleep deprivation, extremes of hot and cold, forced nakedness, death threats, interrogations at gun point, menacing with unmuzzled dogs, and religious and racial harassment. The action seeks $10 million in compensatory damages for each of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed, three friends from a working-class town in England who have come to be known as "the Tipton Three," and Jamal Al-Harith, a web designer from Manchester.

The four are not now and have never been members of any terrorist group, and they have never taken up arms against the United States.

They were released in March 2004 and returned to Britain without ever being charged with a crime. Rasul was the lead plaintiff in CCR’s landmark Supreme Court case Rasul v. Bush in which the Court ruled that those held at Guantánamo have a right to judicial review of their detentions.

Another disgusting betrayal to add to the pile of disgusting betrayals.

Nice bluff, but I know you haven't read it. You probably couldn't even find it if you had to.

Here, let me help you out: http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/0responses/2009-0227.resp.pdf

before you did. See post 114.

So, have you read it yet?

But hey, congrats on being the first apologist to actually know the link to the brief. Too bad the one quote you managed to pull rings hollow when compared against the rest of the document. The simple fact that Obama's DOJ is arguing to uphold the RFRA ruling (that the petitioners should not be considered "persons") is obscene enough. The fact that they are simply repeating the arguments made by Bush is appalling.

Check out http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-0235.resp.pdf (if you haven't already). This is the original Bush brief filed during the first appeal. Note how similar the arguments are to the Obama brief. Were you also defending the Bush DOJ during the first appeal? Did you tell everyone to read the brief in the hopes that maybe they'd cut Bush a little slack?

The case for Obama would be a bit more believable if he had shown the slightest inclination to prosecute or even investigate the war crimes committed under Bush. As it stands, it's clear Obama's main goal is to sweep this little unpleasantness under the rug and continue business as usual.

was sorry to see it taken down. kr.

Thanks for posting this.

From what the OP says, the original post was deleted because it violated this site's rules about how much of an article can be reposted.

"... 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."

Is the the change we voted for?

However, I really am dissappointed by the quality of trolling on DU. Amateurs all, they not being paid and it shows...you trolls (and U know who who are) are the most pathetic and boring trolls that ever walked the internets and you have a long way to go before anyone will pay for your pathetic attempts. The same pic over and over? The same post over and over? Lame, lame, lame. Boring, boring, boring.

Trolls aren't supposed to be boring, but it is a common amateur mistake that is easily rectified. If you want a real protip, go hang out on 4 chan for awhile and gain some insight and intestinal fortitude. They have some wonderful instructional materials on trolling over there, wonderful resources. If you go to 4 chan be sure to ask the /b/tards about the trolling instructional classic 'two girls one cup', I'm sure they will be happy to show you around and get you aquainted with the art of deep trolling. They're very friendly and helpful like that.


As for the OP, I'm glad you were able to post this again. The knowledge, no matter how painful, must always be considered superior to ignorance.

:hi:

BECAUSE IT BEARS REPEATING!

Too bad the hate-mongers keep trying to silence those committed to truth and justice.

it's as if George W. Bush is still the president, and not a thing has changed since 2008.

Love how it brings out the trolling cheerleaders...

RL

That's who ObamaCo wants to be when it grows up.

I can't always be on DU, and i didn't see it the first time...
I have always said when they are making a lot of noise about something (healthcare) look in the other direction. they're usually doing something they don't want you to know about.

this same question a couple of times!

So nice I got to rec it twice. :)

What, can't the left just accept that we're going to be living in a police state no matter who is president.

That dime's worth of difference has now become just a couple of sense. Of course I can't say that I was surprised by this, after all, the Dems were just dying to get their hands on those new, shiny extra-legal, unconstitutional powers that Bush had and play with them too. Wonder how long and who they will declare an "enemy combatant" or "non-person".

Meanwhile this country continues to slide towards the abyss.

I hope someone reposts it tomorrow.
Maybe I will.

Thanks for hanging in there.

G-d...it's complicated and cumbersome to have to filter through all of this, and I'm not at all sure it's not designed to be that way.

or at least, what used to be my country...

You make an excellent post. Thanks for putting it up again.

I'll respond with what I said on the first time around: corporations are persons, but somehow, actual human beings potentially are not.

What on earth have we become?

Every American needs to see this as soon as possible.
This is just scary as hell.

plain fact to spur the civilian white house defense crew into an absolute frenzy of attacks.

Thanks for reposting. I'm glad to K & R one more time.

to behave criminally they will be criminal.