Indefinite Detention

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Mark Danner, contributor to the New York Review of Books and the author of Stripping Bare the Body: Politics, Violence, War, discusses President Obama's shift in opinion about a bill that would allow indefinite detention. Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab American Association of New York, joins the conversation. 


Mark Danner and Linda Sarsour

Comments [20]

John A.

This issue is going to need an explanatory speech from the President or else without it he is likely to lose the youth vote that was such a factor 3 years ago. Even with it there is this danger. 'NDAA 2012' is resonating loudly in the youth internet. Personally I don't see any difference at all from something Cheney/Gonzalez/Yoo would have done and obviously I would not vote for a President Cheney.

Dec. 22 2011 02:06 PM
Bob from Brooklyn

Charles from Carmel, I read your post, and totally agree with your comments and position. It amazes me that journalists like Brian don't understand the significance of the position that this president is taking. I wonder if Brian would be able to answer the question, of how President Obama now hasn't already violated the consitution, in calling for the assasination of Anwar Awlaki an american citizen, without any form of due process.
Glenn Greenwald a noted civil rights attorney recently said, " not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death without no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are state secrets, and thus no court may adjudicate their legality." the way Brian, Obama also killed Awlaki's 16 year old son, and his 17 year old nephew both were American....citizens!!

Dec. 22 2011 01:26 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

To John A

I still remember the hearings by HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee) when I was a kid and Joe McCarthy was not TOTALLY wrong. He was just overly fanatical and personally ambitious, and a drunk. SO when he went overboard, Murrow did a job on him on his TV show, and that was the end of Senator McCarthy.

How do I know that McCarthy was not totally off base? Because I was a little liberal Jewish commie myself as a kid. Don't ask me why. My parents didn't teach me anything. They were no Reds. I just had this inborn liberal bias, and actually it took my living in Israel a decade to cure me of socialism once and for all. So the ingrained liberal bias, just like ingrained fascist tendencies, both have to be contested.

Dec. 22 2011 11:46 AM
John A.

"Anyone who embraces Jihad is like someone who embraces Communism"
That's why Joe McCarthy was able to ride his popularity all the way to the presidency. Wait, that's Not what happened.

Dec. 22 2011 11:28 AM
Jim B

To the show's producers, the potential long-term consequences of the NDAA demand a return to this topic in greater detail.

Dec. 22 2011 11:25 AM
The Truth from Becky

A good idea? What if you were "accused" in another Country and the law was such? Either way I support the President because I am sure it was a well thought out decision.

Dec. 22 2011 11:24 AM
Big Jock from nyc


You are a very wise person.. be you know a terrorist when you see one..

Maybe Bum can consult you before he assassinates some one.. put up your number...

You are s secular all knowing oracle...

Dec. 22 2011 11:21 AM
christine from tenafly nj

Isn't the only way 2 make sure this is declared illegal forever is 2 get it into law and then have the supreme court declare it unconstitutional?

Dec. 22 2011 11:21 AM
Ridge Kennedy from West Orange, NJ

C'mon -- The President would close Guantanamo -- it's the Republicans who *insist* on keeping it open. Obama is trying to create something rational out of an ad hoc mess made by others -- and let's live in the real world -- he can't, in the current political environment, appear *soft* on terror.

He said he'd get us out of Iraq. Promise kept. Let's see how this whole area plays out in a second Obama administration. But we have to get there first.

Dec. 22 2011 11:21 AM
Nick from UWS

The idea must be entertained that President Obama might be one of the most evil Presidents in our history...blandly supporting civil rights to pacify the US populace out of one side of his face while secretly acting as the architect of an Orwellian police state with the other.

Dec. 22 2011 11:21 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

The end of hostilities comes with the end of Jihad as a form of warfare and subversion.

Dec. 22 2011 11:19 AM
Big Jock from nyc


You are limiting your self to some ideals that great men like The Bum don't feel are as important as getting the right terrorist at the right time..

PS watch your back, hope Bummy don't pick you as a terrorist... cause you dead then..

Dec. 22 2011 11:19 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Anyone who embraces Jihad is like someone who embraces Communism. So that is already an anti-American sentiment. But anyone who actually commits violence in the name of Jihad is an illegal combatant with no rights of a POW. He is engaging in illegal combat against our secular constitutional state.

Dec. 22 2011 11:18 AM
Big Jock from nyc

Our president will know who a terrorist is when he or she sees one...

Just hope it's not me or my kids....

Look at China there all wise leaders know who the criminals are when they see them.

Dec. 22 2011 11:15 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

It is precisely BECAUSE Obama is a constitutional lawyer, that he KNOWS that these terrorists have no legal recourse under our constitution. Jihad is permanent war, and those who engage in violent jihad are warriors not covered by the Geneva Conventions, because they do not adhere to the secular internationally accepted laws of war. So Obama knows that they have no constitutional protections! If they did, he'd argue them brilliantly.

Dec. 22 2011 11:15 AM
Big Jock from nyc

O Bum A?

What a looser he is, suckered by the banks, played like fiddle by the republicans, the list goes on...

His star just keeps shining brighter and brighter..

Dec. 22 2011 11:12 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

It shows that Obama is not doing everything wrong. I applaud his decision in this case. All detainees who have committed terrorist acts in the name of Jihad, or in the name of anything, should be given life sentences anyway, or even executed. Why did we execute the Rosenbergs? Illegal combatants do not have the rights of either POWs captured in war, nor of common criminals. They are either traitors, if they are citizens, or illegal combatants if they are not. Either way, they deserve no protections of either military or civilian law. They can be summarily tried and executed. That's what we did to BEnedict Arnold, who before he became a traitor had been one of America's best field commanders.

Dec. 22 2011 11:12 AM

Article VI:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

How is it possible to get around this?


Dec. 22 2011 10:38 AM
Charles from Carmel, NY

Is Obama moving closer to Bush on detention? Brian, where have you been? One of Obama's earliest actions in 2009 was to send his lawyers into court several times to defend Bush's claims of power to violate the Bill of Rights on detention without trial. Obama also went FURTHER than Bush in claiming the right to assassinate an American citizen in a foreign country without trial, an assassination which was later carried out. Bush never claimed this privilege. Obama has been WORSE than Bush of Bill of Rights issues in several areas. Have you been SLEEPING??

Dec. 22 2011 10:20 AM

The war criminal Barack Obama is a great deal _more_ conservative than Bush was. Bush expressly rejected some of the extreme attacks on the Constitution that so-called constitutional scholar Obama is now endorsing.

Dec. 22 2011 10:02 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.