Zero-Fifths of a Person

[mrjarrell]

Obama and the government just keep sneaking things through. Very quietly doing and passing things with the help of their lapdogs in the press. When he was a candidate he was against torture but, now that he's in command and can use that power against his enemies, (real or perceived) it's just fine. He and his Supreme Court ruled that it's OK to torture and should be expected. It's also OK to disappear people, simply by declaring them non-persons. Bush started it and Obama is carrying it onward. This is power that should never have been put in the governments hands. If they can use against you, they will. Say the wrong thing, gather in the wrong place and espouse incorrect beliefs. It's all happened before.

via Wendy McElroy (with links)

We've been saying for over a year that Obama is no better than Bush. If you thought he was going to do something about torture or civil liberties, think again (hat tip to Naked Capitalism):

It happened earlier this week, in a discreet ruling that attracted almost no notice and took little time. ... After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, 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." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

Yep. "Passionate arguments from the Obama administration," to allow them to continue to torture people, and to declare them un-persons. (Not even three-fifths of a person, a parallel some have noticed.)

All the Obamanauts had to do was argue the other way -- they didn't need to pass legislation, or issue an executive order, or bring a new court case. Just ask the Supremes to hear this case, and state their opinion that the lower court erred. Evidently that is too much to ask of the Anointed One, or as he should now be known, the Torturer-in-Chief.

 

[MyGlockRocks19]

"Unperson" sounds awfully familiar to me.

 

[gmviso]

It's also OK to disappear people, simply by declaring them non-persons. Bush started it and Obama is carrying it onward.

via Wendy McElroy (with links)

Actually, the most recent "disappearing" began under the the Clinton administration. It is called "Rendition".

"The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by US President Bill Clinton in 1995.[15] (Source Wikipedia)"

 

[Mgderf]

Actually, the most recent "disappearing" began under the the Clinton administration. It is called "Rendition".

"The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by US President Bill Clinton in 1995.[15] (Source Wikipedia)"

Clinton honed his "rendition" skills in Little Rock. Many people were "disappeared" from Arkansa, and beyond.

You can NOT conVINCE me that he did not Foster these ideals before he every reached Washington.

 

[jmiller676]

Clinton honed his "rendition" skills in Little Rock. Many people were "disappeared" from Arkansa, and beyond.

You can NOT conVINCE me that he did not Foster these ideals before he every reached Washington.

I see what you did there.

 

[lumpy39us]

And that is the point, these changes are directed at the people of the US. Not outside but inside.The Patriot Act and DHS have made many public statements and issued pamphlets, enough for me to believe that they consider me a potential threat. I'm in the Military been deployed and come to Internet sights like this. Those new rules are for people like me and not real threats!

 

[dross]

I can't find the ruling referenced in the blog. Anyone have a reference?

 

[mrjarrell]

I do believe the case is Rasul, et al., v. Myers, et al. (09-227)

The Court’s denial of review of Rasul, et al., v. Myers, et al. (09-227) leaves intact a federal appeals court ruling that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and ten military officers are legally immune to claims of torture and religious bias against inmates who were at Guantanamo but have since been released. The Obama Administration had urged the Court not to hear the case, saying that, whatever claims the four ex-detainees were now making, they had no legal basis for those challenges at the time they were at the U.S. military prison in Cuba — that is, between January 2002 and March 2004.
The D.C. Circuit Court had ruled in favor of immunity, and in doing so avoided a repeat of its earlier decision — vacated by the Supreme Court — that Guantanamo prisoners had no constitutional rights. The Justices had ordered reconsideration of that conclusion. Instead of ruling anew on the legal challenges, the Circuit Court opted for an immunity finding. The Supreme Court’s denial of review does not stand as a precedent on that point, or on the substance of the ex-prisoners’ challenges.

From SCOTUS Blog
That's the only case in the time frame.

 

[JCA1776]

Actually, the most recent "disappearing" began under the the Clinton administration. It is called "Rendition".

"The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by US President Bill Clinton in 1995.[15] (Source Wikipedia)"

From what I can find, I do believe the "Extraordinary Rendition" program began during the Clinton Administration.

Just a comment regarding referencing Wikipedia, though. I do not consider Wikipedia a credible source since it can be edited by anyone. While there is much information there that is true, whenever I want to give a reference, I find other sources.