4 ms·

There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there? Obama didn't close Gitmo, we still summarily execute american citizens (overseas drone st

by elipsey 11y ago

There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there? Obama didn't close Gitmo, we still summarily execute american citizens (overseas drone strikes by exectutive order), summarrily confiscate property at home (civil asset forfieture), settle %97 of criminal cases without a trial (plea bargaining), and spy on every citizen without individual warrants (stingray, xkeyscore, etc, etc). Erosion of due process seems to be one thing both parties vigorously agree on. At least we got lots of revenge for 911 though (anyone will do). Sorry to be a hater, but I'm just as depressed about this as you are. :p "...then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew... When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984)

chimeracoder 11y ago
> There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there? Nope. If you're looking to end drone strikes before the 2020 race, you're SOL. There was only one candidate who opposed warrant-less drone assassinations, and he just withdrew from the race (Chafee). Rand Paul did filibuster Brennan's nomination on this exact issue, but he has since watered down his stance to the point where it's basically unrecognizable. The other candidates range from lukewarm support ("we should do this, but only rarely") to enthusiastic support, to the ones who actually carried out and executed the drone strike program (Clinton).
Karunamon 11y ago
Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but I place the blame for Guantanamo not being closed more at the feet of Congress than I do him. He can't close the camp if they deny him the funds to do it, which they did. (Not that this changes your overall outlook much - it just means there are a great many bastards rather than just one)
- elipsey 11y ago
  Interesting, thanks. I didn't know about the details. Here's a story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html Apparently, it would cost 80MM.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- NoCulturalFit 11y ago
  Many of the people released by Obama are jihadists who joined ISIS. A group that thrives on raping and selling non-muslim girls. You don't join a group like that unless your beliefs align with that. America, Obama and leftists screwed the pooch on this one by listening to Islamist-supporters like Greenwald and other regressive left. Congratulations, you truly fucked brown poor people in the desert who were better off without these muslims terrorists.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    What are you on about? We're talking about Guantanamo being closed and its prisoners placed elsewhere, not released en masse. And as to what the prisoners did or didn't do after release - we don't incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > And as to what the prisoners did or didn't do after release - we don't incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future. We emphatically do incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future; that's the focus of the incapacitation theory of punishment [1]. We even do so solely based on what they may do in the future, that's pretty much the main support given by members of Congress for the repeated blocking of the closure of Guantanamo. What I think you mean to say is we should not incarcerate people based solely on what they may do in the future, though, again, that's a point that is obviously not accepted as an undebatable moral axiom, again, by reference to the overt justifications given by members of Congress for blocking the closure of Guantanamo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology)

by elipsey 11y ago

chimeracoder 11y ago

> There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there? Nope. If you're looking to end drone strikes before the 2020 race, you're SOL. There was only one candidate who opposed warrant-less drone assassinations, and he just withdrew from the race (Chafee). Rand Paul did filibuster Brennan's nomination on this exact issue, but he has since watered down his stance to the point where it's basically unrecognizable. The other candidates range from lukewarm support ("we should do this, but only rarely") to enthusiastic support, to the ones who actually carried out and executed the drone strike program (Clinton).

Karunamon 11y ago

Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but I place the blame for Guantanamo not being closed more at the feet of Congress than I do him. He can't close the camp if they deny him the funds to do it, which they did. (Not that this changes your overall outlook much - it just means there are a great many bastards rather than just one)

elipsey 11y ago
Interesting, thanks. I didn't know about the details. Here's a story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html Apparently, it would cost 80MM.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
NoCulturalFit 11y ago
Many of the people released by Obama are jihadists who joined ISIS. A group that thrives on raping and selling non-muslim girls. You don't join a group like that unless your beliefs align with that. America, Obama and leftists screwed the pooch on this one by listening to Islamist-supporters like Greenwald and other regressive left. Congratulations, you truly fucked brown poor people in the desert who were better off without these muslims terrorists.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  What are you on about? We're talking about Guantanamo being closed and its prisoners placed elsewhere, not released en masse. And as to what the prisoners did or didn't do after release - we don't incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > And as to what the prisoners did or didn't do after release - we don't incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future. We emphatically do incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future; that's the focus of the incapacitation theory of punishment [1]. We even do so solely based on what they may do in the future, that's pretty much the main support given by members of Congress for the repeated blocking of the closure of Guantanamo. What I think you mean to say is we should not incarcerate people based solely on what they may do in the future, though, again, that's a point that is obviously not accepted as an undebatable moral axiom, again, by reference to the overt justifications given by members of Congress for blocking the closure of Guantanamo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology)