Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

[K Carlson]

Naked Capitalism link to "Supreme Court Guts Due Process Protection". The article describes how the "Supreme court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a 'suspected enemy combatant' by the president or his designated minions is no longer a 'person'".

I'll parrot one poster's response--"Speechless".http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/...rotection.html

[pianodoctor]

Re: Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

Will "Change You Can Believe In" take its place in history alongside "Read My Lips- No New Taxes", "I Am Not A Crook", and "Mission Accomplished"?

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

Will "Change You Can Believe In" take its place in history alongside "Read My Lips- No New Taxes", "I Am Not A Crook", and "Mission Accomplished"?

These are not accidents-rather I would say that by now -most of the people on this board are nether surprised and most importantly outraged. This continually grinding away at moral fiber, indignation , honesty etc etc ad nauseum has the payoff of an increasingly docile and continually disillusioned population that becomes the passive hostage who feels there is no escape.

Many will of course resort to the Patty Hearst Syndrome feeling that if you can't beat em join em -is the best way to ensure their survival.

Welcome to the terrordome.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

Gee, and now exactly why did Obama decide to close GITMO:confused:

[c1ue]

Re: Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

Obama isn't doing anything unexpected - he said he would head a government based on the rule of law.

It was just that few expected which laws he would base it on...

[Bruno T]

Re: Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

The Contrary Market View

Forecasting our economic future since 1998
You Heard it Here First

The above is from the heading of the website. Curious....why does one come to a website with this heading and create threads about political issues almost completely unrelated to economics? I go to lots of other financial sites and don't see this. Why here? While economics and politics are certainly related, many of the threads on politics are not those related to economics in any way. Doesn't the daily KOS or Sean Hannity's web page have a place to pontificate ad nauseum about this stuff?

[Rajiv]

Re: Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

Washington's blog had a very interesting article on a related topic - Is America Still a Nation of Laws?

Congress and the White House may have been co-opted by the big lobbyists and Wall Street insiders, but you may assume that at least the third branch of government - the courts - are still following the rule of law and protecting the little guy.
Unfortunately, the American system of justice is also under attack.
I'm not talking simply about judicial corruption. True, as I pointed out on February 17, 2009:

Senior judges in Pennsylvania have pleaded guilty to falsely convicting and imprisoning hundreds of youths (they got kickbacks from the prisons).
***
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to hear a case regarding the corrupt judges. A month later, only after the judges confessed to criminal wrongdoing, did the Supreme Court change its mind and take any interest

In fact, I'm talking about something much more disturbing than simple corruption. I am talking about abandoning the very foundations of our judicial system.

For example, as I noted on July 21, 2009:
The New York Times is providing important coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court's May 18, 2009 decision in the case known as Ashcroft v. Iqbal:

The lower courts have certainly understood the significance of the decision, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which makes it much easier for judges to dismiss civil lawsuits right after they are filed. They have cited it more than 500 times in just the last two months.
“Iqbal is the most significant Supreme Court decision in a decade for day-to-day litigation in the federal courts,” said Thomas C. Goldstein, an appellate lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington.

Why is Iqbal such an important case?
As the Times notes:

For more than half a century, it has been clear that all a plaintiff had to do to start a lawsuit was to file what the rules call “a short and plain statement of the claim” in a document called a complaint. Having filed such a bare-bones complaint, plaintiffs were entitled to force defendants to open their files and submit to questioning under oath.
This approach, particularly when coupled with the American requirement that each side pay its own lawyers no matter who wins, gave plaintiffs settlement leverage. Just by filing a lawsuit, a plaintiff could subject a defendant to great cost and inconvenience in the pre-trial fact-finding process called discovery...
Information about wrongdoing is often secret. Plaintiffs claiming they were the victims of employment discrimination, a defective product, an antitrust conspiracy or a policy of harsh treatment in detention may not know exactly who harmed them and how before filing suit. But plaintiffs can learn valuable information during discovery.
The Iqbal decision now requires plaintiffs to come forward with concrete facts at the outset, and it instructs lower court judges to dismiss lawsuits that strike them as implausible.

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the five-justice majority, “requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Note those words: Plausible. Common sense.

So what is the real world effect of the Supreme Court's decision?
.
.
.
.
.
.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

Rajiv- I followed the Democracy Now link and read the transcript. Not sure if you noticed -but the companies who gave the kick backs to the Judge were not identified nor prosecuted!! Goes back to the Nation of Laws- I mean I guess -its just darn unamerican to sue or penalize corporations that send young american kids to jail for the sake of profits !

[oddlots]

Re: Obama OK with torture, Court agrees

The Contrary Market View

Forecasting our economic future since 1998
You Heard it Here First

The above is from the heading of the website. Curious....why does one come to a website with this heading and create threads about political issues almost completely unrelated to economics? I go to lots of other financial sites and don't see this. Why here? While economics and politics are certainly related, many of the threads on politics are not those related to economics in any way. Doesn't the daily KOS or Sean Hannity's web page have a place to pontificate ad nauseum about this stuff?

Welcome to itulipland. Couple of suggestions. The news forum isn't necessarily the heart of the site though it's certainly the most active and most free-for all.

The heart of the site to me lies in EJ's essays and associated content (interviews etc.) that start in the free site and finish in the subscriber's only section.

It's really worth reading all of these: they are the value here primarily.

Beyond that the discussion forums in the subscriber section tend to be more focused on economic issues and the forums led by individuals (e/g., Bart) are more focused still.

It's been well described as an easter egg hunt: it was a long time before I started to realise how much was really on offer here. I would suggest you just spend some time surfing around in the subscriber only forums without getting too hung up on where it will lead you...

... and treat the public news thread as the local pub / Speaker's Corner where you get the local colour...

IMHO of course.