6 ms·
"The Obama administration has stated that if Snowden were to return to the United States, he would receive protection under due process laws." That sure is nic
by dpratt 13y ago
"The Obama administration has stated that if Snowden were to return to the United States, he would receive protection under due process laws."
That sure is nice of them.
How did it get to a point where this is actually up for debate? It sure sounds to me like that's a statement from somebody who thinks that they have options in how Snowden should be treated by the government.
- timje1 13y agoWas Manning's treatment due process? Because it seems she was stripped naked and kept in isolation for several years. I think I'll take the exile, thanks Barry.
- disposition2 13y agoPretty sure the precedent was set before Barry was even in politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
- ajays 13y agoYep. People are "shocked" at Manning's treatment, when Jose Padilla suffered something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%2...
- exit 13y agoreferring to Obama by "Barry" is off putting, in the way referring to Manning as "he" would be.
- dredmorbius 13y ago"Barry" was Mr. Obama's chosen nickname, and he didn't give it up until college: http://www.newsweek.com/when-barry-became-barack-84255 http://www.newsweek.com/when-barry-became-barack-84255 I think you're reaching looking for an insult here. I'm seeing a lot of grandstanding and assumed affront in this post (Pincas above as well). It's not becoming. People can be asses and still do the right thing on occasion. And sometimes a nickname is just a nickname.
- selmnoo 13y agoThe reason 'exit might have found it off-putting is because it's almost only the right wing crowd that chooses to use this term now (and only in critical contexts). Take a 5-minute trip to freerepublic forums and you'll see what I mean. Small side note: Referring to Manning as 'he' in events she was involved in before Manning to choose to publicly make a switch shouldn't be an issue -- that's something Manning herself suggested actually. So for the grandparent post to have used the 'he' pronoun would not have been an issue at all.
- FireBeyond 13y agoYes, and no. I didn’t see many people referring to either of the Presidents Bush as “George”.
- pawn 13y agoNo, it was the single letter, W.
- dredmorbius 13y agoOr "Shrub". God bless you Molly Ivans.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> "Barry" was Mr. Obama's chosen nickname, and he didn't give it up until college Which would make its use understandable if Obama gave it up in college a few months ago, and the person using it was someone who had interacted with him frequently during the time he was using it. Less so when he graduated from college before many of the adults using it were born, much less became aware that Mr. Obama existed. > I think you're reaching looking for an insult here. I think you're reaching looking for a justification for the equivalent of mocking a mid-career professional by persistently using a nickname they stopped using in kindergarten.
- timje1 13y agoIt was a joke, an attempt to give the final statement a jovial, chat between friends vibe. I could have used Bazza (it's a British thing) or Prezzy. Too late to edit it now.
- antiterra 13y agoManning was in the military, and the operating interpretation of Article I is that Congress and the President have the power to regulate the Armed forces, the rest of the US Constitution and civilian law largely notwithstanding. Draconian punishment and treatment, while concerning, is nothing new for those subject to the UCMJ, even if the code itself appears to prohibit it[1]. The scary scenario would be the classification of Snowden as an enemy combatant, who would then be subject to military justice. I hope that all three branches of the US government consider that to be a ridiculous stretch of the imagination. [1] http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section813&num=0&edition=prelim http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-pre...
- girvo 13y agoWould you put money on the fact that they wouldn't do that?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rtpg 13y agoI would. They would gain nothing from doing it, and everything to lose (especially in the court of public opinion). Plus the case is already pretty clear, he's gone and admitted everything anyways. Literally nothing to gain from trying to put him through a military tribunal.
- phaus 13y agoThe judge in his case ruled at one point that he was being illegally mistreated. What I find outrageous about that is that they only cut a small fraction of the time he had already served off of his sentence as a result. In America, such severe misconduct by the authorities is supposed to result in the defendant walking (And I say this as a person who believes that he was otherwise guilty of SOME of the charges due to his wholesale leak of 700000 files that had nothing to do with government crimes). If we compromise our values in the name of defending freedom, there is no freedom left to defend.
- contextual 13y agoIt's hard to know if a statement like that is serious or satirical, especially considering the many broken promises and human rights violations Obama is responsible for. For example, didn't Obama promise to close Guantanamo Prison? http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas-promise-to-close-guantanamo-prison-falls-short http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas-promise-to-cl...
- wavefunction 13y agoTo be fair, the GOP blocked closing down Gitmo like they've done pretty much everything else the past 8 years. Not that I don't think President Obama needs to head back to a remedial course on the Constitution...
- twoodfin 13y agoIt's pretty hard for the opposition to block anything when your party has 60 seats in the Senate and a big majority in the House, as President Obama's party did for almost half a year (and it's pretty easy to get what you want with a "mere" 59 seats, too!) Also, he's the President. The prison at Guantanamo was established by President Bush without an act of Congress, and it could be removed by President Obama in exactly the same way.
- nknighthb 13y agoPresidents have wide discretion in military matters where Congress has not legislated to the contrary. In this case, Congress has now legislated to the contrary. That leaves the President without discretion, no matter what authority the facility was originally opened under.
- twoodfin 13y agoAre you thinking of something other than the Defense Authorization Act of 2011? Which: a) The President signed, rather than vetoed, as was his option. b) Went into effect three years after he took office. It would have been politically damaging for President Obama to close Camp X-Ray during his first few years in office. It would not have been impossible.
- headgasket 13y agoPedro offers you his protection
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- nknighthb 13y agoThere is no rebellion or invasion in progress, and even if there were, the rationale of Ex Parte Milligan casts grave doubt on the ability to use that as an excuse except in the areas of the country directly affected.
- rayiner 13y agoCongress hasn't suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
- asperous 13y agoOnly Congress can suspend it?
- rayiner 13y agoThe Constitution is a ambiguous on that point, because it doesn't explicitly say who has the power to suspend the writ, only the conditions under which it can be suspended. But the fact that it's in Article I, which describes the powers of Congress, suggests that it is Congress who may suspend the writ: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/61/habeas-corpus http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/61.... That is also the practice. Abraham Lincoln did suspend the writ unilaterally during the Civil War, but even then he was forced by political pressure to get an act of Congress approving the action.
- saosebastiao 13y agoDue process laws like requiring warrants for wiretaps.
- cryoshon 13y agoDue process really doesn't mean that much when legal guilt is known beforehand and the defendant is a government enemy. After the hit job on Manning, I wouldn't be at all surprised for "due process" to include months and months of torture-detention in solitary confinement pre-and-post-trial-- all legal of course.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> How did it get to a point where this is actually up for debate? Its not actually "up for debate", the President's statement is a way of making noises that sound reassuring when formed into a soundbite that passes through in a stream of media stories while being devoid of substantive content. Its specifically designed to be revealed as empty of any commitment beyond what is already undisputably mandatory when analyzed rationally (so that in any case where it would be a source of "unfulfilled promise" political damage that would be the least concern), but to be soothing when heard in the typical media context which is pretty much designed to maximize emotional response and short-circuit rational consideration.