I HATE being right!

( – promoted by ek hornbeck)

A month and a half ago, I posted this essay on the state of the Supreme Court. In it, I stated:

Also, it must be noted, that the Obama administration has already signaled that it will use indefinite detention.  In addition, his administration has already floated the idea of preventive detention.

So… who do YOU think is going to be his next pick?

The quote finishes my essay which details out how if President Obama is serious about pushing an indefinite detention law, Elena Kagan would be his natural choice to replace Justice Stevens.

Guess who his nominee is to be?

Yep, you guessed it (or, you simply watch the news), it’s Elena Kagan.

Now, there are some who argue that Elena Kagan defending existing law as Solicitor General doesn’t mean she would vote that way as a Supreme Court Justice. This argument is true. However, it is not the case.

The words spoken by Elena Kagan were during her confirmation hearing for the post of Solicitor General.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law – indefinite detention without a trial – even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

This is a personal viewpoint spoken during confirmation, not as Solicitor General defending an existing law. Even Prof. Jonathan Turley agrees with this analysis of mine.

It won’t be long after she is confirmed that you will hear that President Obama is working with Republicans on a deal to get an indefinite detention statute. It is 2010 and election season will start next year. He will want this done as soon as possible.

As I state in this essay, “Who is a Terrorist?“, there is already a battle going on in the Dept. of Justice just who would be covered by such a law.

The discussions, which shaped classified court briefs filed this month, have centered on how broadly to define the types of terrorism suspects who may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners. The outcome of the yearlong debate could reverberate through national security policies, ranging from the number of people the United States ultimately detains to decisions about who may be lawfully selected for killing using drones.

The writing is on the wall. Our government will put into American law that the government can indefinitely imprison a person without charge or trial indefinitely, and, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan will be the deciding vote that makes it “legal”.


Skip to comment form

    • Edger on May 11, 2010 at 04:32

    The government will put into American law that the government can indefinitely extend Bush/Cheney Administration policies and thwart the Constitution.

    Elections don’t have consequences. Anymore, apparently.

  1. Our government will put into American law that the government can indefinitely imprison a person without charge or trial indefinitely,

    you’ll probably be right on that too…. sigh…. but that is already a fait accompli in effect, if not in actual formal law, no?

    • TMC on May 11, 2010 at 04:56

    That was a great essay. Michael. Obama is getting more and more neo-conservative every day. He always was right wing.  

  2. Is my psychically arrived at hypothesis.  And no I don’t know this person, have no bias for or against but my spiritual self, that channeling ESP intuition says something.  Peace prize for illegal wars, the media vaccumm about torture the connection of Afghanistan or Iraq to 911.  The tazer grandma police state Nazi corpo-fascist new Afmerikastan.  The stranegly dead battery of my wife’s cell phone which was charged all night.

  3. Once again, right on schedule.

Comments have been disabled.