A New Legal "Process"?

OK. I’ve really refrained from saying anything about the upcoming Obama administration since the man hasn’t even been sworn in. However, upon reading Glen Greenwald’s Sunday post about Obama’s position on closing Guantanamo, I have to say something.

Here is what Obama stated (per Mr. Greenwald):

“It (the closing of Guantanamo) is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

You mean to tell me that he is considering creating a whole new set of rules to use evidence that is not admissible in our current legal system? And somehow allowing confessions under torture under this "process" is "adhering to the basic principles of Anglo American legal system"? What the heck is that? Maybe we should set up a new set of court proceedings for anything that can’t be used in our present court system. Hey, I’ve got it! If a person is found not guilty in our legal system, we’ll just create a system where he can be found guilty. To hell with double jeopardy, that only pertains to the current legal system…not if there were two different ones. Cool!

I totally agree with Glen Greenwald and his take on Obama’s scary statement. We must not find any kind of “process” which will allow evidence obtained during torture to be used against anyone. Obama’s posture is not what defines us as “civilized,” “decent” and “fair,” and does not conform to our Constitution’s intent.

Our laws have unfortunately enabled individuals guilty of crimes to be set free because due process was not followed. This is obviously a disagreeable outcome of adhering to our constitutional rights that were established by our forefathers in order to protect the innocent. We must, however, never deviate from these inalienable rights.

Letting one person be convicted by evading these rights can lead to the total obliteration of our fundamental laws by those who wish to have absolute power. A crack in the dike leads to the inevitable flood.

Barack Obama’s position is unacceptable. I hope that’s clear enough.