It was a pleasure to lose this bet
By Thoreau
Accused enemy combatant Ali Al-Marri is being transferred to civilian custody to stand trial in a regular court of law. A few months ago I made a bet that Obama would assert the power to detain enemy combatants without trial. I am delighted to be proven wrong here, and I am also delighted to have sent $50 to Habitat for Humanity, as per the terms of the bet with commenter BubbaDave.
Comment by BubbaDave —
February 27, 2009 @ 12:48 am
I think we all kind of won that one. Not that that makes up for either the state secrets or Bagram cases, alas. But this is a baby step in the right direction, and I’m deeply relieved.
(But odds are good the ACLU will get its hands on a chunk of my money anyways. They do good works.)
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 27, 2009 @ 2:22 am
That seriously doesn’t suck.
Comment by Barry —
February 27, 2009 @ 9:41 am
It’s mixed, but a sign of how bad the Bush administration was that mixed is a major step up.
Comment by dhex —
February 27, 2009 @ 10:32 am
as pointed out elsewhere, this is also pretty good news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/holder-vows-to-end-raids_n_170119.html
Comment by Seward —
February 27, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
I am not going to defend the Bush administration, well, I guess I am, but not in any straightforward way…
I think that what the government has done in this war has been rather meek in comparison to the sorts of human rights violations of say the Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt administrations. For me it was more of the potential for mischief which came with the claims of Presidential authority we saw in the Bush presidency than the scope of the actions that troubled me. Not that I don’t think there were no significant problems, we just don’t seem to have a modern version of the Alien & Sedition Act or the Sedition Act or COINTELPRO.
Comment by Eric Martin —
February 27, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
That’s an interesting point Seward.
we just don’t seem to have a modern version of the Alien & Sedition Act or the Sedition Act or COINTELPRO
That is very true. And in a sense, hopeful: as if the citizenry were less inclined to let its government get away with the biggest stuff.
Comment by Seward —
February 27, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Eric Martin,
Yeah, I too see it as a sign that as a nation we’re perhaps more endeared to dissent (by the general public) and the like in war time. Now, as far as politicians are concerned, I think there might be less dissent now than was the case in the 19th century. These are all sort of big points though that might be hard to prove either way.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
February 27, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Seward: True, but on the other hand the scale of the threat was nothing like that faced by at least the Roosevelt and Lincoln administrations (Wilson is more arguable, but the national mobilization & dislocation in the Wilson case at least was significantly greater than under Bush II).
Comment by Mr. Jones —
February 27, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Barbarians at the gate, gentlemen.
There is a hell of a lot of money in the radical Islamic underground – for example, the foreign funding of Palestinian terrorism in Israel. If we process terrorists through civilian courts, we’re going to see Johnny Cochran slimeballs crawl out from under the rocks, and they will make a mockery of our civilian justice system just like OJ. And we will have the same results.
Idealism means nothing in a burning house.
Bring on the brickabats.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 27, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
There’s really no need to keep discussing stories about the Obama administration’s actions in the area detention and torture as chapters in your “Was I wrong about Obama?” drama.
You could just report them straight.
Now, I’m going to leave before I start gloating, because I don’t need to be discussing these stories through that framework, either.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 27, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
joe,
Well, considering that I announced a bet in public, I figured I should be a good loser, admit that I lost, announce the money sent to a good cause, and say I’m pleased by events.
Comment by Seward —
February 27, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
joe,
Well, there isn’t much reason to gloat in light of this.
Anyway, if folks haven’t read it, there is a great article in Esquire on these issues.
Comment by Seward —
February 27, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
By great I don’t mean that I agree with it; I just think it clarifies a lot of these issues, including how much Obama is keeping his “options open,” as the author notes.
Comment by Justin Slotman —
February 28, 2009 @ 1:43 am
I think this week’s BSG probably does deserve a thread though.
Comment by Ian —
February 28, 2009 @ 6:58 am
I think this week’s BSG probably does deserve a thread though.
So say we all.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
February 28, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
This is not as good of news as you think. The New Administration is still refusing to repudiate the powers “granted” to the Bush Administration in the Fourth Circuit’s decision in the Padilla case.
The Administration is only really moving the case because its afraid it will lose at the Supreme Court. The “four liberals” and Scalia have already signaled intent that they are willing to grant the Great Writ to U.S. Citizens.
This is the same kind of calculated move that Bush did with Padilla. We’ll see what happens to Padilla and Al-Marri after they get out of civilian prison.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
February 28, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
And I just oh-so-hate to pop joe’s gloating bubble, but here’s analysis that suggests that I am right in the motives behind this move:
SCOTUS blog talks Al-Marri
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 28, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
This is true, and by not mentioning the bet, that he lost it, etc. Thoreau deprived joe of a perfectly good chance to go on about how Thoreau was sleazily trying to hide the fact that he’d predicted this issue wrongly.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 28, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Sorry, by mentioning the bet, etc.
Comment by Johnny —
February 28, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
I wonder: what’s kicking the shit out of joe’s GABA levels lately?
Comment by Ken Houghton —
March 1, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Would be more thrilled you lost the bet if, as noted above, that meant that BarryO was going to stop detaining possible “enemy combatants” indefinitely.
Since it doesn’t, all it means is that Habitat for Humanity at its affiliates will be sending you a bunch of mailings in the future about how they are a “Christian organization” and your support shows your support of “Christian values.”
Comment by John Emerson —
March 1, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Evil Christians (at Trollblog): http://trollblog.wordpress.com/
Comment by Rarely Posts —
March 1, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Angry Optimist —
Al-Marri is not a U.S. citizen. So, not sure why you’re so confident about what would happen in the Supreme Court.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
March 2, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
“Rarely” – framed incorrectly. Sorry; the Writ applies to people held in detention on United States soil.
I’m pretty confident that this case will track the same way the Padilla case tracked: the Government charged Padilla (in civilian court) instead of losing at the Supreme Court level after winning in the Fourth Circuit. There’s a direct analogy, and citizenship is irrelevant with respect to the Writ.
Ask yourself this: IF the Obama Administration didn’t think it would lose the power to militarily detain al-Marri, why not let the case go forward? In the alternative, if the Administration doesn’t want this power any more, it could officially relinquish it (it didn’t) OR let the case go forward and let it lose (it didn’t do that either).
The reason for transfer here is clear: The Administration didn’t want to lose the power to detain.
Comment by Dave W. —
March 2, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
There’s really no need to keep discussing stories about the Obama administration’s actions in the area detention and torture as chapters in your “Was I wrong about Obama?†drama.
T. learns! I don’t see how anyone could get tired of that. I never tire of seeing it and it warms the cockles of my heart everytime. To T., I say, keep up the good learning. To all the h8rs, I say, you should learn from the learning that T. does here in cyberspace. It is a a lot of what makes him T.!
Comment by The Raven —
March 3, 2009 @ 3:10 am
“I think that what the government has done in this war has been rather meek in comparison to the sorts of human rights violations of say the Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt administrations.”
Unless, of course, you count a million dead Iraqis and the disaster in Afghanistan.
And losing Obama bin Laden.
Comment by The Raven —
March 3, 2009 @ 3:20 am
Dave W. I wish conservatives and libertarians would learn from joy, rather than pain. An awful lot of people died to teach this lesson. Nonetheless, thank you, Thoreau.
Krawk!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 4, 2009 @ 10:04 am
IF the Obama Administration didn’t think it would lose the power to militarily detain al-Marri, why not let the case go forward
Because they think that people detained on suspicion of terrorism should be given trials?
Nah, that can’t be it. Hatessesssssss the Obamasssss we doessssss!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 4, 2009 @ 10:40 am
I love this theory: Obama rejecting Bush’s detention policies and treating terrorism suspects in accordance with the Constitution and federal law is actually evidence of his support for Bush-era detention doctrines.
Jesus, loonies, take yes for an answer for once!