19 Responses to VIDEO: Obama Challenged on Indefinite Detention of Americans

1. timesthree September 29th, 2012 at 3:44 am 1

   Thanks for posting this, jbade.

   First, it was kidnapping and indefinite detention of foreign nationals and unexplained deaths and “suicides” of detainees in our custody.

   Next came summary execution by drone as the above continued.

   Now it’s indefinite detention of US citizens as all the above continues still.

   Do do people really think this despotic trend is going to stop here?

   We have no rights when someone, somewhere, in the bowels of government can decide we are a threat and have us kidnapped and killed with no due process and no judicial oversight.

   It’s scary to me that this is happening and damn scary that most people don’t seem to be bothered by it.

   Police departments are being militarized an alarming rate. We are being spied upon by the government more and each day. Dissenters are being treated like suspected terrorists. The seeds of the police state have been sown and the seedlings are sprouting.

   “Then they came for me…” is unfolding right in front of our eyes.

   Reply
2. shootthatarrow September 29th, 2012 at 7:31 am 2

   In response to timesthree @ 1

   …X 2

   Reply
3. tjbs September 29th, 2012 at 8:37 am 3

   What’s the difference between o’s law and Pinochet’s law ?
   Not a damn thing !

   Reply
4. ralphbon September 29th, 2012 at 8:51 am 4

   Another example of Obama’s gigantic tell: Whenever he starts a sentence with “Look,” you know he’s about to fuck a progressive principle, the Constitution, or both.

   Reply
5. chef September 29th, 2012 at 11:49 am 5

   Great video. We need more of these.

   Shows how Obama is perfectly willing to say one thing while KNOWING he will do the complete opposite.

   A smooth talker. Gives complete credence to the descriptions of Obama as a “conman,” a “snake charmer,” the man with “the forked silver tongue.”

   That is why Obama is a perfect tool of the 1%. Because he is not White, he has cover to take down the social safety net, and restructure society deeply further in favor of the 1%.

   That’s why prominent Republicans are so willing to take down Romney. (Notice Republicans never say “the lesser evil.”) They WANT Obama to win.

   Reply
6. BearCountry September 29th, 2012 at 1:30 pm 6

   In response to chef @ 5

   Exactly. As Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report says, o “is the more effective evil.”

   Reply
7. mafr September 29th, 2012 at 1:32 pm 7

   great job by that fellow.

   He deserves a lot of credit.

   Not only did he lay out the issue, very clearly, he showed courage.

   It takes a lot of guts to ask that question to that person.

   Obama is very good at his job as well. not answering the question, while appearing to have done so.

   Reply
8. cal222 September 29th, 2012 at 2:40 pm 8

   And on Fox News no less!

   Reply
9. allan September 29th, 2012 at 3:20 pm 9

   I’m sure TBogg has a perfectly sensible explanation.

   Reply
10. timesthree September 29th, 2012 at 5:12 pm 10

    In response to allan @ 9

    I’m sure it boils down to Ben Swann being a selfish purist who wants a sparkle pony.

    Reply
11. thatvisionthing September 29th, 2012 at 5:34 pm 11

    We need to know more.

    Kudos to the Fox reporter, but how is it that the appeals court judge Lahier ended Forrest’s injunction? It’s pretty plain to me that indefinite detention is “unconstitutional on its face,” as Judge Forrest said, and if a judge can just poof away the plain meaning of the Constitution then there’s a judicial fail. And what do we know about Lahier and his decision-making process? It seems to me we should know.

    To zoom back a level, there’s another case right now that’s just weird judge-wise and wrong on its face. Talking about New Orleans and the Army Corps of Engineers, which pretty much has built-in immunity for fails, except something (navigation vs flood control, policy or not) and so were recently found legally responsible by a three-panel judge for Katrina damage caused by their MR-GO navigation project. Now, just months later, that same judge writing for the same panel, using the same words reversely, wrote a 1-1/2 page decision dismissing the case. (Huh?) The Army Corps of Engineers is again off the hook, skates free, never has to learn a thing or be accountable for monstrous negligence and damage.

    http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=08E62277-9773-4CA1-85E69FD4E5843072

    Here’s the Fifth Circuit panel, in its original decision, describing the evidentiary record (italics mine):

    The . . . plaintiffs and [friends of the court] point to ample record evidence indicating that policy played no role in the government’s decision to delay armoring MRGO.

    [...]

    …the next we read in the panel’s do-over opinion:

    [T]here is ample record evidence indicating the public-policy character of the Corps’s various decisions contributing to the delay in armoring. Although the Corps appears to have appreciated the benefit of foreshore protection as early as 1967, the record shows that it also had reason to consider alternatives (such as dredging and levee “lifts”) and feasibility before committing to an armoring strategy that, in hindsight, may well have been optimal.

    Where before the “ample record evidence” showed an absence of policy considerations, the same “ample record of evidence” now shows a “public-policy character.” Where before “considerable evidence amassed” suggested the Corps never acknowledged a safety benefit to armoring, the Corps now appears to have “appreciated” the benefit of armoring all along and rejected it on policy grounds. And the Corps’s single quotation about dredging and raising levees, which was first characterized as not able to stand on its own, now becomes the foundation of the Court’s entire legal argument.

    We may never know what spirits swayed the jurists at this late date. That’s a shame, because if a federal court is going to backtrack on a case of such magnitude, it owes us some analysis, not a few conclusory statements. If willful ignorance constitutes a policy choice, is there any incompetence that does not?

    Bolding mine. We need to know more.

    The fails I see here are sovereign immunity, judicial nonsense, and the fact that the courts are not checked and balanced by anything but themselves, especially since juries are so diminished. (The first Supreme Court Chief Justice deferred that court’s decision to a jury, for example.) What the judges get wrong now stays wrong, even when they’re universally perceived as crazy and the process unjust and unfair – e.g., corporate personhood, and now indefinite detention without trial and due process. This makes a crock out of the idea of self-governance by reasoning citizens if we are helpless to check and balance or even understand the courts’ decisions and how they were made.

    Reply
12. thatvisionthing September 29th, 2012 at 5:47 pm 12

    In response to mafr @ 7

    About his job:

    You:

    Obama is very good at his job as well, not answering the question, while appearing to have done so.

    Obama:

    Well, look, the basic principle here is, number one, my first job is to keep the American people safe.

    Let’s go check the actual job description:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Reply
13. wendydavis September 29th, 2012 at 7:05 pm 13

    ‘I’ve banned torture’. Liar.

    He just redefined ‘rendition’ as ‘non-longterm incarceration’ okey dokey. ‘Send em out!’

    Thanks, jbade.

    @ cal222: I’ve posted several Fox interviews that seemed the best, most recently a Neil Barofsky interview. Smarter questions, for one thing. Might just depend on the particular shows available.

    Reply
14. elisemattu September 29th, 2012 at 7:59 pm 14

    In response to tjbs @ 3

    Well, to be fair, Pinochet took the time and effort to wear that snazzy military uniform. Obama prefers the casual look, in part because the Many-Medalled General look wouldn’t play well in Peoria.

    But both men spent all day on Tuesdays deciding who needed to be killed.

    Reply
15. elisemattu September 29th, 2012 at 8:05 pm 15

    I am sure we are all so reassured that Obama has stated that he would never use the indefinite detention clause. Especially given how he has proven again and again,t hat he is a man of his word.

    Reply
16. greenwarrior September 29th, 2012 at 8:51 pm 16

    In response to shootthatarrow @ 2

    X3

    Reply
17. elisemattu September 29th, 2012 at 9:35 pm 17

    It is also rather frightening that in his signing statement, Obama states that he will not utilize the power of the NDAA because he wants to show respect for our “traditions.”

    Traditions? The Constitution is not a tradition. It is not a value. It is the rule of the law. These people need to be impeached – Cheney/Bush?rove and Obama.

    Reply
18. thatvisionthing September 29th, 2012 at 9:53 pm 18

    In response to elisemattu @ 17

    x2 – thank you

    Reply
19. chef September 30th, 2012 at 1:33 pm 19

    Thanks, Bear Country. The “more effective evil” is a needed counter to “the lesser evil.” Black Agenda Report has integrity.

    I agree with mfr: kudos to Benn Swann. What uncharacteristically relevant and truthful coverage by mainstream media.

    The FOX news segment by Swann is just full of integrity, nothing else. You can sense Swann’s genuine concern about a fundamental issue. Most people do not know about what’s happening with Obama’s actions and power grabs (at this point: is there any power Obama would not grab for himself, including martial law (see Washington Times)? It is up to those who know, such as journalists like Swan and readers here, to inform the public.

    Reply