We have a new US President

[slamlander]

I watched the inauguration last night. It was a good show and a good speech, including some slams at the way things were done in the past [the Bush administration]. All in all, it sounded good but what’s he going to back it up with?

Well, the first thing seems to be GitMo. However the Brits, as usual, have it substantively wrong.

As for our common

Comments

[krikkert]

Given that I work for the immigration authorities, I can pretty much damn you on one point: Yes, you're correct that a person can always return to the country he's a citizen of. But how do you prove that citizenship? Any country has a right to refuse to accept a person that can't prove his citizenship. If you don't have a passport, you're SOL.

[slamlander]

Supposedly, they have papers for all, if not most, of the detainees.
Agreed, without proper papers, return is a problem. But at the very least, they can return then to where they found them.

[krikkert]

Not unless they've got some magical new authority. The government of, for instance, Afghanistan can refuse to accept anyone who's not a citizen. It's the responsibility of the transporting government to find out where the guy is really from.

Of course, this only applies to countries that actually follow the self-imposed rules we of this world have determined for ourselves.

[slamlander]

Ouch! That could hurt.
However, if they pulled them out of Afghnistan then they should be able to return them there, non?

[tomo2k]

Why are you blaming the Beeb for reporting the comments given to them by US Gov spokespeople?

It's not the Beeb who have it wrong - it's the US Gov.

[thewrongcrowd]

Yeah, the BBC doesn't have it as wrong as implied, though I don't see the offending phrase ("ordered jointly") as quoting government sources. All of the other BBC articles use the correct terminology: "jointly issued" (by the WH and the DoD), which is used to indicate concurrence (versus compliance) on the part of the Sec. of the Defense.

What neither the articles nor Slam are emphasizing is that the trials at issue are out of the hands of both the White House and Defense Secretary Gates. The military tribunals are authorized by Congress and will require Congressional action to change the process needed to deal with the detainees. What the order accomplished was to direct the military tribunal prosecutors to request a 120 delay in the tribunals in order to give the administration time to develop constitutional means of trying and either imprisoning or releasing the 50 detainees at issue. Interestingly, the tribunal judge is not required to grant that request (although they will almost certainly do so).

[slamlander]

The military tribunals are unconstitutional and US Congress doesn't have the authority to order the military directly. Bush allowed it as a dodge around the US Constitution. But, that wouldn't be the first time the sly bastard dodged this way.

Actually, I would love to see the Military Commissions Act under constitutional challenge. If it really comes to that, Obama could take it to the Supremes himself.

[tomo2k]

I agree with you on the actually. That would be fun to see.

And I *think* that would also open GW Bush to direct legal action for breaking the vow he made to 'uphold the constitution', or something like that.

[wisedonkey]

Give me Liberty or give me Death. Give me Liberty even if it means death.

[slamlander]

Exactly!
Any sense of security one may have is only an illusion.