PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture


jAZ
05-26-2009, 11:37 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/petraeus-endorses-obamas_n_207513.html

Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture

First Posted: 05-26-09 09:08 AM | Updated: 05-26-09 11:36 AM

General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

The remarks appear to be the first from Petraeus since the closure of Guantanamo and Bush Administration use of enhanced interrogation techniques became hot-button partisan issues. They couldn't come at a better time for Obama. The president has found himself under intense political heat after the United States Senate soundly rejected his request for funds to shut down the prison. Dueling speeches between Obama and Cheney this past Thursday, moreover, did little to tamp down the controversy over the president's release of memos depicting the legal authorization fro the use of torture.

The president got a boost on Sunday when former Secretary of State Colin Powell came to his defense on both subjects. In conducting his RFE interview, Petraeus because the second figure who garners far more respect and popularity among Republicans than Cheney to offer his backing for Obama's national security plans.

Donger
05-26-2009, 11:45 AM
You expected the Central Command's honcho to disagree with his boss?

ChiTown
05-26-2009, 11:50 AM
You expected the Central Command's honcho to disagree with his boss?

No shit. Not just boss, but his NEW boss, which he'll have to kowtow to for the next 3+ years

wild1
05-26-2009, 11:55 AM
No shit.

that

blaise
05-26-2009, 11:56 AM
Now all Obama needs is an actual plan about what to do with them.

Stewie
05-26-2009, 11:56 AM
Let's see.

The economy is in shambles.

Unemployment is pushing 20%.

Obama has a nice smiley face.

We're printing money ad nauseum.

Our leaders are worried about a couple of hundred people in this big wide world.

Par for the course.

"Don't mind me. I'm just over here going through your stuff."

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:08 PM
You expected the Central Command's honcho to disagree with his boss?

He doesn't seem to speak publicly about the things he *disagrees* with Obama on.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:10 PM
He doesn't seem to speak publicly about the things he *disagrees* with Obama on.

:spock: Again, you're surprised by this?

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:15 PM
:spock: Again, you're surprised by this?

Given that he went public, and you admit he would certainly remain silent if he disagreed... your implication above is rather baseless and unreasonable.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:16 PM
and you admit he would certainly remain silent if he disagreed.

I said nothing of the kind.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:18 PM
I said nothing of the kind.

Of course not. You just assumed so in your response.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:21 PM
Of course not. You just assumed so in your response.

Wrong again.

blaise
05-26-2009, 12:24 PM
Basically he's saying: if you have some kind of plan on what to do with detainees go ahead and close it. Very enlightening stuff

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:28 PM
Wrong again.

Well, rather than just let your words stand to demonstrate your post here a lie, I should be more fair and give you the opportunity to stop talking around your opinions so that you can't be pinned down in the future, and just let you speak directly and correct the record you are so often unwilling to establish on your own.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:30 PM
Well, rather than just let your words stand to demonstrate your post here a lie, I should be more fair and give you the opportunity to stop talking around your opinions so that you can't be pinned down in the future, and just let you speak directly and correct the record you are so often unwilling to establish on your own.

You seem to be the only one having difficulty understanding what I'm saying.

ClevelandBronco
05-26-2009, 12:31 PM
By all means, Donger.

You must play on the Escher-like home field that jAZ has created in his mind.

It's only fair.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:33 PM
You seem to be the only one having difficulty understanding what I'm saying.

You aren't *saying* anything.

Donger
05-26-2009, 12:34 PM
You aren't *saying* anything.

You aren't very good at this.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:36 PM
By all means, Donger.

You must play on the Escher-like home field that jAZ has created in his mind.

It's only fair.

Donger is the one refusing to say what he means, and would rather claim things without having to go on record as claiming things.

jAZ
05-26-2009, 12:37 PM
You aren't very good at this.

No kidding. If only I learned to spend 8x the effort to talk around my point, I might gain the benefit of not actually having to defend anything in particular.

Chief Henry
05-26-2009, 12:42 PM
Since when did Gen. Patraeus have any significant credabilty to a Liberal ? Remember the mantra agaisnt him with the Surge ?

ClevelandBronco
05-26-2009, 12:50 PM
Donger is the one refusing to say what he means...

It seems to me that you're perturbed because he refuses to say what you mean.

HolmeZz
05-26-2009, 12:59 PM
You expected the Central Command's honcho to disagree with his boss?

I love how he's gone from fabled war hero under Bush to lackey under Obama. Just brilliant.

blaise
05-26-2009, 01:00 PM
It seems to me that you're perturbed because he refuses to say what you mean.

It's easy to say what jAZ means. It can all be boiled down to: Obama good. Everything else bad. jAZ would spend a week defending the color of Obama's necktie.

Donger
05-26-2009, 01:08 PM
I love how he's gone from fabled war hero under Bush to lackey under Obama. Just brilliant.

I don't think he's changed at all. It's generally (heh) a good idea not to disagree with one's boss, whether you do or not.

patteeu
05-30-2009, 10:56 AM
Given that he went public, and you admit he would certainly remain silent if he disagreed... your implication above is rather baseless and unreasonable.

1. George W. Bush had already said basically the same thing before he left office.

2. Petraeus and Bush endorsed "closure in a responsible manner" not closure at all costs.

3. Contrary to the thread title, Petraeus didn't endorse "Obama's Plans" because Obama doesn't have a plan. He may someday have a plan, and indeed, Petraeus says that the Justice Department is working on a plan, but today he has no plan.

4. It's pretty clear that both Petraeus and Bush endorse the closing of Gitmo for PR reasons not because we were wrong to have Gitmo in the first place. The more Obama says about the subject (i.e. the more Obama retains Bush policies of commissions, prolonged detention without trial, etc.), the more clear it becomes that Obama's reason for wanting Gitmo closed is purely PR too, although in his case he's also interested in domestic PR that will mollify his whacko base.

Cannibal
05-30-2009, 12:51 PM
1. George W. Bush had already said basically the same thing before he left office.

2. Petraeus and Bush endorsed "closure in a responsible manner" not closure at all costs.

3. Contrary to the thread title, Petraeus didn't endorse "Obama's Plans" because Obama doesn't have a plan. He may someday have a plan, and indeed, Petraeus says that the Justice Department is working on a plan, but today he has no plan.

4. It's pretty clear that both Petraeus and Bush endorse the closing of Gitmo for PR reasons not because we were wrong to have Gitmo in the first place. The more Obama says about the subject (i.e. the more Obama retains Bush policies of commissions, prolonged detention without trial, etc.), the more clear it becomes that Obama's reason for wanting Gitmo closed is purely PR too, although in his case he's also interested in domestic PR that will mollify his whacko base.

So do agree with Bush, Obama and Patraeus that it needs to be closed?

blaise
05-30-2009, 01:02 PM
So do agree with Bush, Obama and Patraeus that it needs to be closed?

I don't consider closing it to be the issue. It's what to do with the people once it's closed.

Cannibal
05-30-2009, 01:08 PM
I don't consider closing it to be the issue. It's what to do with the people once it's closed.

Have trials. If they are found guilty, life in prison without possibility of parole. If they are found not guilty deport them to Afganistan. If they show up on the battlefield again... kill them with extreme prejudice. They are not U.S. citizens, so they can be deported.

patteeu
05-30-2009, 01:34 PM
So do agree with Bush, Obama and Patraeus that it needs to be closed?

I don't think they believe it needs to be closed, so no I don't agree with your characterization. I think Gitmo is the best option currently available. When I hear a better alternative proposed, I'll agree that there is a better alternative. I don't have a problem with people trying to come up with a better alternative. It's a tradeoff between having a perfectly good facility that cost us quite a bit of money and the PR benefit we can gain from taking away the Gitmo card from our detractors, both domestic and foreign.

And let's be clear about why Gitmo is a PR difficulty in the first place. It's not because of the way Gitmo detainees were treated and it's not because Jihadists halfway around the globe don't like the fact that we are holding their brothers-in-arms. It's because of the segment of our own people who have made it their mission to undermine our war effort for the past several years either because they are idiots who honestly believe we are the nazis of the modern world or because they thought they could gain political advantage and chose that path in spite of the damage they would end up causing to our country.

patteeu
05-30-2009, 01:36 PM
Have trials. If they are found guilty, life in prison without possibility of parole. If they are found not guilty deport them to Afganistan. If they show up on the battlefield again... kill them with extreme prejudice. They are not U.S. citizens, so they can be deported.

So you're willing to kill people without a trial, but you don't want to detain indefinitely with due process that falls short of a full blown trial? That seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

VAChief
05-30-2009, 05:07 PM
So you're willing to kill people without a trial, but you don't want to detain indefinitely with due process that falls short of a full blown trial? That seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

Where did he say kill them without a trial? I don't see how it is inconsistent to say kill them on the battlefield. Unless you are suggesting that you can't be against torture and for killing on a battlefield.

patteeu
05-30-2009, 05:24 PM
Where did he say kill them without a trial? I don't see how it is inconsistent to say kill them on the battlefield. Unless you are suggesting that you can't be against torture and for killing on a battlefield.

How are we going to know who they are when they show up on the battlefield until we capture them? If he's just saying to kill the people we find on the battlefield up until the point where we capture them, he's left a huge hole in his prescription for those released detainees who end up getting re-captured. I assumed he meant that we should kill those guys too. I guess he can clarify his intention if I got it wrong.

jAZ
05-30-2009, 11:04 PM
It seems to me that you're perturbed because he refuses to say what you mean.

That's not remotely correct. I didn't have to give him a chance to explicitly say what he was appearing to suggest. I could have let his first words stand on thier own. It wasn't necessary for me to do that at all.

I thought I was doing the right thing by giving him a chance to clarify his intentions.

He refuses to do that. There is a reason he refuses. It's part of his game.

RINGLEADER
05-31-2009, 08:30 AM
He doesn't seem to speak publicly about the things he *disagrees* with Obama on.

Don't know if you've ever been in the military but this would never happen.

MacArthur was a great example of why this usually isn't a good move. And he was in the field.

stevieray
05-31-2009, 08:36 AM
poor jaz. scouring the web everyday looking for an article that can speak for him.

jAZ
05-31-2009, 08:40 AM
You seem to be the only one having difficulty understanding what I'm saying.

So be it. Doesn't excuse your refusal to speak directly instead of talking around the point when the person you are speaking to tells you that they need you to speak directly for them to understand.


EDIT: OLD POST... SORRY FOR NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

jAZ
05-31-2009, 08:57 AM
Don't know if you've ever been in the military but this would never happen.

MacArthur was a great example of why this usually isn't a good move. And he was in the field.

Got pretty far down the path to going to the AF Academy (in fact it was the only college I visited of the one's I applied to), but after going through high school ROTC, I realized I didn't fit the lifestyle.

So I claim no direct experience or knowledge.

But I do understand and and making your same point.

A General wouldn't never (if he's smart) come out and contradict his President publicly.

Thus, if a General who has a pretty public history of past support for a particular policy, comes out in a public interview and supports that policy publicly, it's not remotely rational for a person to assume he privately disagrees.

Pointing to the chain of command doesn't apply here.

jAZ
05-31-2009, 09:00 AM
poor jaz. scouring the web everyday looking for an article that can speak for him.

poor stevieray. scouring the ChiefsPlanet everyday looking for a poster that he can judge to be poor.

Cannibal
05-31-2009, 12:24 PM
So you're willing to kill people without a trial, but you don't want to detain indefinitely with due process that falls short of a full blown trial? That seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

If they are on the battlefield attacking soldiers they should be killed. This isn't rocket science.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2009, 02:52 PM
poor stevieray. scouring the ChiefsPlanet everyday looking for a poster that he can judge to be poor.

No. We don't have to look at all as long as you are posting here.

patteeu
05-31-2009, 02:57 PM
If they are on the battlefield attacking soldiers they should be killed. This isn't rocket science.

We already do that. I thought your addendum was intended to soften the bleeding-heart aspect of your proposal, but I guess not.

Cannibal
05-31-2009, 03:27 PM
We already do that. I thought your addendum was intended to soften the bleeding-heart aspect of your proposal, but I guess not.

Then my proposal works fine and Gitmo can be closed down. Life in prison or deportation. Easy.

Mojo Jojo
05-31-2009, 03:37 PM
Got pretty far down the path to going to the AF Academy (in fact it was the only college I visited of the one's I applied to), but after going through high school ROTC, I realized I didn't fit the lifestyle.

So I claim no direct experience or knowledge.

But I do understand and and making your same point.

A General wouldn't never (if he's smart) come out and contradict his President publicly.

Thus, if a General who has a pretty public history of past support for a particular policy, comes out in a public interview and supports that policy publicly, it's not remotely rational for a person to assume he privately disagrees.

Pointing to the chain of command doesn't apply here.

The last time a General of a specific action came out against his boss...Truman fired MacArthur.

mikey23545
05-31-2009, 04:24 PM
"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees." = <b>endorsement</b> ROFL

patteeu
05-31-2009, 08:00 PM
Then my proposal works fine and Gitmo can be closed down. Life in prison or deportation. Easy.

Your proposal has a huge hole in it. The fact that you don't see that makes you an unlikely candidate to come up with a realistic solution.