PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Guantanamo will remain open for business.


Direckshun
01-29-2013, 09:25 AM
Pretty big defeat for the civil libertarians among us.

I remain convinced that Gitmo and its usage in the wake of the "War on Terror" will remain a blot on American history. The complete black hole of legal protections we ensured there grew the pool of recruits for terrorists world wide (probably still does), and the enhanced interrogation we enacted there will essentially don this structure as a monument to American torture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/state-dept-closes-office-working-on-closing-guantanamo-prison.html?_r=1&

Office Working to Close Guantánamo Is Shuttered
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: January 28, 2013

FORT MEADE, Md. — The State Department on Monday reassigned Daniel Fried, the special envoy for closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and will not replace him, according to an internal personnel announcement. Mr. Fried’s office is being closed, and his former responsibilities will be “assumed” by the office of the department’s legal adviser, the notice said.

The announcement that no senior official in President Obama’s second term will succeed Mr. Fried in working primarily on diplomatic issues pertaining to repatriating or resettling detainees appeared to signal that the administration does not currently see the closing of the prison as a realistic priority, despite repeated statements that it still intends to do so.

Mr. Fried will become the department’s coordinator for sanctions policy and will work on issues including Iran and Syria.

The announcement came as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other Guantánamo Bay detainees facing death penalty charges before a military tribunal (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/detainees/military_commissions/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) over the Sept. 11 attacks made their first public appearance since October on Monday, sitting quietly in a high-security courtroom at the naval base in Cuba as pretrial hearings resumed. A closed-circuit feed of the proceedings was shown at Fort Meade.

Mr. Mohammed, with a red-dyed beard and a turban, wore a camouflage jacket over white garb. All five detainees spoke briefly in telling the judge, Col. James Pohl of the Army, that they understood their right not to attend future days of the hearing. Only one detainee, Walid bin Attash, spoke further, complaining through an interpreter that the defendants were not motivated to attend because “the prosecution does not want us to hear or understand or say anything.”

The session mainly focused on technical matters like nuances in an order on handling classified information. At one point, the video feed was censored for nearly a minute. It was not clear why; Colonel Pohl appeared upset and said no classified information had been discussed.

Mr. Fried’s special envoy post was created in 2009, shortly after Mr. Obama took office and promised to close the prison in his first year. A career diplomat, Mr. Fried traveled the world negotiating the repatriation of some 31 low-level detainees and persuading third-party countries to resettle about 40 who were cleared for release but could not be sent home because of fears of abuse.

But the outward flow of detainees slowed almost to a halt as Congress imposed restrictions on further transfers, leaving Mr. Fried with less to do. He was eventually assigned to work on resettling a group of Iranian exiles, known as the M.E.K., who were living in a refugee camp in Iraq, in addition to his Guantánamo duties.

Ian Moss, a spokesman for Mr. Fried’s office, said its dismantling did not mean that the administration had given up on closing the prison. “We remain committed to closing Guantánamo, and doing so in a responsible fashion,” Mr. Moss said. “The administration continues to express its opposition to Congressional restrictions that impede our ability to implement transfers.”

Besides barring the transfer of any detainees into the United States for prosecution or continued detention, lawmakers prohibited transferring them to other countries with troubled security conditions, like Yemen or Sudan. In the most recent defense authorization act, enacted late last year, lawmakers extended those restrictions and expanded them to cover even detainees scheduled to be repatriated under a plea deal with military prosecutors.

Mr. Obama had threatened to veto the bill, but instead he signed it while issuing a signing statement claiming that he had the constitutional power, as commander in chief, to lawfully override such statutory restrictions (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/us/politics/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-conditions.html) on the handling of wartime prisoners. Mr. Obama’s intentions were not clear, however, even to internal administration officials.

Last July, before the latest statute, the Pentagon repatriated a Sudanese man (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/world/africa/convicted-al-qaeda-member-is-transferred-from-guantanamo-to-sudan.html), Ibrahim al Qosi, after he pleaded guilty before a tribunal to conspiracy and supporting terrorism and served out his sentence as part of a deal.

Another Sudanese man who pleaded guilty to similar charges, Noor Uthman Muhammed, is scheduled to be repatriated in about a year. There is now doubt, however, about whether the military can live up to that agreement.

In recent months, the federal appeals court in Washington has vacated guilty verdicts by tribunals against two other detainees convicted of similar (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/dispute-over-clothing-dominates-guantanamo-hearing.html) charges (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/dispute-over-clothing-dominates-guantanamo-hearing.html) — the only two detainees to date to be convicted after a trial, rather than through a plea deal — because the offenses were not international war crimes.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided to continue arguing in court that it was lawful to bring such charges before a military commission. That has led to a growing split between the administration and Brig. Gen. Mark S. Martins, the chief prosecutor of the tribunals, who objected to that decision and unsuccessfully sought permission (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/us/pentagon-wont-drop-conspiracy-charge-against-khalid-shaikh-mohammed.html) to withdraw conspiracy from the list of charges against the Sept. 11 defendants.

On Sunday, on the eve of the hearing, General Martins addressed (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/562514-27-jan-2013-statement-of-the-chief-prosecutor.html) recent coverage (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/military-tribunals-and-international-war-crimes.html) of the split. He argued that any disagreement was a good thing because it showed that tribunal officials were not “moving in lock step,” but rather were independent, which “if anything bolsters, rather than undermines, confidence in the military commissions system.”

stonedstooge
01-29-2013, 09:31 AM
Another Obama failure

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P8sTVIamljE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

CoMoChief
01-29-2013, 10:08 AM
Another Obama lie.

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 10:37 AM
Guantanamo check, Patriot Act check, HR347 check. Yeah ole President Obeyme is making good on his hope and change :rolleyes: All you Obama butt boys need to figure out how to blame Bush~

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 10:48 AM
Another Obama failure



The "problem" is that of the top 10 things Obama voters wanted, closing Gitmo was about #100. No one care.

loochy
01-29-2013, 10:50 AM
Another Obama failure

Nah, I doubt he ever intended to follow through. It was just pandering.

Another Obama lie.

Yup. Get the votes, then do what you want.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:52 AM
The "problem" is that of the top 10 things Obama voters wanted, closing Gitmo was about #100. No one care.

I would strongly disagree.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:53 AM
Nah, I doubt he ever intended to follow through. It was just pandering.

Yup. Get the votes, then do what you want.

I think that's an unfair characterization.

He could never garner the support in Congress to get this thing closed.

That doesn't escape him of culpability (I don't believe he ever pushed hard), but it was never all on him.

Reaper16
01-29-2013, 11:03 AM
The "problem" is that of the top 10 things Obama voters wanted, closing Gitmo was about #100. No one care.

Don't speak for me.

blaise
01-29-2013, 11:26 AM
The "problem" is that of the top 10 things Obama voters wanted, closing Gitmo was about #100. No one care.

Yeah, it was only mentioned every single day during Obama's first campaign. It was no big deal at all.

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 11:27 AM
I would strongly disagree.

Don't speak for me.

Closing Gitmo was really that important to you? Like top 5 important things Obama should do when elected?

To some number, it was probably the very most important thing. Maybe you. To the vast majority of the 70,000,000 people who voted Obama in 2008, I doubt it was real high on the priority list.

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 11:28 AM
Yeah, it was only mentioned every single day during Obama's first campaign. It was no big deal at all.

Yeah, sure. Gee, I hope it doesn't hurt his re-election chances.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:29 AM
Closing Gitmo was really that important to you? Like top 5 important things Obama should do when elected?

To some number, it was probably the very most important thing. Maybe you. To the vast majority of the 70,000,000 people who voted Obama in 2008, I doubt it was real high on the priority list.

I have no idea if I'd put it in my top five. Where ever I'd rank it, it's pretty damn important.

That's true whether people had it in their minds when they voted or not.

blaise
01-29-2013, 11:31 AM
Yeah, sure. Gee, I hope it doesn't hurt his re-election chances.

Yeah, it was never discussed. You're right. It was mentioned maybe once or twice. Maybe, maybe three times.

blaise
01-29-2013, 11:34 AM
I guess we now find out that cosmo is actually a bigger Obama apologist than Direckshun. So, good job, cosmo. I think that makes you the official champ.

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 11:42 AM
Yeah, it was never discussed. You're right. It was mentioned maybe once or twice. Maybe, maybe three times.

Never said it wasn't discussed. You said "every day." In my opinion, I don't think this was a major issue of the election and a reason that Obama earned a lot of votes.

The economy, taxes, health care, energy, immigration, ending the wars, and even "women's issues" like abortion--I think those are the things people actually voted on.

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 11:45 AM
I guess we now find out that cosmo is actually a bigger Obama apologist than Direckshun. So, good job, cosmo. I think that makes you the official champ.

I said that for most people, even most Obama voters, I think Gitmo is not an issue that holds the same concern as several others. How is that being an apologist? Obama said he'd do it and didn't.

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 11:51 AM
I have no idea if I'd put it in my top five. Where ever I'd rank it, it's pretty damn important.
That's true whether people had it in their minds when they voted or not.

To you. I guess you can find me a poll that suggests otherwise, but in my opinion, closing Gitmo was not a top concern of voters. Some number surely was/is in favor of it, but as for being a major concern--I don't think so.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:53 AM
To you.

Damn straight to me.

Also, to due process. To the Geneva Conventions. To our civil liberties. And to the people we've potentially detained who are innocent.

I guess you can find me a poll that suggests otherwise, but in my opinion, closing Gitmo was not a top concern of voters. Some number surely was/is in favor of it, but as for being a major concern--I don't think so.

I don't care what the poll numbers are. This is a critical failure.

blaise
01-29-2013, 12:03 PM
Never said it wasn't discussed. You said "every day." In my opinion, I don't think this was a major issue of the election and a reason that Obama earned a lot of votes.

The economy, taxes, health care, energy, immigration, ending the wars, and even "women's issues" like abortion--I think those are the things people actually voted on.

It was mentioned often. It was a huge topic of conversation during the campaign. If you can't admit that then you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. That, or you're just incredibly delusional.

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 12:04 PM
Damn straight to me.

Also, to due process. To the Geneva Conventions. To our civil liberties. And to the people we've potentially detained who are innocent.



I don't care what the poll numbers are. This is a critical failure.

My only assertion here was that people as a whole don't care that much about it--especially compared to other issues that are "in their faces" everyday. Whether it is objectively the most important issue in the world has nothing to do with it. My assertion is that, most people, even the ones in favor of closing it, aren't that upset about it not happening.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 12:04 PM
I vote to send cosmos to Guantanamo.

FishingRod
01-29-2013, 12:06 PM
Damn straight to me.

Also, to due process. To the Geneva Conventions. To our civil liberties. And to the people we've potentially detained who are innocent.



I don't care what the poll numbers are. This is a critical failure.

I give you credit for recognizing what I would call a betrayal from the QB of your team. If both sides did a little less excuse making for “their” party of “their” guy we might all be better served.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:08 PM
What a great example of your vast experience participating in threads regarding civil liberties. You're a fraud.

In what way?

blaise
01-29-2013, 12:09 PM
My only assertion here was that people as a whole don't care that much about it--especially compared to other issues that are "in their faces" everyday. Whether it is objectively the most important issue in the world has nothing to do with it. My assertion is that, most people, even the ones in favor of closing it, aren't that upset about it not happening.

Of course not. The guy who they voted for is in office now. For the ones you're talking about, the outrage over Gitmo ended when Bush left office. Like your's probably did.

listopencil
01-29-2013, 12:10 PM
In what way?

Nah, never mind. I'm not even going to start getting into another one of these endless threads with you. I really don't feel like page after page of explaining basic concepts to you, while you pretend not to understand.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 12:11 PM
Nah, never mind. I'm not even going to start getting into another one of these endless threads with you. I really don't feel like page after page of explaining basic concepts to you, while you pretend not to understand.

Because I'm not sure if I'd put the Gitmo issue in my Top 5 issues (which I wouldn't even know how to do), I'm a "fraud" on civil liberties?

That's your argument?

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 04:19 PM
To you. I guess you can find me a poll that suggests otherwise, but in my opinion, closing Gitmo was not a top concern of voters. Some number surely was/is in favor of it, but as for being a major concern--I don't think so.

Keep towing the line LMAO it was a big part of his campaign he also claimed he would dump the patriot act. It matters little to a simpleminded fan that worships his hero. He can do no wrong in you eyes. It is humorous to witness such blind loyalty. The Hannity, Beck, crowd thinks he is radical left. The not even radical but hard left have openly expressed disappointment on his Bush like presidency~

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 05:08 PM
I would strongly disagree.It is way down on the list. Maybe not 100 but way down.

This is really all Bush's fault. He kicked the can down the road by utilizing GITMO. He couldn't figure out what to do with them either. He had the same issues we have now.

Yes, we can put some in max security prisons. But, we would have to have a trial. Thats not going to happen because of what happened under Bush's presidency. Some of these are religious fanatics that will kill again and if locked up, try to convert other prisoners to his way of thinking.

My feelings on GITMO changed when I took my current job. Talked and worked with many people who also worked in GITMO.

It's a classic rock and a hard place.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 05:09 PM
It is way down on the list. Maybe not 100 but way down.

This is really all Bush's fault. He kicked the can down the road by utilizing GITMO. He couldn't figure out what to do with them either. He had the same issues we have now.

Yes, we can put some in max security prisons. But, we would have to have a trial. Thats not going to happen because of what happened under Bush's presidency.

It's a classic rock and a hard place.

I agree that Bush got us into this box, but we elected Obama partially because he told us he'd map a way out.

He's failed, dishearteningly, on that score.

KC Dan
01-29-2013, 05:09 PM
This is really all Bush's fault.
thread ovah

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 05:13 PM
I agree that Bush got us into this box, but we elected Obama partially because he told us he'd map a way out.

He's failed, dishearteningly, on that score.What exactly would you have him do?

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 05:22 PM
thread ovah

He is the biggest phony that posts here LMAO hell I respect Cosmo more than that jackoff~

Ace Gunner
01-29-2013, 05:24 PM
I agree that Bush got us into this box, but we elected Obama partially because he told us he'd map a way out.

He's failed, dishearteningly, on that score.

failed? I guess that's one way of rationalizing lies.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 05:27 PM
He is the biggest phony that posts here LMAO hell I respect Cosmo more than that jackoff~

BRC at least presents his opinion and arguments as opposed to just heckling people and never making an argument someone can't challenge cosmos on.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 05:28 PM
It is way down on the list. Maybe not 100 but way down.


Not to the activists in the Democratic party it was down there. Grassroots voters, perhaps. Most people vote with their guts more than issues.

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 05:36 PM
BRC at least presents his opinion and arguments as opposed to just heckling people and never making an argument someone can challenge cosmos on.

If you have read my interactions with Cosmo you already know I trash that idiot often. BRC on the other hand is much more despicable in my eyes. At least Cosmo tows a line as in he is who he is and doesn't try to hide it. The same with direcshun. I question their motives but I know exactly where they stand. BRC is a shape shifter and that is a trait I have no respect for...the true definition of a shitbag~

CoMoChief
01-29-2013, 05:39 PM
The "problem" is that of the top 10 things Obama voters wanted, closing Gitmo was about #100. No one care.

except the fact this was a point he campaigned on and sold to the general public you ****ing idiot.

of course you don't care, Obama is your lord and savior and his cock is waaaaaaaaaaaay down your throat.

go bowe
01-29-2013, 07:18 PM
It is way down on the list. Maybe not 100 but way down.

This is really all Bush's fault. He kicked the can down the road by utilizing GITMO. He couldn't figure out what to do with them either. He had the same issues we have now.

Yes, we can put some in max security prisons. But, we would have to have a trial. Thats not going to happen because of what happened under Bush's presidency. Some of these are religious fanatics that will kill again and if locked up, try to convert other prisoners to his way of thinking.

My feelings on GITMO changed when I took my current job. Talked and worked with many people who also worked in GITMO.

It's a classic rock and a hard place.

if i'm not mistaken, terrorists who are in supermax are held in solitary confinement...

they don't get much chance to convert anybody, except for the guards...

go bowe
01-29-2013, 07:23 PM
Keep towing the line LMAO it was a big part of his campaign he also claimed he would dump the patriot act. It matters little to a simpleminded fan that worships his hero. He can do no wrong in you eyes. It is humorous to witness such blind loyalty. The Hannity, Beck, crowd thinks he is radical left. The not even radical but hard left have openly expressed disappointment on his Bush like presidency~

gee, let me get this straight...

the hard right is displeased with o'bama...

the hard left is disappointed by o'bama...

methinks maybe his presidency is neither hard left nor hard right, but reflects a broad center (including much of center right and all of center left) spectrum, which in turn reflects the majority who re-elected him...

it's like compromise, if both sides don't much like it it's probably a pretty good deal...

KC native
01-29-2013, 07:29 PM
It is way down on the list. Maybe not 100 but way down.

This is really all Bush's fault. He kicked the can down the road by utilizing GITMO. He couldn't figure out what to do with them either. He had the same issues we have now.

Yes, we can put some in max security prisons. But, we would have to have a trial. Thats not going to happen because of what happened under Bush's presidency. Some of these are religious fanatics that will kill again and if locked up, try to convert other prisoners to his way of thinking.

My feelings on GITMO changed when I took my current job. Talked and worked with many people who also worked in GITMO.

It's a classic rock and a hard place.

Yes, I also think if we closed GITMO that opens up the US to a lot of liability and responsibility to disclose everything that has happened there.

That still doesn't change my opinion of GITMO though. It should be closed. Obama has failed in that regard.

mlyonsd
01-29-2013, 07:30 PM
gee, let me get this straight...

the hard right is displeased with o'bama...

the hard left is disappointed by o'bama...

methinks maybe his presidency is neither hard left nor hard right, but reflects a broad center (including much of center right and all of center left) spectrum, which in turn reflects the majority who re-elected him...

it's like compromise, if both sides don't much like it it's probably a pretty good deal...
You have to admit how funny it is Obama keeps vindicating Bush on policy. And how much the MSM takes great lengths to look the other way.

go bowe
01-29-2013, 07:34 PM
why do people keep saying he failed or lied or whatever?

congress has passed legislation restricting the movement of prisoners to other countries and won't allow them to be transferred to america to be tried in regular federal courts...

those restrictions are always buried in some larger bill that the president, any president, could not veto (see the op example)...

it's not o'bammy that is keeping gitmo open, it's the congress...

(and, yes i slept with obama and wash his balls every chance i get...)

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 07:34 PM
if i'm not mistaken, terrorists who are in supermax are held in solitary confinement...

they don't get much chance to convert anybody, except for the guards...

Cool now we can just hold our breath waiting for this simpleton to start a new poll asking if the guards are converted and are now plotting against us~

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 07:38 PM
gee, let me get this straight...

the hard right is displeased with o'bama...

the hard left is disappointed by o'bama...

methinks maybe his presidency is neither hard left nor hard right, but reflects a broad center (including much of center right and all of center left) spectrum, which in turn reflects the majority who re-elected him...

it's like compromise, if both sides don't much like it it's probably a pretty good deal...

Sadly it is the worst of both sides~

go bowe
01-29-2013, 07:39 PM
You have to admit how funny it is Obama keeps vindicating Bush on policy. And how much the MSM takes great lengths to look the other way.

i don't know if i'd say vindicating bush, but o'bama has clearly followed bush's lead in many areas of policy, with a few major exceptions...

and the whole issue of gitmo is no longer in the news, so most people have forgotten...

the msm doesn't push the issue, but i think they would report on anything that might happen there or any significant changes wrt gitmo...

short answer, yes it is "funny" (as in strange, weird) and the msm does look away sometimes (and clearly they aren't pushing the gitmo angle)...

go bowe
01-29-2013, 07:40 PM
Cool now we can just hold our breath waiting for this simpleton to start a new poll asking if the guards are converted and are now plotting against us~

which simpleton are we talking about here?

there are so many to choose from lately...

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 07:46 PM
which simpleton are we talking about here?

there are so many to choose from lately...

LMAO

mlyonsd
01-29-2013, 07:54 PM
Cool now we can just hold our breath waiting for this simpleton to start a new poll asking if the guards are converted and are now plotting against us~

I have to be fair here and point out Direckshun has admitted in this thread Obama failed at something.

That being said you'd think the failure of Obama's campaign promise of closing GITMO and his constant backup of his little bitch Holder would actually be reported more by the MSM.

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 07:58 PM
I have to be fair here and point out Direckshun has admitted in this thread Obama failed at something.

That being said you'd think the failure of Obama's campaign promise of closing GITMO and his constant backup of his little bitch Holder would actually be reported more by the MSM.

My post was directed a BRC. Direckshun has much more credibility than BRC~

go bowe
01-29-2013, 07:59 PM
I have to be fair here and point out Direckshun has admitted in this thread Obama failed at something.

That being said you'd think the failure of Obama's campaign promise of closing GITMO and his constant backup of his little bitch Holder would actually be reported more by the MSM.

mr. o'bama has failed at many things, some of which are major failures, no question about it...

but i don't think the gitmo deal is on him unless you attribute that failure to the naivety of a less than well-experienced politician making promises he couldn't possibly keep...

theelusiveeightrop
01-29-2013, 08:03 PM
G Bay is under utilized. More enemy combatants need to be sent here and tortured.

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 08:05 PM
mr. o'bama has failed at many things, some of which are major failures, no question about it...

but i don't think the gitmo deal is on him unless you attribute that failure to the naivety of a less than well-experienced politician making promises he couldn't possibly keep...

Where I come from you don't write a check with your mouth your ass cannot cash. Sadly the pigfuckers that run our country are not held to this simple standard~

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 08:10 PM
Redneck, BEP, Como, and any of you other irrational nuts can continue to get off on Obama "failing" or "lying" or whatever you want to call it on Gitmo. You've been deprived of a true scandal, so "lying" about Gitmo is your victory. I'd hardly call it a lie, but he didn't get done what he said he'd do.

I know you really, really want this to be a big deal, but to the vast majority of people, there are so many other things that are more important. Sorry.

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 08:15 PM
If you have read my interactions with Cosmo you already know I trash that idiot often. BRC on the other hand is much more despicable in my eyes. At least Cosmo tows a line as in he is who he is and doesn't try to hide it. The same with direcshun. I question their motives but I know exactly where they stand. BRC is a shape shifter and that is a trait I have no respect for...the true definition of a shitbag~

You really don't know shit. What's funny is that I see your posts and we agree on a lot of stuff. You just go totally apeshit when someone disagrees with you about anything.

mlyonsd
01-29-2013, 08:18 PM
mr. o'bama has failed at many things, some of which are major failures, no question about it...

but i don't think the gitmo deal is on him unless you attribute that failure to the naivety of a less than well-experienced politician making promises he couldn't possibly keep...If you attribute signing an executive order to close GITMO knowing it will fail your premise is wrong.

If you make a campaign promise knowing you'll fail it is an outright lie.

If you make a campaign promise you thought you could keep but failed for political reasons it would be acknowledged as much as Bush creating GITMO was.

go bowe
01-29-2013, 08:20 PM
Where I come from you don't write a check with your mouth your ass cannot cash. Sadly the pigfuckers that run our country are not held to this simple standard~

i hear what you're saying and i can't argue with that...

but campaign promises are not checks to be cashed...

campaign promises are mostly wishful thinking or just pure bullshit...

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 08:22 PM
You really don't know shit. What's funny is that I see your posts and we agree on a lot of stuff. You just go totally apeshit when someone disagrees with you any about anything.

Ok I am sincerely sorry for interrupting your flapping off to the hope and change poster....carry on and don't mind me~

go bowe
01-29-2013, 08:26 PM
If you attribute signing an executive order to close GITMO knowing it will fail your premise is wrong.

If you make a campaign promise knowing you'll fail it is an outright lie.

If you make a campaign promise you thought you could keep but failed for political reasons it would be acknowledged as much as Bush creating GITMO was.

i'll take door number three, please...

gitmo has always presented significant legal and moral difficulties for us, but i fully supported it's creation and use during the bush years...

but congress should allow it to be closed and either transfer prisoners to 3rd countries or bring them to trial in the u.s. where every other terrorist has been convicted and imprisoned...

there's no practical reason to continue to hold prisoners at gitmo, imo...

go bowe
01-29-2013, 08:29 PM
Ok I am sincerely sorry for interrupting your flapping off to the hope and change poster....carry on and don't mind me~

eh, the poster doesn't do much for me, but i really get off on his democratic convention speech where he talked about not red and not blue america but the united states of america, etc.

i play it continuously on my t.v. and it never gets old... :p

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 08:30 PM
why do people keep saying he failed or lied or whatever?

congress has passed legislation restricting the movement of prisoners to other countries and won't allow them to be transferred to america to be tried in regular federal courts...

those restrictions are always buried in some larger bill that the president, any president, could not veto (see the op example)...

it's not o'bammy that is keeping gitmo open, it's the congress...

(and, yes i slept with obama and wash his balls every chance i get...)

I mostly agree. It is obvious Congress doesn't want to get any of these prisoners transferred. But it is my understanding no new terrorists have been sent to Gitmo since Obama took office they keep them in theater now.

mlyonsd
01-29-2013, 08:36 PM
i'll take door number three, please...

gitmo has always presented significant legal and moral difficulties for us, but i fully supported it's creation and use during the bush years...

but congress should allow it to be closed and either transfer prisoners to 3rd countries or bring them to trial in the u.s. where every other terrorist has been convicted and imprisoned...

there's no practical reason to continue to hold prisoners at gitmo, imo...
I'd vote for door #2 in that it was just a campaign promise Obama knew he'd never accomplish. Sounded good at the time though right?

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 09:10 PM
BRC at least presents his opinion and arguments as opposed to just heckling people and never making an argument someone can't challenge cosmos on.

BEP, could you please elaborate on your repeated assertions about Obama voter fraud, such as that in several places he received more votes than there were registered voters?

Since I've asked several times and you refuse to respond, I argue that you are batshit crazy and a dishonest loon. There you go--challenge it.

go bowe
01-29-2013, 09:55 PM
I'd vote for door #2 in that it was just a campaign promise Obama knew he'd never accomplish. Sounded good at the time though right?

yes, it did sound good at the time, and if it were up to me, i'd close gitmo and bring the remaining prisoners to the u.s. for trial...

go bowe
01-29-2013, 09:56 PM
BEP, could you please elaborate on your repeated assertions about Obama voter fraud, such as that in several places he received more votes than there were registered voters?

Since I've asked several times and you refuse to respond, I argue that you are batshit crazy and a dishonest loon. There you go--challenge it.

i see you've met ms. pea brain... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Johnny Vegas
01-29-2013, 10:11 PM
To you. I guess you can find me a poll that suggests otherwise, but in my opinion, closing Gitmo was not a top concern of voters. Some number surely was/is in favor of it, but as for being a major concern--I don't think so.

if you're going to speak for all the voters then why wouldn't it be important to them?

cosmo20002
01-29-2013, 11:43 PM
if you're going to speak for all the voters then why wouldn't it be important to them?

"Important" is relative. But I don't think it is "important" enough for most people to be pissed about simply because for most people, there are more pressing issues in their lives than jailed foreigners suspected of terrorism. At the end of the day, are people voting on their economic interests, health care, etc, or whether we are being too mean to people fighting against our troops?

Also, the issue with Gitmo was/is not so much simply that people are held there--it is their treatment. Many, including myself, don't think we should torture. And while I'm not really losing sleep over Korans being pissed on or whatever else they were doing, I think it is stupid and hurts the US. Knock that shit off and have some sort of way to deal with and determine a fate for these people other than indefinite detention--that is the real issue, not the location where they are being held.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2013, 12:54 AM
i hear what you're saying and i can't argue with that...

but campaign promises are not checks to be cashed...

campaign promises are mostly wishful thinking or just pure bullshit...

That right there is complete bullshit, You just think it's ok to lie without consequence? Was Clinton the first to tell a lie and be admired for it? or did it start somewhere before that? It shouldn't be tolerated, ever.

go bowe
01-30-2013, 01:13 AM
That right there is complete bullshit, You just think it's ok to lie without consequence? Was Clinton the first to tell a lie and be admired for it? or did it start somewhere before that? It shouldn't be tolerated, ever.

all politicians lie, what of it?

politicians have been making campaign promises for thousands of years, it's not something that obama invented...

and a majority of americans who voted in november didn't seem to have too big a problem understanding the difference between a lie and a campaign promise...

and they seemed to "tolerate" obama's campaign promises just fine...

things aren't as black and white as you would like them to be i know, but nuance can be a beautiful thing...

you should try it sometime...

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2013, 01:17 AM
all politicians lie, what of it?

politicians have been making campaign promises for thousands of years, it's not something that obama invented...

and a majority of americans who voted in november didn't seem to have too big a problem understanding the difference between a lie and a campaign promise...

and they seemed to "tolerate" obama's campaign promises just fine...

things aren't as black and white as you would like them to be i know, but nuance can be a beautiful thing...

you should try it sometime...

My point still stands, this country is doomed if we accept lies as something cute that people do. Honestly you would have to say that most of those that voted for him did so knowing nothing of issues and many more voted for him because he wasn't George Bush. I guess it's because I hold people to a higher standard.

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 01:27 AM
My point still stands, this country is doomed if we accept lies as something cute that people do. Honestly you would have to say that most of those that voted for him did so knowing nothing of issues and many more voted for him because he contwasn't George Bush. I guess it's because I hold people to a higher standard.

So, not being able to keep a campaign "promise" is a "lie?" You're being a bit ridiculous. We call them "promises", but there's only so much a president can directly control (despite the alleged use of dictatorial executive orders). I put the same standard on Bush. Those promises are goals. Call it a failure it you want, but a lie is something else.

BigMeatballDave
01-30-2013, 05:16 AM
This is really all Bush's fault. :LOL: Typical democrat response.

mikey23545
01-30-2013, 06:30 AM
To you. I guess you can find me a poll that suggests otherwise, but in my opinion, closing Gitmo was not a top concern of voters. Some number surely was/is in favor of it, but as for being a major concern--I don't think so.


I never would have thought it was possible to type with those little wooden puppet hands.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2013, 07:29 AM
So, not being able to keep a campaign "promise" is a "lie?" You're being a bit ridiculous. We call them "promises", but there's only so much a president can directly control (despite the alleged use of dictatorial executive orders). I put the same standard on Bush. Those promises are goals. Call it a failure it you want, but a lie is something else.

This is the problem with our society we can just brush away an obvious lie as well it must be something else. I still call it a lie, Bush or Hopebama.

dirk digler
01-30-2013, 07:49 AM
My point still stands, this country is doomed if we accept lies as something cute that people do. Honestly you would have to say that most of those that voted for him did so knowing nothing of issues and many more voted for him because he wasn't George Bush. I guess it's because I hold people to a higher standard.

Let me ask you a question Killer. In your honest opinion if tomorrow Congress came back and passed a bill to allow the transfer of Gitmo detainees and authorized moving them to state penitentiaries and have them tried in civilian court do you think Obama wouldn't close Gitmo as a detention facility fairly quickly after they all moved out?

Direckshun
01-30-2013, 08:41 AM
What exactly would you have him do?

why do people keep saying he failed or lied or whatever?

congress has passed legislation restricting the movement of prisoners to other countries and won't allow them to be transferred to america to be tried in regular federal courts...

those restrictions are always buried in some larger bill that the president, any president, could not veto (see the op example)...

it's not o'bammy that is keeping gitmo open, it's the congress...

I fully admit that the President has had his hands tied by Congress on the issue.

Not entirely of his own doing. I see no reason why compromises could not have been made to lessen or eliminate these restrictions.

I do think that the Great Recession greatly reduced his ability to fight on this front the first couple of years, in which these restrictions were passed. I don't think this is an issue the President punted on.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2013, 08:49 AM
Let me ask you a question Killer. In your honest opinion if tomorrow Congress came back and passed a bill to allow the transfer of Gitmo detainees and authorized moving them to state penitentiaries and have them tried in civilian court do you think Obama wouldn't close Gitmo as a detention facility fairly quickly after they all moved out?

It's so far removed from the realm of possibility i'm not sure it will even happen in my lifetime. I don't think he would close it down unless he were moving them to another location outside the US just so he could say he closed it down. Obama is a bigtime fraud whom promised change and really hasn't delivered on any of his promises.

blaise
01-30-2013, 09:44 AM
"Really, the whole Gitmo thing has been a tremendous success for Obama."

- cosmo

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 10:05 AM
"Really, the whole Gitmo thing has been a tremendous success for Obama."

- cosmo

That's what you take from what I said? BEP is more reasonable than you.

FishingRod
01-30-2013, 10:37 AM
I have read that it costs us about $800,000 per detainee per year. That alone IMO warrants re-thinking the place

blaise
01-30-2013, 10:57 AM
I have read that it costs us about $800,000 per detainee per year. That alone IMO warrants re-thinking the place

It'll be expensive anywhere they put them. There's no way they're going into general pop at some Federal prison.

dirk digler
01-30-2013, 11:01 AM
It's so far removed from the realm of possibility i'm not sure it will even happen in my lifetime. I don't think he would close it down unless he were moving them to another location outside the US just so he could say he closed it down. Obama is a bigtime fraud whom promised change and really hasn't delivered on any of his promises.

Thanks for your honest opinion. I am pretty confidant that if Congress gave him the green light it would be closed in a reasonable amount of time. I would agree with you that it certainly is a possibility that he would move them out of country.

I will add that contrary to your opinion he has delivered on alot of promises but on this he hasn't. Some of it is his fault and part of it is Congress's.

blaise
01-30-2013, 11:04 AM
Thanks for your honest opinion. I am pretty confidant that if Congress gave him the green light it would be closed in a reasonable amount of time. I would agree with you that it certainly is a possibility that he would move them out of country.

I will add that contrary to your opinion he has delivered on alot of promises but on this he hasn't. Some of it is his fault and part of it is Congress's.

You can say it's open partly because of congress, but if he made a promise and didn't do what he said then that's his fault and nobody else's. No one said he had to promise more than he could deliver. That's on him, totally.

dirk digler
01-30-2013, 11:09 AM
You can say it's open partly because of congress, but if he made a promise and didn't do what he said then that's his fault and nobody else's. No one said he had to promise more than he could deliver. That's on him, totally.

I would agree but I was speaking on this specific case. When he made the promise to close Gitmo IIRC Congress hadn't tried to intervene in blocking Bush's transfer of detainees or trying them in civilian court so that is something that he probably didn't forsee coming.

Direckshun
01-30-2013, 11:18 AM
I would agree but I was speaking on this specific case. When he made the promise to close Gitmo IIRC Congress hadn't tried to intervene in blocking Bush's transfer of detainees or trying them in civilian court so that is something that he probably didn't forsee coming.

That is my interpretation of events.

dirk digler
01-30-2013, 11:27 AM
That is my interpretation of events.

and this was blocked by a Democratic Congress. So Obama deserves some blame for not going hard after this issue with his own party members in Congress.

blaise
01-30-2013, 11:29 AM
I would agree but I was speaking on this specific case. When he made the promise to close Gitmo IIRC Congress hadn't tried to intervene in blocking Bush's transfer of detainees or trying them in civilian court so that is something that he probably didn't forsee coming.

But you see that's an excuse, right? Like I said, no one said he had to over-promise.

dirk digler
01-30-2013, 11:43 AM
But you see that's an excuse, right? Like I said, no one said he had to over-promise.

I see it as reality. He made the promise to sign an EO on his first day to close Gitmo (which he did) not having any inkling that Congress would block it because under a Democratic Congress they hadn't blocked Bush transfer of detainees and civilian trials. Why would he think that would change?

Direckshun
01-30-2013, 11:45 AM
and this was blocked by a Democratic Congress. So Obama deserves some blame for not going hard after this issue with his own party members in Congress.

That is also my interpretation of events.

blaise
01-30-2013, 11:47 AM
I see it as reality. He made the promise to sign an EO on his first day to close Gitmo (which he did) not having any inkling that Congress would block it because under a Democratic Congress they hadn't blocked Bush transfer of detainees and civilian trials. Why would he think that would change?

I don't know, but I didn't make the promise, so I don't need to know.

dirk digler
01-30-2013, 12:05 PM
I don't know, but I didn't make the promise, so I don't need to know.

He didn't know either. Heck Democratic congressman\women agreed with Obama on closing Gitmo and campaigned on it. They changed their position Obama didn't. He still says he wants to close it.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2013, 01:37 PM
Thanks for your honest opinion. I am pretty confidant that if Congress gave him the green light it would be closed in a reasonable amount of time. I would agree with you that it certainly is a possibility that he would move them out of country.

I will add that contrary to your opinion he has delivered on alot of promises but on this he hasn't. Some of it is his fault and part of it is Congress's.

I do not believe any of these dickheads, they're kind of like junkies who will do anything for the next fix(reelection).

Direckshun
02-04-2013, 11:36 PM
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

The Obama GITMO myth
New vindictive restrictions on detainees highlights the falsity of Obama defenders regarding closing the camp
By Glenn Greenwald
Monday, Jul 23, 2012 06:10 AM CDT

Most of the 168 detainees at Guantanamo have been imprisoned by the U.S. Government for close to a decade without charges and with no end in sight to their captivity. Some now die at Guantanamo (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/04/guantanamo_16/), thousands of miles away from their homes and families, without ever having had the chance to contest accusations of guilt. During the Bush years, the plight of these detainees was a major source of political controversy, but under Obama, it is now almost entirely forgotten. On those rare occasions when it is raised, Obama defenders invoke a blatant myth to shield the President from blame: he wanted and tried so very hard to end all of this, but Congress would not let him. Especially now that we’re in an Election Year, and in light of very recent developments, it’s long overdue to document clearly how misleading that excuse is.

Last week, the Obama administration imposed new arbitrary rules (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/are-boumediene-rights-expiring/) for Guantanamo detainees who have lost their first habeas corpus challenge. Those new rules eliminate the right of lawyers to visit their clients at the detention facility; the old rules establishing that right were in place since 2004, and were bolstered by the Supreme Court’s 2008 Boumediene ruling that detainees were entitled to a “meaningful” opportunity to contest the legality of their detention. The DOJ recently informed a lawyer (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Esmail-exhibit.pdf) for a Yemeni detainee, Yasein Khasem Mohammad Esmail, that he would be barred from visiting his client unless he agreed to a new regime of restrictive rules, including acknowledging that such visits are within the sole discretion of the camp’s military commander. Moreover, as SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston explains:

Besides putting control over legal contacts entirely under a military commander’s control, the “memorandum of understanding” does not allow attorneys to share with other detainee lawyers what they learn, and does not appear to allow them to use any such information to help prepare their own client for a system of periodic review at Guantanamo of whether continued detention is justified, and may even forbid the use of such information to help prepare a defense to formal terrorism criminal charges against their client.

The New York Times Editorial Page today denounced these new rules (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/opinion/a-spiteful-new-policy-at-guantanamo-bay.html?ref=opinion) as “spiteful,” cited it as “the Obama administration’s latest overuse of executive authority,” and said “the administration looks as if it is imperiously punishing detainees for their temerity in bringing legal challenges to their detention and losing.” Detainee lawyers are refusing to submit to these new rules and are asking a federal court to rule that they violate the detainees’ right to legal counsel.

But every time the issue of ongoing injustices at Guantanamo is raised, one hears the same apologia from the President’s defenders: the President wanted and tried to end all of this, but Congress — including even liberals such as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders — overwhelming voted to deny him the funds to close Guantanamo. While those claims, standing alone, are true, they omit crucial facts and thus paint a wildly misleading picture about what Obama actually did and did not seek to do.

What made Guantanamo controversial was not its physical location: that it was located in the Caribbean Sea rather than on American soil (that’s especially true since the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZS.html/) that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the camp). What made Guantanamo such a travesty — and what still makes it such — is that it is a system of indefinite detention whereby human beings are put in cages for years and years without ever being charged with a crime. President Obama’s so-called “plan to close Guantanamo” — even if it had been approved in full by Congress — did not seek to end that core injustice. It sought to do the opposite: Obama’s plan would have continued the system of indefinite detention, but simply re-located it from Guantanamo Bay onto American soil.

Long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. President Obama fully embraced indefinite detention — the defining injustice of Guantanamo — as his own policy.

In February, 2009, the Obama DOJ told an appellate court it was embracing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/washington/22bagram.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=bagram&st=cse) the Bush DOJ’s theory that Bagram detainees have no legal rights whatsoever, an announcement that shocked the judges on the panel hearing the case. In May, 2009, President Obama delivered a speech at the National Archives — in front of the U.S. Constitution — and, as his plan for closing Guantanamo, proposed a system of preventative “prolonged detention” without trial inside the U.S.; The New York Times – in an article headlined “President’s Detention Plan Tests American Legal Tradition” – said (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23detain.html) Obama’s plan “would be a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free.” In January, 2010, the Obama administration announced (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22gitmo.html?hpw) it would continue to imprison several dozen Guantanamo detainees without any charges or trials of any kind, including even a military commission, on the ground that they were “too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release.” That was all Obama’s doing, completely independent of anything Congress did.

When the President finally unveiled his plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8413230.stm) for “closing Guantanamo,” it became clear that it wasn’t a plan to “close” the camp as much as it was a plan simply to re-locate it — import it — onto American soil, at a newly purchased federal prison in Thompson, Illinois. William Lynn, Obama’s Deputy Defense Secretary, sent a letter (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/15/gitmo/lynn1.pdf) to inquiring Senators that expressly stated (http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/) that the Obama administration intended to continue indefinitely to imprison (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SyfuwMfLSHI/AAAAAAAACQo/WZg9i4n6gMc/s1600-h/lynn2.png) some of the detainees with no charges of any kind. The plan was classic Obama: a pretty, feel-good, empty symbolic gesture (get rid of the symbolic face of Bush War on Terror excesses) while preserving the core abuses (the powers of indefinite detention ), even strengthening and expanding those abuses by bringing them into the U.S.

Recall that the ACLU immediately condemned (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu) what it called the President’s plan to create “GITMO North.” About the President’s so-called “plan to close Guantanamo,” Executive Director Anthony Romero said:

The creation of a “Gitmo North” in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.

Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor’s policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it’s occurring in Cuba or in Illinois.

In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one’s accusers. . . . .The Obama administration’s announcement today contradicts everything the president has said about the need for America to return to leading with its values.

In fact, Obama’s “close GITMO” plan — if it had been adopted by Congress — would have done something worse than merely continue the camp’s defining injustice of indefinite detention. It would likely have expanded those powers by importing them into the U.S. The day after President Obama’s speech proposing a system of “prolonged detention” on U.S. soil, the ACLU’s Ben Wizner told me in an interview (http://www.salon.com/2009/05/25/obama_105/):

It may to serve to enshrine into law the very departures from the law that the Bush administration led us on, and that we all criticized so much. And I’ll elaborate on that. But that’s really my initial reaction to it; that what President Obama was talking about yesterday is making permanent some of the worst features of the Guantanamo regime. He may be shutting down the prison on that camp, but what’s worse is he may be importing some of those legal principles into our own legal system, where they’ll do great harm for a long time.

So even if Congress had fully supported and funded Obama’s plan to “close Guantanamo,” the core injustices that made the camp such a travesty would remain. In fact, they’d not only remain, but would be in full force within the U.S. That’s what makes the prime excuse offered for Obama — he tried to end all of this but couldn’t – so misleading. He only wanted to change the locale of these injustices, but sought fully to preserve them.

Indeed, as part of that excuse, one frequently (http://www.politicususa.com/don%E2%80%99t-blame-obama-only-6-democratic-senators-voted-to-fund-closing-gitmo.html) hears (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/4/25/85759/0328) that even liberal civil liberties stalwarts in the Senate — such as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders — voted to deny funding for the closing of Guantanamo: as though it is they who are to blame for these enduring travesties, rather than Obama. But this, too, is misleading in the extreme.

The reason these Democratic Senators voted to deny funds for closing Guantanamo is not because they lacked the courage to close Guantanamo. It’s because they did not want to fund a plan to close the camp without knowing exactly what Obama planned to do with the detainees there — because people like Feingold and Sanders did not want to fund the importation of a system of indefinite detention onto U.S. soil. Here’s what actually happened (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/senate-votes-to-block-fun_n_205797.html) when the Senate, including most Democrats, refused to fund the closing of Guantanamo:

[White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs] added Obama has not yet decided where some of the detainees will be sent. A presidential commission is studying the issue. . . .

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, favors closing Guantanamo, and the legislation his panel originally sent to the floor provided money for that purpose once the administration submitted a plan for the shutdown.

In changing course and seeking to delete the funds, he said, “The fact that the administration has not offered a workable plan at this point made that decision rather easy.”

Can that be any clearer? They would have voted to fund the closing of Guantanamo, but only once they knew what Obama’s plan was for the detainees there. Feingold — whose vote against funding the closing of Guantanamo is invariably cited by Obama defenders — wrote a letter to the President (http://www.progressive.org/fein052309.html) specifically to object to any plan to import the system of indefinite detention onto U.S. soil:

My primary concern, however, relates to your reference to the possibility of indefinite detention without trial for certain detainees. While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional.

While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely without charge or trial.

Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security.

Worse, those policies and legal precedents would be effectively enshrined as acceptable in our system of justice, having been established not by one, largely discredited administration, but by successive administrations of both parties with greatly contrasting positions on legal and constitutional issues.

Feingold was not going to vote for a plan to close Guantanamo if it meant that its core injustice — indefinite detention — was going simply to be re-located onto American soil, where it would be entrenched rather than dismantled. That, as all of this evidence makes clear, is why so many Democratic Senators voted to deny funding for the closing of Guantanamo: not because they favored the continuation of indefinite detention, but precisely because they did not want to fund its continuation on American soil, as Obama clearly intended.

Now, here we are, almost four years after the vow to close Guantanamo was enshrined in an Executive Order, and the rights of detainees — including the basic right to legal counsel — are being constricted further, in plainly vindictive ways. Conditions at Guantanamo are undoubtedly better than they were in 2003, and some of the deficiencies in military commissions (for the few who appear before them) have been redressed. But the real stain of Guantanamo — keeping people locked up in cages for years with no charges — endures. And contrary to the blatant myth propagated by Obama defenders, that has happened not because Obama tried but failed to eliminate it, but precisely because he embraced it as his own policy from the start.

blaise
02-05-2013, 05:57 AM
"The real myth is that this was an issue for liberals."

- cosmo