dagblog - Comments for "Obama echoes Eric Holder: no judicial process in Constitution"

WHAT TRIALS???? THERE ARE NO

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:52:27 +0000

In reply to Or to quote from your link on

WHAT TRIALS???? THERE ARE NO TRIALS!!!! THAT'S WHY HE KILLED HIMSELF!!! SIMPLY DETAINED FOREVER.

What judicial process did

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:50:32 +0000

What judicial process did they receive? What "due process" did they receive?

And no, I didn't equate the two - I said the Bill of Rights starting at #6 talked about judicial process, the parts Obama & Holder omit - did you skip that part of my argument?

The detainees were told they couldn't contest their detention in court, that habeas didn't apply, that charges didn't have to be filed, that their lawyers weren't allowed to see evidence or talk about their cases, and proscriptions against cruel & unusual punishment didn't apply.

And if it's over 10 years to get to trial, it's not speedy.

So explain what "easy route" I'm taking? Is there anything about indefinite detention while denying access to judicial review that bothers you?

Did you grok that the guy when he did get judicial review, the judge observed he was innocent and that he should be freed, and someone still arbitrarily decided he was too "dangerous" to be released despite the charges being false.

Or to quote from your link on

Elusive Trope — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:32:23 +0000

In reply to What due process did Abn

Or to quote from your link on the Sixth Admendment

In cases where excess publicity would serve to undermine the defendant's right to due process, limitations can be put on public access to the proceedings. According to Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986), trials can be closed at the behest of the government on account of there being "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."

What are those higher values? I would guess you would take the stand that such higher values do not exist, which is probably never see eye to eye. I believe that society is always balancing the interests of the individual with the interests of the common good. Neither is supreme, but both have to be taken into consideration.

What has happened with the GWOT is that the common good has been elevated too high over the individual.

If you want to argue that

Elusive Trope — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:25:56 +0000

In reply to What due process did Abn

If you want to argue that certain individuals did not receive appropriate due process based on the particular judicial process that they received, then make that case. You seem to want to go the easy route which ends up having trying to say that constitutionally due process and judicial process are somehow equated.

Now if you can give me a hard and fast constitutional definition of what "speedy" is when comes to a "speedy trial" then maybe you have a leg to stand on.

Let me clarify. A large part

rmrd0000 — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:03:28 +0000

In reply to My point is to actually get

Let me clarify. A large part of Black Liberation Theology is that there are always battles to be fought. You assess how to organize and how to effect change. In most cases, you are working against larger and better funded opponents. But you continue the protest. You may have setbacks but you keep going. Despair is for the other guys.

You can get stuck in the mire of shouting at your opponent or you can fight the needed battle. This is a difference between a John Lewis and a Cornel West. John Lewis talks about actions taken and is working with groups on combating voter suppression. John Lewis inspires. Cornel West talks about plutocrats and oligarchs but where is the lasting action?

A basic message is "The Struggle Goes On". If you want to spend your effort focused on the failings of Obama, have at it. The opposition to voter suppression arose from the grass roots and grew against odds that should have been insurmountable. Will the GOP succeed in suppressing votes? Yes. Will they know that people protested? Yes.

Are we depressed and disappointed? No. Too busy fighting and educating.

You can complain about what you didn't get in the Affordable Care Act., or you can start planning the next step to get to Single Payer the inevitable outcome.

If you think your protest didn't accomplish anything, change tactics and protest some more. Your opposition is not going to give up. Ever. If you are looking for easy victories and opponents who will not fight back against any progress, the other guys have already won.

My point is to actually get

rmrd0000 — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:32:44 +0000

In reply to Progressives have continued

My point is to actually get something accomplished.

What due process did Abn

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:57:38 +0000

In reply to That isn't the point - the

What due process did Abn Farhan abd al Latif receive?

(and in this case it has to do with one being a dark-skinned Arab turned in with thinly concocted accusations...

and then it has to do with "process" being arbitrarily overturned time and time again

such as his release for being innocent...

so what are Obama & Holder talking about? what "gough questions" are they asking and what "process" do they think they're abiding by?

Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

Protest is both easier and

ocean-kat — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:42:04 +0000

In reply to We disagree strongly about

Protest is both easier and more difficult then in the suffragette times. When I read books like Jailed For Freedom one thing that struck me was the different interpretation of the right to free assembly. It was seen as a fundamental right that even relatively small groups could protest within sight of the White House such that those coming to do their daily business could see them. Even foreign country ambassadors or high ranking political figures. Now, with time, place, and manner restrictions protesters are simply shunted aside, out of sight out of mind unless the group is too large to be effectively hidden.

So while there less harassment today and no one arrested need fear the brutal conditions imposed on the suffragettes up to forced feeding, the constraints make protests less effective.

That isn't the point - the

Elusive Trope — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:34:26 +0000

In reply to We luv the troops so much,

That isn't the point - the point is that two citizens of the US are given entirely different judicial processes because of a difference (in this case it has to do with the fact one is in the military and the other is not), although both were given due process.

Progressives have continued

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:34:17 +0000

In reply to I think that you are in an

Progressives have continued to protest incarceration without trial at Gitmo, targeted assassinations, raids on medical marijuana facilities, handouts to Wall Street, illegal foreclosures, a variety of other issues.

At the same time, if a President and his men can't understand basics like judicial process as noted in the Constitution, it's hard to squeeze justice of him no matter how much you protest.

My other point was that a lot of people struggled to get this president elected - i.e. didn't just vote. It's one thing to get your legislation past the opposition - it's another thing if you have to struggle to get basic freedoms and rights understood by your own leader.

But your points seem to be 1) I need to struggle more against Obama to be heard, for him to pay attention to my issues, but 2) I need to stop criticizing Obama because he's doing what he can.