Obama to Use Current Law to Support Detentions

[RockX]

Obama to Use Current Law to Support Detentions
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.

Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/u...tml?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print




Somewhere in Texas, President Bush is laughing his ass off. Another campaign promise by Obama broken.

 

[Damocles]

SSDP (Same Sh*t Different pResident)...

I oughtta make some t-shirts...

 

[Bonestorm]

SSDP (Same Sh*t Different pResident)...

I oughtta make some t-shirts...

Strange as it may seem, many of the civil libertarian type critics of Obama view this as a positive development. Basically, Obama previously wanted to be worse than Bush and had decided to be only just as bad.

 

[Damocles]

Strange as it may seem, many of the civil libertarian type critics of Obama view this as a positive development. Basically, Obama previously wanted to be worse than Bush and had decided to be only just as bad.

He already is "worse" in some ways. Like adding the "no lawsuits" addendum to the warrantless wiretapping...

 

[Bonestorm]

He already is "worse" in some ways. Like adding the "no lawsuits" addendum to the warrantless wiretapping...

What you are talking about it the sovereign immunity argument the DoJ has asserted in various lawsuits concerning warrantless wiretapping. Fortunately, the DoJ can't just slap an "addendum" on a law and the courts will decide whether the sovereign immunity argument has any merit. Unfortunately, the courts are all too eager to find sovereign immunity where is should not apply.

But that's really got nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Damocles]

What you are talking about it the sovereign immunity argument the DoJ has asserted in various lawsuits concerning warrantless wiretapping. Fortunately, the DoJ can't just slap an "addendum" on a law and the courts will decide whether the sovereign immunity argument has any merit. Unfortunately, the courts are all too eager to find sovereign immunity where is should not apply.

But that's really got nothing to do with the OP.

No, it was an extension of our conversation that began because of the OP. The reality is that almost nobody would try to sue if they know that there is no means to gain any retribution for the violations. What would be the use?

 

[Bonestorm]

No, it was an extension of our conversation that began because of the OP. The reality is that almost nobody would try to sue if they know that there is no means to gain any retribution for the violations. What would be the use?

Well, sovereign immunity is a defense to a lawsuit so it can't be raised unless someone sues and whether it applies depends on the specific facts of a particular case.

Additionally, there are all sorts of organizations that sue based on alleged violations of the Constitution even where there is no monetary recovery for the purpose of establishing that the government cannot do whatever it wishes. Once it is established that the government cannot do certain things and the government does it anyway sovereign immunity no longer applies.

For example, say in case A the government is sued for warrantless wiretapping and the court finds that the government violated the Constitution but that the person suing cannot recover monetarily because the question of whether what the government did was permissible was unclear (thus, soveregin immunity applies). In case B, the government cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to warrantless wiretapping because in case A it was established that warrantless wiretapping violates the Constitution.

At least that's my understanding.

 

[Canceled2]

Obama to Use Current Law to Support Detentions
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.

Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/u...tml?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print




Somewhere in Texas, President Bush is laughing his ass off. Another campaign promise by Obama broken.

LOL...yeah way to go Idaho

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What you are talking about it the sovereign immunity argument the DoJ has asserted in various lawsuits concerning warrantless wiretapping.

interesting. I'm guessing that had a republican led congress done this, you'd be bitching about them removing part of the 1st amendment.

Unfortunately, the courts are all too eager to find sovereign immunity where is should not apply.

or am I wrong in my original assumption?

For example, say in case A the government is sued for warrantless wiretapping and the court finds that the government violated the Constitution but that the person suing cannot recover monetarily because the question of whether what the government did was permissible was unclear (thus, soveregin immunity applies). In case B, the government cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to warrantless wiretapping because in case A it was established that warrantless wiretapping violates the Constitution.

but 'ignorance of the law' will be applied against civilians, right? so how is it that the government can enforce laws they are unsure of?

 

[Damocles]

Well, sovereign immunity is a defense to a lawsuit so it can't be raised unless someone sues and whether it applies depends on the specific facts of a particular case.

Additionally, there are all sorts of organizations that sue based on alleged violations of the Constitution even where there is no monetary recovery for the purpose of establishing that the government cannot do whatever it wishes. Once it is established that the government cannot do certain things and the government does it anyway sovereign immunity no longer applies.

For example, say in case A the government is sued for warrantless wiretapping and the court finds that the government violated the Constitution but that the person suing cannot recover monetarily because the question of whether what the government did was permissible was unclear (thus, soveregin immunity applies). In case B, the government cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to warrantless wiretapping because in case A it was established that warrantless wiretapping violates the Constitution.

At least that's my understanding.

*sigh*

Which doesn't change my original assertion that they added an addendum saying you couldn't sue them and made what was already bad even worse. The fact is that if sovereign immunity does stick, they will not be forced to pay a dime.

 

[Bonestorm]

interesting. I'm guessing that had a republican led congress done this, you'd be bitching about them removing part of the 1st amendment.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Congress didn't do anything here. The DoJ did and I don't agree with the DoJ that sovereign immunity should apply here. Sovereign immunity is OK in concept but in application is severely abused by the government and the courts are all to eager to side with the government.

 

[Bonestorm]

*sigh*

Which doesn't change my original assertion that they added an addendum saying you couldn't sue them and made what was already bad even worse.

"Added an addendum" to what? And who added the addendum?

And the sovereign immunity does not mean that you can't sue, but that you can't recovery money as a result of government violating your rights.

 

[Damocles]

"Added an addendum" to what? And who added the addendum?

And the sovereign immunity does not mean that you can't sue, but that you can't recovery money as a result of government violating your rights.

Please. The Obama Administration's expanded on the Bush Warrantless Wiretapping program, and it didn't make it any "better". Is asking silly questions your modus operandi?

For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Administration_quietly_expands_Bushs_legal_0407.html

Now can we speak on the subject like adults?