Obama WH adopts Bush indefinite-detention position

Gordon Shumway · #1 (**permalink**) 09-24-2009, 07:59 PM

Hot Air Blog Archive Obama WH adopts Bush indefinite-detention position

Quote:

Remember when the Left scoffed at the argument from George W. Bush that claimed the authorization to use military force allowed the executive branch to hold captured terrorists indefinitely, without criminal trial? Bush’s opponents screamed about human rights and due process, and claimed that Bush had abused his power. Those critics included Barack Obama, who regularly castigated the Bush administration for its failure to provide his idea of due process to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, as well as blasting Bush for his argument that he didn’t require Congress to act to maintain that power.

Now? Change you can believe in, baby:

Quote:

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.
But President Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of Congress.
The Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night that “the administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress” under the use of force resolution. “The administration is not currently seeking additional authorization,” the statement said.

This is known as a distinction without a difference. If the White House doesn’t see the need to get Congressional authorization for continued indefinite detention, then it means that the White House believes it has that power under the Constitution, whence it derives all authority. They may not want to say it out loud, but their actions speak volumes. Obama has adopted the Bush position in its entirety.
And this is, of course, another example of the Geraghty Axiom. The New York Times has trouble reconciling this with Obama’s statement in May on the subject:

Quote:

Still, the position surprised some critics who had expected after a speech by Mr. Obama in May that he would seek legislation to put the system of indefinite detention on firmer political and legal ground. In that speech at the National Archives, Mr. Obama said that he was considering continuing indefinite detention in some limited cases but that he would not act unilaterally.
“We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded,” he said at the time. “They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone.”

The explanation? All of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date — all of them. Ask the Poles, who heard Obama offer rhetorical support at about the same time for a land-based missile shield, a controversial issue for which Polish politicians had risked much, only to have Obama flip-flop on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion.
Will Obama acknowledge that Bush had it right all along, and that war powers give the executive branch the right to hold unlawful combatants indefinitely until the end of hostilities? Or will he attempt, as the New York Times reports, to make distinctions without differences?

Other links at the site worth checking out.

I believe Romney said that Obama won't always be wrong & I'd have to agree.
And in this case I'd have to say this is an area in which Bush wasn't wrong either.

Now the questions are...
Will Bush supporters support Obama in this?
Will Bush bashers bash Obama for this?

saltwn · #2 (**permalink**) 09-24-2009, 08:03 PM

So he must have found out a whole lot in those briefings.

Spencer Collins · #3 (**permalink**) 09-24-2009, 09:59 PM

I'm glad that Obama was willing to reconsider his options,some see this as confirmation of his weakness,I see it as his strength.

cnredd · #4 (**permalink**) 09-24-2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

I'm glad that Obama was willing to reconsider his options,some see this as confirmation of his weakness,I see it as his strength.

I see it as a confimation that his campaign rhetoric was either ignorance (and he realized the importance AFTER he became president) or an outlight lie (with him knowing he was going to keep this in place even before he was elected).

I tend to think it was the former...

"Blah, blah, blah" when campaigning, then, when given classified information that he didn't know about in his campaign talk, must flip-flop on it and come clean that "Bush's failed policies" weren't as failing as he originally thought and was telling us...

Big difference between being an archair quarterback and being the quarterback...

jabbo · #5 (**permalink**) 09-24-2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Shumway

....

Now the questions are...
Will Bush supporters support Obama in this?
Will Bush bashers bash Obama for this?

No, most Bushies won't support Obama on this.

Yes, most Bushies will bash Obama for this.

And to answer the converse questions:

Yes, most Obamans will support Obama on this.

No, most Obamans won't bash Obama for this.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss....

The only real consistent difference between Democrats and Republicans is their fingerprint patterns.

Spencer Collins · #6 (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

I see it as a confimation that his campaign rhetoric was either ignorance (and he realized the importance AFTER he became president) or an outlight lie (with him knowing he was going to keep this in place even before he was elected).

I tend to think it was the former...

"Blah, blah, blah" when campaigning, then, when given classified information that he didn't know about in his campaign talk, must flip-flop on it and come clean that "Bush's failed policies" weren't as failing as he originally thought and was telling us...

Big difference between being an archair quarterback and being the quarterback...

I think it's because he had access to more information and thus..did the right thing.However... it also runs deeper than that. It's political...he found himself in a catch 22 situation. He's got too dam much on his plate right now so he blinked...

cnredd · #7 (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

I think it's because he had access to more information and thus..did the right thing.However... it also runs deeper than that. It's political...he found himself in a catch 22 situation. He's got too dam much on his plate right now so he blinked...

But you HAVE to keep this in mind...

I agree that's he was put into a Catch-22, but it was by HIS OWN DOING...

If he didn't spend his time campaigning AGAINST everything Bush did only to come the the very same conclusions, then there wouldn't be a Catch-22 to be put in, would there?...

This is a self-inflicted would...One that a REAL leader would never place himself in...

Spencer Collins · #8 (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

But you HAVE to keep this in mind...

I agree that's he was put into a Catch-22, but it was by HIS OWN DOING...

If he didn't spend his time campaigning AGAINST everything Bush did only to come the the very same conclusions, then there wouldn't be a Catch-22 to be put in, would there?...

This is a self-inflicted would...One that a REAL leader would never place himself in...

Agreed...it is indeed self-inflicted and I have no sympathy for him from that standpoint.He saw Bush as an easy target and took advantage of the tide that turned against him. He has 4 years to prove his leadership abilities,one ultimate test can be a game changer that can make errors in the third inning seem like a distant memory.

It's not over yet..

cnredd · #9 (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 04:01 AM

This is slightly off-topic directly, but it does need to be pointed out...

Look at this sentence again...

Quote:

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.

So Obama is deciding NOT to look to Congress for this and just use the executive authority he already has...

OK...Fine...Be that way...

But I'd like to point out that the president can do the VERY SAME THING with the "Don't ask; don't tell" military policy...He can suspend the charges (and/or pardon) ALL gays from military barring by ALSO bypassing Congress, but refuses to do so...

Quote:

Under the "stop-loss" provision, Obama can issue executive orders to retain any soldier deemed necessary to the service in a time of national emergency, the report said.

The president also could halt the work of Pentagon review panels that brand troops as gay and thus excluded from service, the report said. And Obama and his Defense secretary could revise discharge procedures, as allowed under the 1993 law banning gays in the military.

Does anyone see the hypocrisy of a president saying he doesn't need Congress to follow through on a Bush policy, but does a 180 and tells us that Congress needs to be involved in a different policy that he publicly finds repulsive but doesn't lift a finger on?...

cnredd · #10 (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

He has 4 years to prove his leadership abilities

What a vote of confidence you have...

Instead of hiring a guy who has PROVEN leadership experience, we got someone who has "4 years to prove his leadership abilities"...

Nothing like handing the keys to an amatuer and saying "good luck!"...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/opinions-editorials/9091-obama-wh-adopts-bush-indefinite-detention-position.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Wikio Blogs - Other	This thread	Refback	09-27-2009 04:24 AM

The Following User Says Thank You to Gordon Shumway For This Useful Post:
Spencer Collins

The Following User Says Thank You to Spencer Collins For This Useful Post:
DownSouth

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
bhkad

The Following User Says Thank You to jabbo For This Useful Post:
Gordon Shumway