Defending our Constitution and democratic rights is our duty, not "ideological purity"....

[Better Believe It]

as some suggest.

It's basic to being a truly loyal and patriotic American.

And the ongoing quest for human rights and justice for all is not some old-fashioned quaint notion that ought to be abandon by President Obama in order to fight "terrorism", "communism", radicalism" or any kind of "ism".

Let's be absolutely clear and intellectually honest on the question of civil, human and democratic rights.

Looking for clever "legal" ways to undermine and subvert those rights represents a betrayal of what this nation supposedly stands for and is a slippery sloop toward tyranny. I have not read a single credible and honest argument by anyone on Democratic Underground, that can justify the trashing of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So let's not even try to manufacture such excuses.

I and no true progressive will buy any of that snake oil.

We actually believe in democracy and don't just give it lip service to sound "liberal".

[billyoc]

1. Trotskyite!

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

2. That's the ticket! Round them all up for detention .... after all, we won't be next!

Didn't something like that happen in Germany around 1933?

:)

[NYC_SKP]

3. Then please explain why Obama is so anti-rights, why he hates America...

Why would he make up these excuses, you think he's muslin?

:eyes:

I'm serious.

You are submitting a theory that the president is looking for clever ways to undermine rights.

Please provide his rationale, his motive.

[Better Believe It]

6. It appears you haven't been following civil liberties and human rights issues very closely.

You seem to be completely unaware of the Bush governments attacks on our civil liberties and human rights or simply believe that all of those abuses have come to an end. That, and perhaps a bit of alcohol, might explain your confusion and rambling response to some post which allegedly charged President Obama with hating American and being a "muslin". What's a "muslin"?

Please educate yourself on this vital issue.

Read the recent 100 Day Assessment released by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the interview given by their Executive Director, Vince Warren, on "Democracy Now".

After you have read the report and the interview, I look forward to reading your informed and intelligent response regarding the defense of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.





100 Days to Restore the Constitution: Assessment by the Center for Constitutional Rights

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

CCR uses litigation proactively to advance the law in a positive direction, to empower poor communities and communities of color, to guarantee the rights of those with the fewest protections and least access to legal resources, to train the next generation of constitutional and human rights attorneys, and to strengthen the broader movement for constitutional and human rights. Our work began on behalf of civil rights activists, and over the last four decades CCR has lent its expertise and support to virtually every popular movement for social justice.

In the 2008 elections, the people of the United States resoundingly rejected the Bush administration legacy of torture, warrantless surveillance and a seemingly endless expansion of executive power under the rubric of the “war on terror.” What remained to be seen, however, was the political willingness and commitment of the Obama administration to not only promise hope and change, but to take concrete action to free the United States, its people and the world of the attacks on civil liberties and other human rights over the past 8 years – and beyond – and to restore the Constitution and the freedoms and rights it promises.

The intention of this report on the first 100 days of the Obama administration – tracked against CCR’s 100 Days goals for President Obama – is to assess where it has made progress and where it has merely paused or even sustained Bush policies and to provide a guide to moving real change forward. The Obama administration can indeed fulfill its promise – by creating a historic precedent for the rule of law, reestablishing the Constitution and clearly acknowledging – despite 8 years of assertions of imperial power – that presidential power does not include automatic immunity for criminal acts.

Please read the report at:

http://ccrjustice.org/100daysassessment

---------------------------------------

Human Rights Attorney Vince Warren: Obama’s “Preventive Detention” Plan Goes Beyond Bush Admin Policies
From Democracy Now!
May 22, 2009

We get reaction to President Obama and Vice President Dick Cheney’s dueling speeches on torture from Vince Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Warren took part in a secret meeting Wednesday between Obama and several human rights groups. Warren says although he welcomes Obama’s willingness to hear critical views, he’s disappointed in Obama’s new support for preventive detention.

You can see the interview video and read the transcript at:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/22/vince_warren

VINCE WARREN
Executive Director
Center for Constitutional Rights

[NYC_SKP]

7. I asked a simple question. I'm not impressed with your copy and paste job.

You either have a cogent answer or you don't.

What motive does Obama have to deny the rights of these detainees?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. I wish I knew -

I thought I heard wrong when he spoke of "indefinite detention" in his speech the other day.

Then I found out that that was exactly what he had said.

He's disappointed me. That is so thoroughly un-American, unconstitutional, wrong, I am at a loss to understand why my President Obama would go along with such a patently illegal plan.

I'm brokenhearted. This is very bad ...............................

[NYC_SKP]

13. I'm not happy, but I'm not drawing any conclusions, yet.

I'd say he's doing his best not to make a mistake, and that it's a very complex situation with many individual cases and needs time.
If he let's people go and shit happens, it won't be pretty. Better to take time to do it right.
And no matter what, there is probably no perfect solution.

He said:

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. Yes, that's what he said,

and, as a Constitutional lawyer and a life-long Democrat, I could feel my heart begin to break when he said it.

There is one sentence, in particular, that made my blood run cold:

Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.

That is the sentence that opens the door to a group - not "one man" - which will somehow concoct a system that will do a very unconstitutional thing, and that is to hold someone without due process. To hold them without a trial, without counsel, without any kind of hearing, and with no exit date.

That is about an un-American as anything ever could be.

His next sentence affirmed what I had gleaned:

If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.

Whether it's done by a committee or a task force or a sub-committee or a special oversight committee, what President Obama has tentatively proposed here is beyond the pale of what Constitution mandates.

If we cannot try them, if we're afraid of a judge or jury setting them free because the evidence is tainted or because we are without adequate evidence, then that's the way it goes. These people must be given the same due process as we would want for any of our American citizens illegally detained by any country anywhere in the world, don't you think?

After all, why can't we use the very system we're supposedly fighting so hard to protect to adjudicate these cases?

It is not complex and it requires no time, unless you're looking for a way to do something illegal so as to achieve your ends. That's what the previous regime did. That's what Obama is proposing.

He's crapping on our Constitution just like W did, and that is reason for sadness...........................

[NYC_SKP]

18. I wonder this:

Did Bush and Cheney with Gitmo (and extraordinary rendition) create a new class of POW/prisoner/detainee not specifically covered by the constitution or by precedent?

That's the impression I get, but I'll defer to your greater expertise, I know you're a good DUer.

And I'm sad with you tonight, I've read your replies in other threads.

:hug:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. That's what they tried to do,

but, to their supreme discomfort, the Constitution affords protection to people we don't especially care to protect. That's part of why it's such a divine document, such an ongoing work of genius. You're right, though - it looks now like the current administration is looking to create a new class, and if they do that, if they get away with that, then we're in BIG trouble, because who's going to be in the next class that someone wants to exclude from Constitutional protections?

Will it be female attorneys from the East Coast?

Will it be clowns? (No, they're the not same thing, dammit!) :)

Will it be Jews?

And who decides?

That's the slippery slope we must never create, and that's exactly what it sounded like to me when Obama spoke and my blood ran cold.

Thanks for your kind words, NYC. I'm just a Democrat who loves her country, just as you do.

If people were paying attention, a lot more would be sad.

Thank you again, and here's one for you, kid:

:hug:

[omega minimo]

21. because Bushco was not impeached.

in fact, they were not elected -- twice!!

[Better Believe It]

12. In your world, what's a "muslin"?

While your question was a bit garbled, you clearly asked "please explain why Obama hates America... you think he's muslin?"

1. I didn't write Obama hates America. You did.

2. I don't think President Obama is a "muslin" and didn't write that. Whatever the hell a "muslin" is. And if President Obama was (he isn't) a Muslim I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. Would you?

When you actually read the material I suggested I'll respond to any future comments you may have. If you have trouble reading those two items or can't understand the words I'll try to help you. but, how in the world can I engage in an intelligent dialogue with someone completely uninformed on our civil liberties. Well, maybe they just don't mean that much to you.

If you're only going to engage in personal attacks don't expect any futher responses from me. I can't waste my time with such nonsense. Find a "trash talk" board for that sort of thing.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Oh FFS, I put a sarcasm smiley right in there, then asked the serious question...

Nice try. :eyes:

Still no answer.

What motive would Obama have to deny their rights?

:shrug:

And copy and pastes from some other site do not constitute a simple answer.

[Mechatanketra]

25. OK. I'll answer this one.

Hypothetical possibility: because Bush proved that crapping on the constitution doesn't cost you reelection. Hence, keeping the status quo is the politically safe option.

He doesn't have to "hate America" to do this, because America, by and large, doesn't hate its war criminals. We just hate being criticized for them. America will be happy if Obama sweeps everything under the carpet.

[NYC_SKP]

26. Thank you. It's the first answer I've gotten to the question.

While he could get away with inaction, my guess is that he's like me and sees it as a challenge to be solved.

Also, that he wouldn't want this Bush Taint to remain after his administration, just for neatness' sake if not for the sense of making it right.

But that's just me.

:patriot:

[snowdays]

22. He is not about to turn back any of executive powers Bush grabbed.

[Better Believe It]

24. That's the problem

[L0oniX]

4. Obama's down fall is his flip flop on SPHC. He is no Tommy Douglas, that's for sure.

Kucinich 2012 ...maybe he will do what's right and stand up for the human right of health care.

[MarjorieG]

5. You're patriotic, and will get to Heaven quicker than me, but we have problems that don't have easy

fixes. Wish we did.

[Better Believe It]

9. Don't "break" the Constitution and it won't need to be "fixed"

The Bush government did "break" and violate the Constitution in a massive way, But, I believe that true defenders of democratic rights can right those wrongs.

I'm curious.

Why do you think otherwise?

[MarjorieG]

16. Just saying no-stop about Constitution and nothing, about a prez whose plan isn't formulated, won't

go anywhere without Congress and a review. This was an important explanation of the difficult problems.

We have other issues that are nearing solutions or disasters. That's all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. I agree completely no true progressive could trash the 2nd Amendment the way some do here.

[anonymous171]

10. +1. nt

[BeFree]

17. Hell yeah!!

Mr. Obama, don't mess with our rights!!

Gitmo detainees are a whole 'nother thing. Where he finds himself is a very unusual position. He has these guys who previously were deemed to be criminals by the guy who used to sit where Obama now sits.

Never been tried, tho, and may never be fairly tried, maybe could not be fairly tried, but they may be some bad criminals who would do us harm.

Tough spot. Especially for a smart dude like Barack. He could just say: "Too bad, mofos, you're dead", he could do that and get away with it. Problem solved.

But he's not doing that, he's tackling the problem head on and describing the problem beautifully.

What happens with the next, new batch that he has to deal with will be the real tell. Until then, I hope, for all our sakes, that Obama figures out a good way to treat these Gitmo guys fairly and within constitutional means.

[omega minimo]

20. So Democracy is back On The Table?

:bounce: :bounce:

[HughMoran]

23. I agree with your subject line 100%

I also believe that President Obama believes this as well.