|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 3, 2014 10:57:48 GMT
A contentious Executive Order by President Obama is being challenged.
news.yahoo.com/11-gop-attorneys-general-obamacare-204600077.html
When this "fix" to the problem of individuals losing their private health insurance policies was addressed by executive order of the President I was unsure of whether it was Constitutional or not and that is the point being addressed by these Attorney Generals. Obviously it will need to be determined by the Courts as I have no idea of whether the PPACA actually provided the "wiggle-room" for the executive order to stand up under legal scrutiny.
I support the challenge to the executive order but I do find a fundamental flaw with the last statement as it is disingenuous to say the least. Based upon the prior actions by the Republican controlled House of Representatives it is extremely doubtful that they will support a bill that simply allows the extension of coverage for those that had private insurance but had their policies canceled because the policies did not meet the bare minimum requirements of the PPACA. In effect the lawsuit will simply result in none of these policies being extended into 2014.
What we've also seen is that just because the President "allowed" the continuation, whether Constitutional or not, many insurance companies such as Aetna decided against doing that anyway.
Ultimately what we know is that the "grandfather clause" in the PPACA did not prevent the cancellation of many private health insurance policies. The President, in 2009, thought it would but in fact it did not and that's just the way it is. Even the Executive Order was limited to just 2014 so even if the insurance companies decided to extend them it was only a temporary "fix" as the policies were going to be canceled in 2015 anyway.
There is one point raised though that is worthy of noting in the statements contained in the letter:
If the lawsuit succeeds then it will force the cancellation of these private insurance policies and that will actually work against the interests of the GOP. It will force these people into the health insurance exchanges eliminating the issue of those "playing by the rules" facing higher premiums as it will increase the size of the insurance pool reducing the premium costs and the more people that are covered by the insurance exchanges the worse the GOP's position is on Obamacare.
It can be a "Constitutional" win but a political loss for the GOP if they're successful in their lawsuit as the more people that are covered by the PPACA the less tenable the GOP's position of eliminating Obamacare becomes. The lawsuit, if successful, actually forces more individuals into the insurance exchanges.
Of course it could all be moot as the courts are slow to act and if the case drags on deep into 2014 it becomes irrelevant as the executive order was only effective for 2014 anyway. If it becomes a moot point the courts will simply dismiss the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jan 4, 2014 0:05:57 GMT
That's not the way it works. The court won't say...."Oh well, the time has passed already so we're just going to forget it." They won't "forget" the fact that a president has continually been working outside his authority and against the Constitution. If they did that......then it sets a precedent and not only would he then continue to act unilaterally, others would follow based on the precedent set.
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution says a president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." A law that is in effect cannot just be willy-nilly changed and altered by a president who seeks to "go around" the U.S. Congress, who by Constitutional verbage is responsible for legislation and making laws. Obama has altered, delayed and given exemptions on parts of this law UNILATERALLY. And that is the key word here: UNILATERALLY.
You seem to be a bit more concerned that they won't give him what he wants than you do that this president is acting outside his Constitutional powers and therefore breaking the law. Do you think he would be doing it this way IF Nancy Pelosi and Dems were still in control of the House? Of course not. He'd get her rubber stamp......brag that he was making the changes Constitutionally....and be done with it. However, he doesn't want the Republicans....who BTW, were elected in to Majority control in 2010 and 2012.....to get their hands on it. Well, too bad. This is the way it works....or should work when we don't have a dictatorial president at the helm. And now.....since the people are finding out what's in this law, the popularity for it has dropped drastically.....so it IS time for the law to revisited and to debate and determine if it should continue in some form....or not. Let the people have the input on this! What are Dems afraid of? This is the way such things are supposed to work; not the UNILATERRAL actions of this president.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 4, 2014 13:16:37 GMT
That's not the way it works. The court won't say...."Oh well, the time has passed already so we're just going to forget it." They won't "forget" the fact that a president has continually been working outside his authority and against the Constitution. If they did that......then it sets a precedent and not only would he then continue to act unilaterally, others would follow based on the precedent set.
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution says a president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." A law that is in effect cannot just be willy-nilly changed and altered by a president who seeks to "go around" the U.S. Congress, who by Constitutional verbage is responsible for legislation and making laws. Obama has altered, delayed and given exemptions on parts of this law UNILATERALLY. And that is the key word here: UNILATERALLY.
You seem to be a bit more concerned that they won't give him what he wants than you do that this president is acting outside his Constitutional powers and therefore breaking the law. Do you think he would be doing it this way IF Nancy Pelosi and Dems were still in control of the House? Of course not. He'd get her rubber stamp......brag that he was making the changes Constitutionally....and be done with it. However, he doesn't want the Republicans....who BTW, were elected in to Majority control in 2010 and 2012.....to get their hands on it. Well, too bad. This is the way it works....or should work when we don't have a dictatorial president at the helm. And now.....since the people are finding out what's in this law, the popularity for it has dropped drastically.....so it IS time for the law to revisited and to debate and determine if it should continue in some form....or not. Let the people have the input on this! What are Dems afraid of? This is the way such things are supposed to work; not the UNILATERRAL actions of this president.
In fact I'm very concerned about Presidential and government violations of the US Constitution but generally speaking there are criteria related to the filing of any lawsuit and the court hearing the case.
First and foremost is the quesiton of "standing" where the Plaintiff has to demonstrate that they have directly suffered some harm by the action. We have numerous cases where "standing" has not been established for example the War Powers Act as no individual can state that they directly suffer harm from this law. We also saw this with "birther" lawsuits and no private person could claim injury based upon whether Barack Obama was qualified to be president based upon his natural born citizenship established by birth in Hawaii (when it was a state of the United States). These cases are routinely thrown out of court due to a lack of standing by the plaintiff.
Of equal importance is whether the Court can redress the "injury" suffered by the Plaintiff with it's decision. The court must be able to do something which would address the injury sustained by the plaintiff because if it can't do that then there court is fundamentally powerless and there is no point in the court hearing the case. I don't have a good example of this but it is logical that if the court can't do anything that would benefit the plaintiff then there is no point for the court to hear the case.
There have been exceptions though such as in the Roe v Wade case where the time required for the case to go though the legal process was longer than the nine months of pregnacy. The Supreme Court accepted the case based upon the fact that they decision would affect future pregnant women while it could not specifically address the case of the plaintiff.
I do support the litigation in this case as it is very possible that President Obama was acting outside of the provision of the law which he has no authority to do as president. The problem as noted though is that the case will probably take longer than one year before it reaches the Supreme Court and the extension of acceptance of private insurance under Obamacare is only through 2014. There will be nothing that the Supreme Court could actually do to redress the "grievance" of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court could also choose to defer to the Constitutional process of "impeachment" where Congress has the authority to address this issue directly. In truth Congress should be the plaintiff in this case as it claims a violation of Congressional authority by the President so the Courts could toss the case out based upon the fact that the State Attorney's do not have standing as the states have suffered no direct harm by the actions of the president.
It is very complex when dealing with Constitutional law and I'm not the foremost expert on it but do know that certain legal standards and criteria apply.
This doesn't change the fact that the GOP state AG's are arguing a postion that won't help the GOP related to Obamacare. At best if they win then they would negate the executive order which means that anyone that had their private insurance accepted under the executive order though 2014 would lose that coverage and Congress is not going to legislate the extension because the GOP isn't willing to address that issue specifically.
Sadly we have far too many "executive orders" that really are a violation of the law and Constitution but little is done about it in the end. Former President Bush denied habeas corpus to GITMO detainees by executive order and the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional but many GITMO detainees are still being held without bail and many without any criminal charges being filed against them today. If that isn't a violation to the US Constitution I don't know what is. We have had several presidents in a row, including President Obama, authorizing "extra-judical" (i.e. outside of legal authority) executions by executive order which are a direct violation of the "due process" clause of the US Constitution and which qualify as murder under the laws of the United States and nothing is being done about it.
The issue of private insurance and Obamacare pales in comparison to the acts of unconstitutional detention and murder being committed by US Presidents IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jan 5, 2014 16:22:16 GMT
On your point about Gitmo detainees....they don't enjoy OUR Constitutional rights; they were/are prisoners of war. They were captured on the battle field. Even Obama....who claimed he would.....has not fought for them to be released. And there is a record of some who have been released.....going back and killing Americans.
On the issue of EO's......Obama uses them routinely to "go around" the Congress. He even went so far as to deny the Republicans a compromise during the Budget battle.....when they fought for a delay of the individual mandate......and then just a few weeks later did it ALL BY HIMSELF BY EXECUTIVE ORDER. That should be wrong....and unconstitutional in anybody's book. And it needs to stop.
On your point about Roe v Wade.....you are correct: that WAS a huge "overreach" by the USSC at the time. They actually "made" law.....and that is NOT the place of the courts. Just as Justice Roberts did on Obamacare...when he actually re-wrote law, by calling something that the Democrats Congress and the president said over and over again was NOT a tax, and wasn't called a tax inside the legislation........a tax. That's why BOTH these decisions should be overturned in one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Jan 5, 2014 18:11:51 GMT
On your point about Gitmo detainees....they don't enjoy OUR Constitutional rights; they were/are prisoners of war. They were captured on the battle field.
No, they aren't. Not according the the US government when they were captured, anyway. If they were Prisoners of War they would be covered by the Geneva Convention, and would have some basic rights under International Law. The US has made up its own classification of 'enemy combatant' so that they could (according to them) just ignore international law and the conventions to which they are signatories. That is what is so shocking about the whole thing - the fact that they aren't being treated as 'prisoners of war' (or as 'civilians' even under international law, of course), but as some made-up definition of 'unlawful combatants' that the US has created so that it can violate any and all basic human rights and principles of justice with respect to them, because they claim that they are covered (and protected) by neither US law nor International Law and the normal legal conventions of war. Obama has rightly dropped the use of the 'enemy combatants' term, but it hasn't made much practical difference, really. Oh, and many of them weren't 'captured on the battle field' either - they were simply civilians who were 'suspected of supporting' those who were on the battlefield, and held indefinitely without proper trial or legal rights. Just because someone is accused of being 'a bad guy' doesn't actually make them a bad guy, unless they have been imprisoned by the US government offshore and without proper legal right of any sort, when apparently it pretty much does. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Apparently the US is struggling to move beyond the days of burning witches because someone said that they looked at them all scary-like and had an ugly wart! That is more or less what Gitmo amounts to. In the modern world, we should have moved beyond such things, with proper legal processes and fair trials, but that's something the US government still seems to be resisting. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 6, 2014 14:31:20 GMT
On your point about Gitmo detainees....they don't enjoy OUR Constitutional rights; they were/are prisoners of war. They were captured on the battle field. Even Obama....who claimed he would.....has not fought for them to be released. And there is a record of some who have been released.....going back and killing Americans.
On the issue of EO's......Obama uses them routinely to "go around" the Congress. He even went so far as to deny the Republicans a compromise during the Budget battle.....when they fought for a delay of the individual mandate......and then just a few weeks later did it ALL BY HIMSELF BY EXECUTIVE ORDER. That should be wrong....and unconstitutional in anybody's book. And it needs to stop.
On your point about Roe v Wade.....you are correct: that WAS a huge "overreach" by the USSC at the time. They actually "made" law.....and that is NOT the place of the courts. Just as Justice Roberts did on Obamacare...when he actually re-wrote law, by calling something that the Democrats Congress and the president said over and over again was NOT a tax, and wasn't called a tax inside the legislation........a tax. That's why BOTH these decisions should be overturned in one way or another.
1) If we read the Bill of Rights we find that predominately related to restrictions and prohibitions being imposed on the government of the United States and the government is ALWAYS required to comply with the US Constitution. For example the 8th Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
constitution.findlaw.com/amendment8/amendment.html
No where in this Amendment does it establish any Right of the Person but instead imposes a strict limitation upon the actions of our government. This Amendment applies to all related actions of our government regardless of who is involved. The government must comply with this Amendment which has nothing per se to do with the person. Former President Bush explicitly violated this Amendment related to the detainees at GITMO. President Obama has partially complied but there are still those detained by the US government at GITMO where no crimes have been alledged and the US government is denying them their freedom.
I highly condemn both former President Bush and President Obama for violations of the US Constitution related to the GITMO detainees. I also highly condemn the US Congress for passing statutory laws that violate the US Constitution related to the GITMO detainees. As was also noted any of those at GITMO that were detained on the battlefield were entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions which is a treaty the US is a party to and which supercedes the statutory authority of Congress so long as we're a treaty member. Additionally anyone at GITMO that wasn't detained as a POW could only be detained based upon a warrant alledging an actual criminal act (5th Amendment) and afforded a speedy trial (6th Amendment) which impose expressed restrictions upon our government related to ANY Person (regardless of where, when, or how that person becomes subjected to the jurisdiction and authority of the US government).
I agree that Executive Orders that violate the law or Constitution should be condemned and nullified. This is true in all cases so I condemn all recent presidents equally as all recent presidents have issued executive orders that violate US law and the US Constitution. They should have all been impeached and removed from office. Name any President from the 20th Century and I can provide arguable examples of why they should have been impeached and removed from office. This problem has far worse today than at any time in US history and it's getting worse.
Yes, Roe v Wade was flawed as no infringements upon the Rights of the Woman, a Person, should have been imposed by the US Supreme Court. Under a strict interpretation of the US Constitution only the Woman, as a Person, had any Rights. All abortion laws should have been struck down by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade as they violated the Right of Self of the woman that has sovereign control over her own body as a Person. As was undisputed in Roe v Wade the "preborn" are not "persons" and have no protected Rights under the US Constitution. The Court should have limited itself to addressing the Rights of the Woman that are protected by the US Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 8, 2014 10:23:51 GMT
It appears that I wasn't alone in considering "standing" of the plaintiffs (the Republican State Attorney Generals) in this lawsuit. Senator Ron Johnson, a Tea Party Republican, has also threatened a lawsuit over President Obama's executive order that affects members of Congress and their staffs related to Obamacare.
"Standing" is a huge issue as without "standing" virtually all lawsuits are dismissed on procedural grounds by the Courts. There have been limited exceptions such as in the case of House Republicans defending DOMA Section 3 last year. The Supreme Court questioned the authority of House Republicans defending DOMA Section 3 on the issue of "standing" and then decided to hear the arguments anyway as it would have been impossible to have DOMA Section 3 enforced in some legal jurisdictions while not enforced in other jurisdictions. At the same time it threw out the defense of California Prop 8 sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage citing "standing" which resulted in the provisions of Prop 8 being nullified in California based upon a 9th District Court decision for the plaintiffs.
A president has huge discretionary powers in enforcing many laws as he, and the offices below him, are expected to use discretionary judgement on behalf of the American People.
After over 40 failed Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare it appears that Republicans have taken a new course of challenging President Obama in court over Obamacare but it is a tough legal road to follow. As I've noted I disagree with numerous executive orders that have been issued by numerous presidents in my lifetime but rarely can the Courts address these cases if for no other reason than establishing "standing" is a tough legal barrier to overcome. Sort of impeachment, which Congress has little desire to attempt and no success whatsoever when it comes to presidents, there is little recourse.
www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/01/06/is-there-a-limit-to-what-president-obama-can-cut-out-of-obamacare/
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jan 17, 2014 19:54:30 GMT
The issue isn't Executive Orders. The issue in this case is whether a president can say when the Senate is in session....or the Senate gets to say when they are in session. Obama is THE ONLY president that named by E.O. 3 appointees while the Senate was still in session via Pro Forma. They've all made Recess appointments....which is allowed. But Obama is the ONLY president to make appointments when the Senate WAS still in session.
And so far....based on the questioning, it doesn't look so good for the president. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 18, 2014 11:48:59 GMT
The issue isn't Executive Orders. The issue in this case is whether a president can say when the Senate is in session....or the Senate gets to say when they are in session. Obama is THE ONLY president that named by E.O. 3 appointees while the Senate was still in session via Pro Forma. They've all made Recess appointments....which is allowed. But Obama is the ONLY president to make appointments when the Senate WAS still in session.
And so far....based on the questioning, it doesn't look so good for the president.
The State Attorney Generals filing of a lawsuit over Obamacare is completely separate from the case of the three recess appointments to the NTSB by President Obama although both issues are of importance.
For the AG's cases I simply don't believe they have "standing" and the case will be dismissed. There are also several logical reasons why the Court would rule against the AG's even if the case moves forward.
The "recess appointment" issue is different. As far as I'm concerned the "Pro Forma" meeting of the Senate is political BS and has always been political BS. If the Senate is not meeting and conducting the business of the nation then, in fact, it is not in session IMHO. For all intent and purpose the Senate was in recess and the "pro forma" sessions are simply a means of avoiding the necessity to obtain the permission from the House for a formal recess to be called. The "Pro Forma" sessions by the Senate related to the House and not to the president.
On the other hand the Senate should have called for a confirmation vote on the nominees as opposed to going into "pro forma" session which is, in effect, a recess. The NTSB requires five members to function and the failure to vote for or against confirmation was effectively the Senate preventing existing law from being executed by the US government. The president, in such cases, should be able to make temporary appointments necessary to conduct the business of government.
Often the US Supreme Court is pragmatic in addressing the issues before it and it might be in this case. While technically the Senate might have been in session in reality it wasn't. The Supreme Court might very well rule that the three appointments are not "permanent" as that would require a formal Senate vote but instead they are "temporary" but still effective for the decision made by the NTSB in the "Noel Canning" case it's going to hear. Or the Supreme Court could overturn the Appeals Court decisions that the appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was for all intent and purpose in recess and that the "pro forma" votes are unconstitutional as a quorum of Senators are not present for the votes.
Who knows what the actual outcome will be but we should, from the People's perspective, demand that Congress do that which it was elected to do. Votes on appointments should take place instead of the minority being able to use the 60-vote Senate rule to simply block any vote from happening. The Republican in the Senate were using the Senate rule (not contained in the US Constitution) for nefarious political purposes to prevent Congress and the US government from doing it's job. That is reprehensible conduct by an elected member of Congress IMHO.
I believe there is a "bottom line" on this entire issue.
The president should be able to make the appointment nomination in accordance with the provisions of the US Constitution and in good faith in fulfilling it's Constitutional responsibilities the Senate should vote to either confirm or deny the appointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jan 19, 2014 17:26:51 GMT
On your point about Gitmo detainees....they don't enjoy OUR Constitutional rights; they were/are prisoners of war. They were captured on the battle field.
No, they aren't. Not according the the US government when they were captured, anyway. If they were Prisoners of War they would be covered by the Geneva Convention, and would have some basic rights under International Law. The US has made up its own classification of 'enemy combatant' so that they could (according to them) just ignore international law and the conventions to which they are signatories. That is what is so shocking about the whole thing - the fact that they aren't being treated as 'prisoners of war' (or as 'civilians' even under international law, of course), but as some made-up definition of 'unlawful combatants' that the US has created so that it can violate any and all basic human rights and principles of justice with respect to them, because they claim that they are covered (and protected) by neither US law nor International Law and the normal legal conventions of war. Obama has rightly dropped the use of the 'enemy combatants' term, but it hasn't made much practical difference, really. Oh, and many of them weren't 'captured on the battle field' either - they were simply civilians who were 'suspected of supporting' those who were on the battlefield, and held indefinitely without proper trial or legal rights. Just because someone is accused of being 'a bad guy' doesn't actually make them a bad guy, unless they have been imprisoned by the US government offshore and without proper legal right of any sort, when apparently it pretty much does. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Apparently the US is struggling to move beyond the days of burning witches because someone said that they looked at them all scary-like and had an ugly wart! That is more or less what Gitmo amounts to. In the modern world, we should have moved beyond such things, with proper legal processes and fair trials, but that's something the US government still seems to be resisting. A lot of those captured were, in fact, released. Many were also sent back to their own countries...for them to figure it out. We kept those where was definitely good reason to keep them. BTW, some we released went back to al Qaeda and have since been involved in other attacks. But regardless....each person has been interrogated and examined for connections that make them a danger to release back out in to the population. When you have a group of terrorists who have openly declared war (jihad) on western interests and we also have proof of what they are willing to do, we cannot just release them back out in to the population. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 20, 2014 8:05:01 GMT
No, they aren't. Not according the the US government when they were captured, anyway. If they were Prisoners of War they would be covered by the Geneva Convention, and would have some basic rights under International Law. The US has made up its own classification of 'enemy combatant' so that they could (according to them) just ignore international law and the conventions to which they are signatories. That is what is so shocking about the whole thing - the fact that they aren't being treated as 'prisoners of war' (or as 'civilians' even under international law, of course), but as some made-up definition of 'unlawful combatants' that the US has created so that it can violate any and all basic human rights and principles of justice with respect to them, because they claim that they are covered (and protected) by neither US law nor International Law and the normal legal conventions of war. Obama has rightly dropped the use of the 'enemy combatants' term, but it hasn't made much practical difference, really. Oh, and many of them weren't 'captured on the battle field' either - they were simply civilians who were 'suspected of supporting' those who were on the battlefield, and held indefinitely without proper trial or legal rights. Just because someone is accused of being 'a bad guy' doesn't actually make them a bad guy, unless they have been imprisoned by the US government offshore and without proper legal right of any sort, when apparently it pretty much does. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Apparently the US is struggling to move beyond the days of burning witches because someone said that they looked at them all scary-like and had an ugly wart! That is more or less what Gitmo amounts to. In the modern world, we should have moved beyond such things, with proper legal processes and fair trials, but that's something the US government still seems to be resisting. A lot of those captured were, in fact, released. Many were also sent back to their own countries...for them to figure it out. We kept those where was definitely good reason to keep them. BTW, some we released went back to al Qaeda and have since been involved in other attacks. But regardless....each person has been interrogated and examined for connections that make them a danger to release back out in to the population. When you have a group of terrorists who have openly declared war (jihad) on western interests and we also have proof of what they are willing to do, we cannot just release them back out in to the population.
A couple of points.
First of all it is correct that those captured on the battlefield were entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions and were denied that by an executive order from the Bush Adminstration.
Next is the fact that the US can only detain a person under two circumstances under the US Constitution with the first being based upon a criminal complaint and the second based upon the Geneva Conventions as it applies to detentions of members of the military during times of war (ref Fifth Amendment). Of note we're not currently at war with either Afghanistan or Iraq so any persons detained on the battlefield must be released as they were never subjected to any proceeding under the Geneva Conventions that would allow continued detention as POW's.
Finally, anyone charged with a crime must be granted a "speedy trial" by our government and that has been denied to the detainees at GITMO. This is a requirement imposed on the US government and the US government must comply with all provisions of the US Constitution in all of it's actions.
We can note that between 70-80 of those being detained at GIMTO are not charged with any violations of criminal law. They are being held for their religious/political beliefs exclusively.
Do you support imprisonment exclusively based upon a person's religious beliefs? If that is the case then we could, in theory, incarcerate "Christians" if we wanted to.
Do you support imprisonment exclusively based upon a person's political beliefs? If that is the case then we could, in theory, incarcerate "Republicans" if we wanted to.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Jan 26, 2014 12:18:06 GMT
We kept those where was definitely good reason to keep them. There is no 'good' reason to keep them, because there is no legal reason to keep them. A legal reason is the only 'good' reason for incarceration in a civilised society. That does, of course, mean that someone who is potentially 'dangerous' might be released, but that is the price that a civilised society must pay for following due process and the rule of law - that is the very basis of civilised society, and without that there is no civilisation. The US can't just decide for itself to have it both ways - 'we'll have civilisation and the rule of law, but only when it's convenient to us'. That is both unjust and immoral. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Feb 12, 2014 17:13:02 GMT
A lot of those captured were, in fact, released. Many were also sent back to their own countries...for them to figure it out. We kept those where was definitely good reason to keep them. BTW, some we released went back to al Qaeda and have since been involved in other attacks. But regardless....each person has been interrogated and examined for connections that make them a danger to release back out in to the population. When you have a group of terrorists who have openly declared war (jihad) on western interests and we also have proof of what they are willing to do, we cannot just release them back out in to the population.
A couple of points.
First of all it is correct that those captured on the battlefield were entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions and were denied that by an executive order from the Bush Adminstration.
Next is the fact that the US can only detain a person under two circumstances under the US Constitution with the first being based upon a criminal complaint and the second based upon the Geneva Conventions as it applies to detentions of members of the military during times of war (ref Fifth Amendment). Of note we're not currently at war with either Afghanistan or Iraq so any persons detained on the battlefield must be released as they were never subjected to any proceeding under the Geneva Conventions that would allow continued detention as POW's.
Finally, anyone charged with a crime must be granted a "speedy trial" by our government and that has been denied to the detainees at GITMO. This is a requirement imposed on the US government and the US government must comply with all provisions of the US Constitution in all of it's actions.
We can note that between 70-80 of those being detained at GIMTO are not charged with any violations of criminal law. They are being held for their religious/political beliefs exclusively.
Do you support imprisonment exclusively based upon a person's religious beliefs? If that is the case then we could, in theory, incarcerate "Christians" if we wanted to.
Do you support imprisonment exclusively based upon a person's political beliefs? If that is the case then we could, in theory, incarcerate "Republicans" if we wanted to.
This was not mere "crimes." This was war. And if you don't think we're still "at war" with the jihadists, then why is Obama still killing them with drones? And why are liberals and those who often side with them NOT protesting Obama and what he is STILL doing? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 13, 2014 14:11:27 GMT
This was not mere "crimes." This was war. And if you don't think we're still "at war" with the jihadists, then why is Obama still killing them with drones? And why are liberals and those who often side with them NOT protesting Obama and what he is STILL doing?
I don't know of any Declarations of War by Congress since late 1941 where the Congress formally declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy. As a US Army combat veteran one of my greatest complaints is the fact that Congress doesn't even have the respect to formally declare war before sending of members of the US military to their deaths. I condemn every Congress of the United States that has sent US troops off to war without a formal declaration of war of being disrepectful of those serving in the US military. Not a single member of Congress that has supported sending US troops off to war without a formal declaration of war respects the members of the US military.
Think about the weasely mouthed Hillary Clinton when she voted for the Iraq War Resolution and then stated after the Iraq invasion (paraphrased), "I didn't expect the President to send US troops off to their death." It doesn't matter that President Bush ignored the provisions necessary to invade Iraq it's the simple proposition that Congress did not formally declare war which is the responsibility of Congress based upon Article I Section 8 of the Constitution that was the problem. Congress ignoring it's Constitutional responsibilities related to sending US soldiers off to war it the greatest insult to the American soldier I can think of.
As for President Obama using drones to commit extra-judicial executions I have long idenitified this as "murder" under US law (an extra-judicial execution is by definition not authorized by law and is murder) and have cited this as an impeachable offense. If a president authorizing "murder" is not an impeachable offense then nothing is.
If the US government is not going to enforce US laws and the US Constitution then I believe presidents like Obama (for authorizing murder) and Bush (for authorizing murder and torture) should be prosecuted by the International Court of Criminal Justice. I've stated that many times and will state it again.
Former President Bush should have been impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted by the US government and President Obama should be impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted by the US government.
I don't know how I could be more explicit related to this issue. If the US refuses to do this then the International Court of Criminal Justice should because these are Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes under international law.
|
|
