ACLU And NY Times Gently Chide Obama For Detention Plans
Remember the time when the ACLUand NY Times would excoriate President Bush and all those around him for his detention of Islamic extremists policies? How times have changed
NEW YORK– The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in response to President Obama’s national security speech today:
“We welcome President Obama’s stated commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law and the unequivocal rejection of torture. But unlike the president, we believe that continuing with the failed military commissions and creating a new system of indefinite detention without charge is inconsistent with the values that he expressed so eloquently at the National Archives today.”
You can almost hear Anthony titter and swoon as he calls Obama a naughty boy.
President Obama’s proposal for a new legal system in which terrorism suspects could be held in “prolonged detention” inside the United States without trial would be a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free.
“You’re a bad boy, President Obama, and….oh, we could never stay mad at you. Come over and let us kiss your ring.”
Anyhow, the whole thrust of the ACLU and NY Times argument is that the terrorists at Gitmo should be treated not as people associated with a war, but as folks who have been picked up on public intoxication charges. Certainly, a 9/10 mentality, where the only method that may be used to fight Islamic terrorism is law enforcement. And only if the officers eat their veggies and wash behind their ears.
The question both of them rarely ask is “if these folks are so safe, then why is it that the only country really willing to take them is Yemen, which is just going to free them?”
Mr. Obama chose to call his proposal “prolonged detention,” which made it sound more reassuring than some of its more familiar names. In some countries, it is called “administrative detention,” a designation with a slightly totalitarian ring. Some of its proponents call it “indefinite detention,” which evokes the Bush administration’s position that Guantánamo detainees could be held until the end of the war on terror — perhaps for the rest of their lives — even if acquitted in war crimes trials.
A kindler, gentler name for the exact same policy, and the Grey Lady swoons like a sophmore asked to the high school home coming dance by the star quarterback.
President Bush did mess up badly when he and his folks determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the Gitmo vacationers. Had he applied the full meaning, which is that people found fighting without uniforms and for no country can be held as enemy combatants for the duration, it would have short circuited many of the left’s arguments. What’s done is done, though. Now the ball is in Obama’s court. And it is remarkably similar to the one Bush used.
PS: The Wall Street Journal is not swooning from unicorn gas and pixie dust.
Email This
Posted by William Teach on May 23, 2009 8:08 am
» Filed Under ACLU, Barack Obama, Border Control/Homeland Security, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Guantanamo Bay, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, National Security, News, Politics As Usual, War On Terror, liberalism, terrorism
Trackback URL:
Comments
3 Responses to “ACLU And NY Times Gently Chide Obama For Detention Plans”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
This post might be more persuasive if you googled some examples of the ACLU “excoriating” President Bush. Since your argument is that the ACLU and NY Times treat Obama differently than Bush, you ought to prove it.
“You’re a bad boy, President Obama, and….oh, we could never stay mad at you. Come over and let us kiss your ring.”
Well, knowing Anthony Romero’s, ummm, errr, uhhhh, “orientation,” I suspect he’d like to kiss something else on Obama’s well-chiseled personage.
/snark
“the whole thrust of the ACLU and NY Times argument is that the terrorists at Gitmo should be treated not as people associated with a war, but as folks who have been picked up on public intoxication charges”
[ Editor's note: Gotta love this one!]
Hey moron, in case you haven’t noticed, we aren’t treating these people like we have treated enemy soliders in past wars. We have not declared war, we are not at war. What are we going to do hold these guys until the war is over like we have in the past?? Does that mean a life sentence?? These guys weren’t in an army, weren’t wearing uniforms, and weren’t fighting on behalf of a soverign nation. How do we know they were even soliders at all?? Maybe some of them were goat farmers in the wrong place at the wrong time?? So what is your brillent solution- just kill them all?? Hold them forever, without even determining there level of culpability?? Your an idiot. The ACLU is right on this one there must be some system of due process in place.