Obama Admininistration Seeks to Kill Right to an Attorney

[Duckie]

Further, when asked about State Secrets, Torture, etc. at a press conference, Obama responded that he has been following Bush's lead only because they (he, his attorney general, and some other people) haven't yet produced a comprehensible set of guidelines or policies that can replace them (such as Judges reviewing classified materials in closed rooms without it becoming public information, or the like).

Whether he follows through with it is another, but he's clearly promised that he isn't going to be following Bush's precedent forever. I can dig up the video if someone likes- it's somewhere on the whitehouse youtube channel. I think it was Obama that said it, but it might have been Gibbs.

[Dominus Atheos]

Don't use buzzwords and pretend they're evidence; explain yourself.

What do you think I mean? He keeps fighting against allowing detainees in Bagram the right to a trial to determine if they actually did anything worthy of keeping them in there, and he keeps trying to have lawsuits brought against the Bush administration thrown out without even being heard by claiming that the lawsuits might hamper the governments ability to spy on our citizens. (which is actually the point of the lawsuits)

So treating foreign nationals as if they have no rights = suspending habeus corpus and effectively declaring himself dictator? Unlike Bush, Obama has not claimed he can suspend habeus corpus, apprehend Americans without due process, and otherwise ride roughshod over the Constitution.

With regard to the lawsuits, the fact that they're being fought in court, by the current Justice Department, would seem to destroy your assertion that Obama "rejects the rule of law," don't you think? He could simply tell the Justice Department to ignore the lawsuits and claim Executive Privilege. Isn't that what Bush did, after all?

Yes, and that's exactly what he's doing, you idiot.

Evidence? Explain how this proves he "rejects the rule of law and supports a two-tiered justice system"

Link, and the rule of law/two-tiered justice system criticism comes from his repeated insistence that no one from the Bush administration should be prosecuted for warrantless wiretapping, lying us into a war, torture, and everything else he did. If any normal person were to torture someone, even after getting an ambulance-chaser to tell them it was okay, they'd go to jail. And since he's refusing to prosecute, we just might as well not have those laws.

Did you even read your own article? The Bush administration make the threat, and Obama had only been in office two weeks at the time of the article. Do you know whether he'd even reviewed the threat from the Bush lackeys?

I did read the article, and in particular I read this:

In another part of the ruling, the judges said lawyers for Miliband had told them the threat to withdraw cooperation remained in place under the new administration of President Barack Obama.

So while I don't know if Obama personally read it, someone from his administration told the judges the threat stands.

With regard to your two-tiered justice assertion, he's asserted that he won't prosecute the folks who carried out orders that were (dubiously) legal at the time they did them. Would you prefer that he prosecute lowly CIA officials and allow Bush, Cheney, and company to get off scot free? He's repeatedly said it's time to move on and stop dwelling on the past. While I don't agree with that position, it's hardly proof of "supports a two-tiered justice system."

http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2009/04/ ... orture.php

Tell you what, why don't you just concede that you're talking out of your ass right now, rather than continue to waste everyone's time?

So why doesn't he think we need to stop dwelling on the past and move on when a rapist comes up for trial? The reason I call it a two-tiered justice system is because he wants to let these government officials off scot free but supports strict punishment for everyone else. It's no different from the days when the ruling class had one standard of justice and the peasantry had another.

[Dominus Atheos]

Let's make no mistake: Obama's human rights record so far is a disappointment. Having said that, it's still far superior to Bush's human rights record. And let's be realistic: he is a democratically elected president and he has to listen to what the American people want.

He's a democratically elected president who swore to protect and uphold the law. But even if his job was to answer solely to the people, the people want investigations at least, and a plurality supporting criminal charges:

[ray245]

So why doesn't he think we need to stop dwelling on the past and move on when a rapist comes up for trial? The reason I call it a two-tiered justice system is because he wants to let these government officials off scot free but supports strict punishment for everyone else. It's no different from the days when the ruling class had one standard of justice and the peasantry had another.

Maybe it is due to the fact that asking for a rapist to stand for trial has less political ramminfication than prosecuting members of CIA, public officials and politicians?

[Dominus Atheos]

So why doesn't he think we need to stop dwelling on the past and move on when a rapist comes up for trial? The reason I call it a two-tiered justice system is because he wants to let these government officials off scot free but supports strict punishment for everyone else. It's no different from the days when the ruling class had one standard of justice and the peasantry had another.

Maybe it is due to the fact that asking for a rapist to stand for trial has less political ramminfication than prosecuting members of CIA, public officials and politicians?

Yes exactly, and since Obama is letting public officials commit crimes but not normal people because of "political ramifications", I call it a two-tiered justice system.

[Big Phil]

Yes, and that's exactly what he's doing, you idiot.

What "exactly" is he doing? Declaring Executive Privilege and refusing to allow the prisoners trials, or fighting against that in court? Be specific, douchebag, and provide evidence rather than screeching.

I did read the article, and in particular I read this:

"In another part of the ruling, the judges said lawyers for Miliband had told them the threat to withdraw cooperation remained in place under the new administration of President Barack Obama."

So while I don't know if Obama personally read it, someone from his administration told the judges the threat stands.

In other words, because you personally think this is a major issue, the Obama administration should have changed the policy within DAYS of assuming office, and shouldn't consider any of the potential ramifications of that decision? And regardless, there's no comment from the Obama administration saying "yes, the Bush administration threatened them," which makes the article pure hearsay and of questionable accuracy.

So why doesn't he think we need to stop dwelling on the past and move on when a rapist comes up for trial? The reason I call it a two-tiered justice system is because he wants to let these government officials off scot free but supports strict punishment for everyone else. It's no different from the days when the ruling class had one standard of justice and the peasantry had another.

Again, you're asserting things without proof. Degan pointed out Obama's accurate position, rather than your strawman.

[Kon_El]

In my view, interrogating someone who requests their attorney without the attorney present is the same (or at least has the same result) as denying someone their attorney.

Your view is not reality then because those two situations are entirely different.

How? They have requested to have a lawyer present to assist them in their defense in the questioning. One has not been provided yet but questioning has continued. They have been denied their right to an attorney.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In my view, interrogating someone who requests their attorney without the attorney present is the same (or at least has the same result) as denying someone their attorney.

Your view is not reality then because those two situations are entirely different.

How? They have requested to have a lawyer present to assist them in their defense in the questioning. One has not been provided yet but questioning has continued. They have been denied their right to an attorney.

You and I have different meaning for denied. Denied means "No, you won't be getting an attorney for your defense EVER". It does not mean "Your attorney is on his/her way but questioning will continue. It's advisable that you exercise your right to remain silent until your attorney arrives"

[Kon_El]

You and I have different meaning for denied. Denied means "No, you won't be getting an attorney for your defense EVER". It does not mean "Your attorney is on his/her way but questioning will continue. It's advisable that you exercise your right to remain silent until your attorney arrives"

By that logic you could be provided a lawyer 15 min before your trial and still meet the requirements for having been provided with a lawyer. If things are permitted to precede past the point of request without the lawyer present what is the point of having the right to one?

[Edi]

You and I have different meaning for denied. Denied means "No, you won't be getting an attorney for your defense EVER". It does not mean "Your attorney is on his/her way but questioning will continue. It's advisable that you exercise your right to remain silent until your attorney arrives"

By that logic you could be provided a lawyer 15 min before your trial and still meet the requirements for having been provided with a lawyer. If things are permitted to precede past the point of request without the lawyer present what is the point of having the right to one?

Slippery slope there. Do try to make an effort to learn how the legal/justice system in general works. This thread in itself is a good starting point, given everything several people have said.

[Dominus Atheos]

In my view, interrogating someone who requests their attorney without the attorney present is the same (or at least has the same result) as denying someone their attorney.

Your view is not reality then because those two situations are entirely different.

How are they different? The end result is someone get interrogated by the police without an attorney present despite having exercised their right to one. The only difference is how nice you act when you tell him.

Kon_El wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:
In my view, interrogating someone who requests their attorney without the attorney present is the same (or at least has the same result) as denying someone their attorney.


Your view is not reality then because those two situations are entirely different.



How? They have requested to have a lawyer present to assist them in their defense in the questioning. One has not been provided yet but questioning has continued. They have been denied their right to an attorney.


You and I have different meaning for denied. Denied means "No, you won't be getting an attorney for your defense EVER". It does not mean "Your attorney is on his/her way but questioning will continue. It's advisable that you exercise your right to remain silent until your attorney arrives"

I really really doubt the police are going to advise him to exercise his right to remain silent. They're probably just going to tell him he on his way, and then tell him they found evidence linking him to the crime and offer him a plea deal that goes away once the lawyer arrives.

I understand that you're a cop and you probably see a lot of obviously people go free because you weren't allowed to interrogate them enough, but how many innocent people are going to be caught up in this? You know damn well that their are some small hick town cops who just look for the first black man they can place in or around the crime scene and then try to railroad him, and if this becomes a precedent it will only make it easier for them.

[Beowulf]

I really really doubt the police are going to advise him to exercise his right to remain silent.

Miranda. They advise him when they arrest him of his right to remain silent.

[Dominus Atheos]

I really really doubt the police are going to advise him to exercise his right to remain silent.

Miranda. They advise him when they arrest him of his right to remain silent.

Right, but I doubt they're going to mention it again right before they continue the interrogation after calling for his attorney.

[General Zod]

Right, but I doubt they're going to mention it again right before they continue the interrogation after calling for his attorney.

What difference would that make? You're supposed to acknowledge that you understand the rights you've just been read when they arrest you. If you don't give acknowledgement then they can't interrogate them.

[Qwerty 42]

Right, but I doubt they're going to mention it again right before they continue the interrogation after calling for his attorney.

What difference would that make? You're supposed to acknowledge that you understand the rights you've just been read when they arrest you. If you don't give acknowledgement then they can't interrogate them.

Perhaps such a system could be implemented if the Court overturns this ruling: that is, after all, how the Miranda rights came about.

[Dominus Atheos]

With regard to your two-tiered justice assertion, he's asserted that he won't prosecute the folks who carried out orders that were (dubiously) legal at the time they did them. Would you prefer that he prosecute lowly CIA officials and allow Bush, Cheney, and company to get off scot free? He's repeatedly said it's time to move on and stop dwelling on the past. While I don't agree with that position, it's hardly proof of "supports a two-tiered justice system."

There is also the fact that Obama came out and said publicly that, while he's not inclined to prosecute CIA operatives for carrying out orders they were told was legal, he has no problem with the eventual investigation and prosecution of lawyers and officials who twisted legal definitions into Moebius strips to authorise torture.

He never said anything like that. Here's what he said on the 21st:

Q I appreciate it. I want to ask you about the interrogation memos that you released last week; two questions. You were clear about not wanting to prosecute those who carried out the instructions under this legal advice. Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy? And then quickly on a second matter, how do you feel about investigations, whether special — a special commission or something of that nature on the Hill to go back and really look at the issue?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the — look, as I said before, this has been a difficult chapter in our history, and one of the tougher decisions that I’ve had to make as President. On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there. And we rely on some very courageous people, not just in our military but also in the Central Intelligence Agency, to help protect the American people. And they have to make some very difficult decisions because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn’t have scruples, that isn’t constrained by constitutions, aren’t constrained by legal niceties.

Having said that, the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That’s why I’ve discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.

For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

I’m not suggesting that that should be done, but I’m saying, if you’ve got a choice, I think it’s very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.

And the last point I just want to emphasize, as I said yesterday at the CIA when I visited, what makes America special in my view is not just our wealth and the dynamism of our economy and our extraordinary history and diversity. It’s that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they’re hard. And sometimes we make mistakes because that’s the nature of human enterprise. But when we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes and keep our eye on those ideals and values that have been passed on generation to generation.

And that is what has to continue to guide us as we move forward. And I’m confident that we will be able to move forward, protect the American people effectively, and live up to our values and ideals. And that’s not a matter of being naive about how dangerous this world is. As I said yesterday to some of the CIA officials that I met with, I wake up every day thinking about how to keep the American people safe. And I go to bed every night worrying about keeping the American people safe.

I’ve got a lot of other things on my plate. I’ve got a big banking crisis, and I’ve got unemployment numbers that are very high, and we’ve got an auto industry that needs work. There are a whole things — range of things that during the day occupy me, but the thing that I consider my most profound obligation is keeping the American people safe.

So I do not take these things lightly, and I am not in any way under illusion about how difficult the task is for those people who are on the front lines every day protecting the American people.

So I wanted to communicate a message yesterday to all those who overwhelmingly do so in a lawful, dedicated fashion that I have their back.

All right? Thank you, everybody.

So to sum up: "I'm opposed to any criminal investigations but no one should blame me since it's the Attorney General's decision and I'm passing the buck to him".

Here's what Robert Gibbs said on the 20th:

Q You talk about America's image around the world, the President has talked a lot about that, as well. What signal does it send the world if, potentially, people in the Bush administration -- I stress "potentially" -- broke the law? This administration is now saying, we're too busy, there's a lot on our plate, obviously, this argument is out there, but we're not going to --

MR. GIBBS: Listen, I don't --

Q -- but you said we can't look back, we're going to look forward.

MR. GIBBS: Right, but, Ed --

Q What signals does that send?

MR. GIBBS: The administration didn't say they were too busy, Ed. The administration on the second day of a very busy day in a very busy week and very busy 100 days banned the technique.

Q Right.

MR. GIBBS: Okay? I mean, let's understand --

Q But people broke the law before it. You're just turning the page.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no -- give me a chance to answer your multitude of questions.

Q Well, but it's my real question.

MR. GIBBS: I understand, and I'm glad you've rephrased it. The President took the extraordinary step of stopping these techniques from ever being used -- again, as part of his administration. The President does believe and the Attorney General said quite clearly that those that believed in good faith that these techniques had been declared legal by the Department of Justice should not be prosecuted.

The President also believes that rather than looking backward and fighting this backward, that it's important to move our country forward. That's what he signaled by banning the use of these techniques, and that's where his focus is.

Q So I understand, you're saying that people in the CIA who followed through in what they were told was legal, they should not be prosecuted. But why not the Bush administration lawyers who, in the eyes of a lot of your supporters on the left, twisted the law -- why are they not being held accountable?

MR. GIBBS: The President is focused on looking forward, that's why.

Q A follow-up on that? You just reiterated the President's comments that he won't -- that harsh interrogation techniques won't be used. But there is a Guantanamo detainee who is currently being detained, who last week made a telephone call out of Guantanamo alleging that he is beaten almost on a daily basis and tear gas has been dumped on him -- Mohammed el Gharani.

MR. GIBBS: I haven't seen something like that, but -- so I have no basis to answer the question.

And what Rahm Emanuel said on the 19th

STEPHANOPOULOS: Final quick question. The president has ruled out prosecutions for CIA officials who believed they were following the law. Does he believe that the officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution?

EMANUEL: What he believes is, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote, and I would just take a step back. He came up with this and he worked on this for about four weeks, wrote that statement Wednesday night, after he made his decision, and dictated what he wanted to see. And Thursday morning, I saw him in the office, he was still editing it.

He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What about those who devised policy?

EMANUEL: Yes, but those who devised policy, he believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter, and I would really recommend people look at the full statement -- not the letter, the statement -- in that second paragraph, "this is not a time for retribution." It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution.

We have a lot to do to protect America. What people need to know, this practice and technique, we don't use anymore. He banned it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Rahm Emanuel, thank you very much for joining me.

EMANUEL: Thank you, George.

Video1, Video 2, and Video 3.

And then the most recent statement was this on the 24th:

W.H. backs off interrogations panel

The White House is signaling in its clearest terms to date that President Barack Obama does not favor an independent commission to investigate aggressive interrogations and other alleged abuses by the Bush administration in the war on terror.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama and top aides debated the commission issue about two weeks ago and Obama concluded that any such proposal was likely to bog down in politics.

“The president determined the concept didn’t seem altogether workable in this case,” Gibbs said at a briefing for reporters. “The last few days might be evidence of why something like this might just become a political back and forth.”

In response to a reporter’s question on Tuesday, Obama said an independent panel would be preferable to the normal congressional hearing process because the latter was likely to break down along party lines. “To the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take,” the president said. At a briefing that day, Gibbs also cited the 9/11 Commission as a “model” of how such a panel “might be set up.”

While Obama did say Tuesday said he was “not suggesting” the creation of such a commission, his public suggestions about how it could be done was seen by many as a tacit endorsement of an idea long dismissed by top Obama aides. Gibbs indicated Thursday that Obama should not have engaged in public speculation about something he doesn’t favor.

“It was assuaging your predilection of hypotheticals,” Gibbs told Fox reporter Major Garrett. “Trust me,” the press secretary said emphatically, “there’ll be no more of that.”

[Dominus Atheos]

Yes, and that's exactly what he's doing, you idiot.

What "exactly" is he doing? Declaring Executive Privilege and refusing to allow the prisoners trials, or fighting against that in court? Be specific, douchebag, and provide evidence rather than screeching.

If you'd bother to actually read the post before responding, you notice I wasn't talking about Bagram, I was talking about warrantless wiretapping. And yes, Obama is trying to claim executive privilege and get the cases thrown out without any sort of trial.

I did read the article, and in particular I read this:

"In another part of the ruling, the judges said lawyers for Miliband had told them the threat to withdraw cooperation remained in place under the new administration of President Barack Obama."

So while I don't know if Obama personally read it, someone from his administration told the judges the threat stands.

In other words, because you personally think this is a major issue, the Obama administration should have changed the policy within DAYS of assuming office, and shouldn't consider any of the potential ramifications of that decision? And regardless, there's no comment from the Obama administration saying "yes, the Bush administration threatened them," which makes the article pure hearsay and of questionable accuracy.

That's a statement from the ruling in the criminal case you idiot. It's not "hearsay".

So why doesn't he think we need to stop dwelling on the past and move on when a rapist comes up for trial? The reason I call it a two-tiered justice system is because he wants to let these government officials off scot free but supports strict punishment for everyone else. It's no different from the days when the ruling class had one standard of justice and the peasantry had another.

Again, you're asserting things without proof. Degan pointed out Obama's accurate position, rather than your strawman.

Alright, we'll go over this one more time:

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

I’m not suggesting that that should be done, but I’m saying, if you’ve got a choice, I think it’s very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.

There, straight from his own mouth. He doesn't support investigations, let alone criminal charges because thinks we should be looking forward and not backwards. Since you'll probably ignore the question if I don't I ask again: Do you think Obama would say the same thing if a young girl reported a rape? Do you still think he'd say we shouldn't be looking backwards?

[Big Phil]

If you'd bother to actually read the post before responding, you notice I wasn't talking about Bagram, I was talking about warrantless wiretapping. And yes, Obama is trying to claim executive privilege and get the cases thrown out without any sort of trial.

I'll just repost what I said last Friday, rather than waste time with coming up with something new:
What "exactly" is he doing? Declaring Executive Privilege and refusing to allow the prisoners trials, or fighting against that in court? Be specific, douchebag, and provide evidence rather than screeching. Same question applies just as well to wiretapping as it does to Bagram prisoners.

That's a statement from the ruling in the criminal case you idiot. It's not "hearsay".

I know you're a moron, so I'll try to use small words. From Findlaw "Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." In other words, the testimony by Foreign Secretary David Miliband is hearsay.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more ... dence.html

There, straight from his own mouth. He doesn't support investigations, let alone criminal charges because thinks we should be looking forward and not backwards. Since you'll probably ignore the question if I don't I ask again: Do you think Obama would say the same thing if a young girl reported a rape? Do you still think he'd say we shouldn't be looking backwards?

Good Christ, your reading comprehension is atrocious. From your own quote:

“With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.”

And a little later

“And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.”

How can you possibly read that as “supports a two-tiered justice system?” That’s all about a) not wanting to spend political capital investigating this, and b) concern that by investigating you’ll wreck a lot of ongoing intelligence operations.

There, straight from his own mouth. He doesn't support investigations, let alone criminal charges because thinks we should be looking forward and not backwards. Since you'll probably ignore the question if I don't I ask again: Do you think Obama would say the same thing if a young girl reported a rape? Do you still think he'd say we shouldn't be looking backwards?

What a plonker… you’re busily getting your ass handed to you because you can’t prove the bullshit that comes out of your own mouth, so you bring up a classic Red Herring hoping to distract people from your own inadequacies. Pathetic…