Guantanamo Conundrum
The Guantanamo prison is a problem with no solution. On the one hand, Congress has stripped all funds to relocate detainees to U.S. prisons. On the other, diplomatic efforts to relocate them to other countries has been an abysmal failure. Despite the administration's best efforts to find an answer to an increasingly frustrating situation, there doesn't appear to be one.
Therefore, we can expect a new executive order allowing indefinite detention of prisoners with periodic reviews. A solution that's no solution at all for a problem with no clear answer.
The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.
But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.
Nearly two years after Obama's pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.
That is in part because Congress has made it difficult to move detainees to the United States for trial. But it also stems from the president's embrace of indefinite detention and his assertion that the congressional authorization for military force, passed after the 2001 terrorist attacks, allows for such detention.
After taking office, the Obama administration reviewed the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay and chose 48 prisoners for indefinite detention. Officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that number will likely increase in coming months as some detainees are moved from a transfer category to a continued detention category.
The White House confirmed that an order is being drafted:
A White House official, who asked to speak on the condition of anonymity, later confirmed that the draft order has not yet been given to the president. The official had few details but said the order “would set up periodic review of the detention status of those detainees who cannot be tried,” in either military commissions or federal courts.
In 2008, Guantanamo detainees won the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in court. The executive order aims to create an executive branch review which would occur separately from the court review and would weigh the necessity of the detention, rather than its lawfulness, officials said.
"Perhaps the dangerousness of the detainee's country of origin could change, or the group that the detainee is affiliated with could cease to exist," one official explained.
Any way you cut it, it's bad, and likely to get worse. This is one of those situations where there's no clear pathway to an end that will satisfy the Constitution and people. On the one hand, it's crazy to think that there are no bad guys in the world. On the other, there's no guarantee these people held at Guantanamo are the bad guys, despite internal reviews and the like.
What do you think should be done about them?
It's called sweeping it under the carpet. One day these people will be dead and America can forget it ever happened.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
situation. If they are guilty and are released they will likely end up going back to a terrorist organization. If they are innocent and are released they could end up joining a terrorist organization because of being detained for so long as innocents.
So the answer is to pretend they're probably guilty (but not really want to find out) and hold them forever. Nice laws. Nice country.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I didn't say that and I offered no solutions. Nice try.
I didn't mean to attack you personally, I just meant to point out a fact, or make a point (relevant to what you said).
You didn't cause this problem, ron, I'm well aware of that.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
the answer is to turn them over to another jurisdiction to be tortured or killed. You know, like we did in Afghanistan with our prisoners.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
A trial where they are confronted with the evidence that shows them to be terrorists would be nice. If they're convicted, put 'em in the cell next to Charlie Manson, if they're not, let 'em go.
I don't see that this is difficult at all.
Whatever happened to trials?
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
First of all, the USA has imprisoned many many individuals who were completely innocent. Then the USA engaged in immoral, illogical, and illegal torture ("enhanced interrogation" techniques) of these innocent kidnap victims, repeatedly, until they confessed to things that never were, just to stop the torture.
The GW Bush regime and their stooges in the MICC have created enemy combatants out of innocent kidnap victims. A number of prisoners released as innocent and returned to their home countries have since been killed or captured in conflict with the USA. We, through our "enhanced interrogation" techniques, have radicalized them and created new enemies. (Not unlike what the USA does with every drone strike in Af-Pak that kills innocent civilians.)
So, do we provide restitution to these horribly mistreated "enemy combatants" (not even given POW status), and send them home with a nice letter of apology? Do we keep them imprisoned forever? Or, perhaps we should just execute them all (compounding the already immoral, illogical, and illegal treatment that we have already subjected them to)?
IMHO, the path would have been clear for the Obama regime from the beginning, if only Obama hadn't given the GW Bush regime a free pass on the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The solution would have been to release the innocent, offer them restitution for their treatment, bring the real "bad actors" to the USA, shut down Gitmo as promised, and try the GW Bush regime for war crimes.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_...
Where the names do coincide, its 2% if the names match, where they don't according to some observers who say some DoD named never were at Gitmo.
of two minds about this.
Speaking as an American, we have these people and they must be tried. We have several terrorists under lock and key now after being granted the full benefit of the criminal justice system (John Lindh and Richard Reid leap to mind), but the fact of the matter remains that rules of evidence would instantly exclude evidence obtained by coercive means.
Yes, I mean torture.
Letting the innocent go free is no guarantee we won't see them again - their long stay without hope of release could have irrevocably radicalized them. In that case, Guantanamo is one of the biggest cases of blowback I could name.
Now, on the other hand, there *is* another option. They could disappear, into "night and fog," with no trace of their passing. Would that work? Of course not; there'd be no way to keep it quiet, and it's the kind of thing guaranteed to bring down a government in a democracy. The very idea is repellent - but I'm sure that some in the Pentagon and in the rest of the government have considered it.
Biggest blowback so far:
Over 2 million Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan that for years had little to no help from the governments of the countries they are now living in. No school, no work, nothing. Most were well off, educated - the only ones with the means to leave. With their money running out and still unsure of whether it was safe to return they often wound up homeless and hungry. America and the West offered no aid, but the Mahdi Army had lots of places around Syria and Jordan's border towns ready to help.
BTW, 500,000 of those refugees were children. Children who lost their homes, family members, everything they knew and were living on the streets. They will grow up knowing our war did that and the Mahdi Army was there to help them. Who will they be loyal to?
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/ir...
http://video.pbs.org/video/1163078349/
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Well, I did say "one of."
And I agree: If the children of Iraq and Afghanistan do not become radicalized, I'd be extremely surprised.
I know. Occasionally, I like to remind people of how much "safer" the world is after we got rid of Saddam.
People in our country act like Saddam was the worst thing that ever happened to Iraq. They ignore the fact that we supported him after his coup through the 70's. Armed and offered assistance in their war with Iran while secretly selling weapons to Iran as well during a war in which they lost millions. As our allies against communism we sold them chemical weapons and looked the other way while Saddam used 'em on Iran, the Kurds and so on. Then, Iraq attacked Kuwait for stealing Iraqi oil. We proceed to bomb 'em into the stone age. The we place 10 years of draconian sanctions on them possibly being responsible for the death of 500,000 children. All this history before the current war even started. And now we have a massive embassy and bases all over their country.
I know most here remember this. I'm just amazed at how this is still unknown or a fairytale to most Americans. Our ignorance has lead us to elect decades of fiscal conservatives and war hawks and we have a devastated economy, dwindling middle class, crumbling infrastructure and the greatest wealth in the world all in the hands of very few. We created Bin Laden "the warrior" and armed him, we created Saddam's military and armed them, now we have armed the entire population of Iraq and turned millions of them against us. And we keep voting in the same crappy policies...
Ignorance is rapidly turning from bliss to fear to real trouble. And we're afraid of Julian Assange.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Terrific explanation of why we Americans have a Gitmo problem; the electorate is moronic, uninformed, and not interested. We are doomed…
The United States aspires to democracy, but no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
is equally repellent, but that has not stopped us.
Allegedly 900 are missing today from the face of the Earth, including children of detainees.
The US was keeping prisoners in battery hen style cages on ships at one point in the GWOT, dead prisoners 'disappear' from ships in the ocean very easily if so desired.
Just read up on the plight of slaves (thrown overboard) on slave trading ships during the days of the American slave trade
Where do you think all those South American death squad police and soldiers learned their trade from !?
In turn the US military and intelligence community learned their their new found skills from ex nazi gestapo and SS people imported into the US/Americas from Germany post WW2 (to fight the Soviets). It also poisoned the US political process with all these new ex nazis who were being integrated into 'democracy'.'
jurisdictions on random drawings and should be held in secure sites near the federal courthouse.
A federal fund should be set up and criminal defense lawyers who wish to defend the detainees can be hired for them. These criminal defense attorneys should be the cream of the crop already if they are allowed to represent cases in federal court. Fees should be standard for all attorneys, say $400/hour.
They should be given a reasonable amount of time to prepare for jury trials....say one year with continuances if truly necessary.
The Justice Department lawyers and the defense lawyers would be allowed to choose juries as usual with each side being allowed to dismiss, say, four jurors. The jurors would all be called with random, public drawings through the local voter registration or DMV rolls.
All trials would be completely public. No secrecy. No "state secrets privilege" unless the presiding judge would be allowed to see the reason for it. If the Justice Department would not allow the judge to see the reasons then the case would have to be dismissed.
Jurors would be sequestered for the duration and their decision would be final.
At the time of trial, if the jury finds that the defendant is "not guilty" of terrorism then that jury will be allowed to name an amount of compensation the U.S. government would have to pay for damages to that individual, factoring in the mental, physical, emotional or financial pain that had been inflicted.
Oh, and after the last prisoner leaves Guantanamo, the prisons should be completely razed and the land should be returned to Cuba.
This seems like the only Constitutional way to proceed.
It would be interesting to pose this question to Jonathan Turley, Bruce Fein or Glenn Greenwald.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
this process could be initiated, but I think it is the proper way to procede. It is a 'we the people' approach, in this time of lessening of the power of 'we the people'. Probably the reason it will never happen. You may be able to address the issue to them directly, Google and contact them, tell them you want to publish their thoughts here. The 'we the people' way.
Imprisoning people without giving them a trial or even charging them with a crime is not a budget issue. For Obama to claim that is pure unadulterated horse shit.
U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment:
Hardly radical stuff. It's roots go back about 800 years to Magna Carta. Habeas corpus isn't some squabble over how much a plane ticket from Cuba costs
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:
Invasions lately? Rebellions? .Nope. The excuse offered here is funding?! And essential hallmark of liberty is justified by the lie that there just isn't any funding?!
Funding for what? An air plane? Two air planes? Obama has thousands at his command. Guards? Millions at his command. A prison? How about Fort Leavenworth? Any of the military prisons? The entire Federal Penitentiary system? The funding excuse is worth than pathetic.
There's no "conundrum" here. Do what the law requires. Inform them of what crime they're accused of committing and then prove it in a fair trial. We've only been doing that for over two hundred years.
But we have to keep them imprisoned because there are "bad guys" in this world? And there's some incredible mystery in how to determine whether or not these guys are "bad"? It's just an insoluble puzzle? Let's solve the mystery: go to a fucking voodoo priestess, have her read the entrails of defrocked Cardinal while sipping tea made from an astrologer's belly button lint and receiving an anointing by a bald rabbi with a skin condition.
Don't tell me: There's no funding for that. Then give them a fair trial like we do thousands of times each day across the country, or let them go.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Legislatively, I've actually been pleasantly surprised by Obama. Much better than I expected.
That said, much of what was passed was watered down - some to the point they may actually be worse than if he'd done nothing - and most of the legislative muscle was flexed by Dem congresspersons.
As for his record on promises of transparency, human rights, Constitutional rights and all that fun stuff. We could have had a McCain/Palin administration and it wouldn't have been much different.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
I have to call bs. If you really think McCain/Palin wouldn't be any different, I have a bridge to sell ya.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
We could have had a McCain/Palin administration and it wouldn't have been much different.
On the other hand, maybe the FEMA prison camps would be full of progressives and immigrants right now, instead of sitting empty...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Do we know they're empty?
If you build a prison, they will come.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Corporations love them their profits.
my 2c:
This is not an easy problem to deal with.
Once again, Bush and Cheney ruined everything and have put the government in a terrible predicament. The list of damages is long and in some cases the healing will be slow and difficult. The President will do everything he can to fix it, but it's not going to be easy.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Throw in the "filibustering" for funding. And, if not that, a "secret hold" on any funding, yeah, it's not going to be easy.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Well, this is where our refusal -- or rather, the President's refusal -- to come to grips with what was done in our name under the prior Administration has led us: to an ever-downward spiral in which new and additional war crimes must be committed in order to continue the whitewash of prior ones. Above every other issue, this is the one about which history will judge this presidency most harshly. And that judgment will be well-deserved.
Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York
I think the DOJ deserves the brunt of ridicule - at least until the President has a chance to put out the fires that the previous administration lit under us.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Looks like the Bill of Rights is history.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
They know they are innocent in there too. Lawrence Wilkerson said he'd testify to that fact.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
They know they are innocent in there too.
Right. There surely are. But are they all innocent? How many are innocent? It's a bad situation.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
. . . until proven guilty.
It's kind of a hallmark of a civilized justice system. Goes back centuries.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Ya, True - until proven guilty is the problem. That will be the only way to keep the genuine terrorist that surely exists among the prisoners out of the general public.
They need to establish a coarse of action for fair trials.
In addition justice delayed is justice denied.
The president has said just today that he will implement a way to close Gitmo and stick to it until that is done. But without fair trials in a timely manner, closing Gitmo will be an empty gesture for sure. However, with the opposition anticipated from republicans it's going to be a long haul to get them though.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
With the previous admin torturing some of them, some would have to go free. I have no problem with the true innocents going free. But you and I both know, some are not innocent.
So, do we let them go free? Normally, I'd say yes. But, this situation is not normal.
We have no one to blame but our own govt. Due to our govt's foreign policy, we have stirred a hornets nest. I would rather see our govt cease and desist all funding for Israel, just for starters, to start negotiations with these parties willing to attack us and kill innocents here in this country. There has to be some kind of peace negotiations with all parties before these people can be released. Yes, I do think they should get a trial. But again, torture has ruled out any possibility of any guilty parties being found guilty. Yes, I do agree that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But, surely you agree that some of them are not innocent .
And again, the torturing of these people throws out any case against them.
Even though, they are guilty. Some have admitted it.
And yet again, it's to be thrown out because of torture.
Let me put it this way.
Obama can't win. If he keeps them imprisoned, he loses.
If he gets them to trial, and it get's thrown out, he loses.
If it gets thrown out, I suppose the argument will be made that it was Bush's fault because the torture happened during his admin.
Hmmm? I wonder how that will play out?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
No, I don't know that some are guilty. If fact, it appears unlikely they could be convicted in a fair trial or they would have gotten one in the past decade or so. Getting someone to admit guilt by torture isn't just some "technicality." Anyone can be tortured into admitting guilt - or anything else for that matter. Torture doesn't ruin a prosecution, it ruins a conviction. And for good reason: tortured evidence is not reliable outside of a TV show.
If you only try those you are guaranteed of convicting and imprison the rest without trial . . . well, I wonder what Obama taught his Con Law students about that? Anyway, what's this "true innocent" stuff? Bush/Obama have had the argument made for them that there are guilty people that can't be convicted, but haven't produced any specifics on that. It seems more like a way to capitalize on the Cop Drama meme that there are all these guilty people walking free on "technicalities." But we're not talking about a bogus search warrant here where the cocaine is still cocaine even though it's excluded. We're talking about "evidence" produced by torture which is probably untrue regardless of exclusion.
What seems more likely to me is that this is merely an extension of Obama's desire to cover up war crimes. A trial might expose some things that Obama has bent over backwards covering up.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Yes it does. It also ruins a conviction.
I agree they should get a trial. Are we willing to accept the outcome? Even if it means some of those guys are gonna want vengeance. And you know what that means.
What I was trying to do was merely point out the conundrum.
To be honest, I'm 6's and 7s on this.
But I would like to point out again one more time.
What we need is peace negotiations with all parties. Only then can a plausible outcome happen. Yeah, it sucks for them.
But lets be clear. Obama didn't create this situation. He was handed it. And until peace negotiations happen, nothing will change.
I know you wouldn't want KSM walking out of court. Even though, legally, he should. That's why this is a conundrum.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
. . . if he's been acquitted?
Why wouldn't you? Just because Bush/Obama and a host of television personalities say he was the mastermind of 9/11 doesn't make it true.
If it is, then they can prove it. Easily. Our system convicts people all the time - including innocent ones. Where is the jury that lets KSM go after hearing proof that he killed 3000 people?
Or maybe they just don't have the proof. Or maybe their only proof is testimony that he confessed after being water tortured eighty times. Or that Zubaydah identified him after being water tortured one hundred and eighty times. And if that's all they have, he's probably innocent.
That would be pretty embarrassing. And a good reason to never give him a trial.
As for Obama not creating the situation: true. But he is completely responsible for imprisoning these people for another two years without cause.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
to man up. Our system need preservation, even if it means some people get freed and others get indigestion. Our system is a process, we learn as we go, always to the benefit of men and freedom. Torture, indefinite detention, assassination are the easy way to go. What we need is leadership that still knows how to do the hard stuff.
I doubt he can walk unaided, they waterboarded him six times a day for three months (180 plus times), looks rather vegetative going by that official photograph they released of him.
One man's guilty party is another's "Freedom Fighter". America thought they were "Freedom Fighters" when they fought the Russians: Ronald Raygun said so. .
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Is is the mark of pure authoritarianism to believe that any government, having unjustly brutalized and imprisoned an innocent person (in the context of an illegal war, no less), has any right whatsoever to detain that person out of fear (how ever well founded) of what that person might do. That is a risk, frankly, that we as a people should and must be willing to bear as a price for living in a nation of laws (if indeed we still do). The fact that such a person may have become radicalized is our fault, not his. And it is us that should be willing to live with the consequences of actions we permitted our government to take.
There is absolutely no moral justification for allowing our fears for our own future safety from threats we largely brought on ourselves to serve as a basis for the continued unjust imprisonment of persons who have done us no wrong. None.
Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York
The President has been quite clear that he has no intention of holding the prior administration accountable for anything. It is NOT a matter of not having "had a chance" to do it.
Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York
True, but i do believe it falls at the feet of the DOJ to do it.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Something about "looking forward and not back."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Can Order the DOJ to do anything.
Certainly not stop a prosecution. Nope. He can't do that fiver.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
and you are naive, misinformed and full of BS. Save your apologizing for the Social Security issue Bozo.
When you get something intelligent to say, speak. Until then. you know. take your meds.
You're a piece of work. You can't even discuss the topics. All you do is rant about other people in the discussions. Epic Fail on your part sport.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
But so is imprisoning people (or targeting them for assassination) without charge or trial.
And Obama has had no problem whatsoever doing that. We're not talking about a man who feels constrained by the law unless he wishes to use it as an excuse.
He's also played dumb and pretended he was only speaking of his own wishes and that the decision would be Holder's. Of course, a President expressing his "wishes" regarding an ongoing investigation is also highly improper.
There's also the little matter that the Justice Department itself is implicated in this mess as it had authorized torture and has a huge conflict of interest in investigating itself.
But the bottom line is that there have been no prosecutions whatsoever. Just as Obama had, you know, in a non-binding and purely personal way, "wished."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
again with the inherited situation. As for the targeted guy, the way I see it, he exercised his Freedom of Choice. He made his own bed, now he has to lie in it.
No one made him take that route. No one made him plan attacks on the US.
Name one other person targeted? People are tagged as armed and dangerous all the time. This guy can turn himself in. His outcome is not set in stone. He can flip and turn govt snitch. He chose the path he walks on. So be it. And there is a part of me that thinks this guy is a cia plant in way deep. I know that sounds crazy. But, it is possible.
Yes, the Justice Dept is in itself in a conundrum. This one should investigate the last one. On that I agree.But, I'm not gonna get my hopes up on that.
I lost confidence in this govt back in the 60's when I was a kid. I see no reason to change now. But, when we discuss other issues, like say, DADT( which I said a month or so ago, that it was only a matter of time) I took a more moderate position.
That's just the way I think. I've seen enough to know not to get my hopes up. I don't expect much. Every once and awhile, I get surprised. But with this admin, not yet.
On the prosecutions, yes, there have been some, and some are pending. they are. that's just the truth of the matter.
Hey fiver, if I don't follow up on this conversation, I'll check back tomorrow morning. I have to work early tomorrow. Thanks for the chat bud. and hey, Merry Christmas.:)
What is your conceptual, continuity?
But because some people wrote some media pieces you think a man should be killed?
How can Anwar al-Awlaki "turn himself in"? He's not wanted for any crime. He's been charged with nothing. Why not?
Moreover, even the media pieces seem to have as their major accusation only that he "inspired" attacks - and that alone is not only not a crime, it is protected speech.
Hence Obama's "conundrum": The law won't let him do what he wants to, so he does it anyway.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Not necessarily. The man has options. But, if he chooses not to use his options, then it's his own decision. You cite to media as the source. Yes, I don't always believe what I hear or read. Which brings me back to this guy being a CIA plant. Could there be a better cover for a plant to have the US govt put him on a hit list?
Just food for thought.
Inspired attacks? That's conspiracy to commit murder.
True, that's not enough to have him executed.
But ya know fiver, this guy has made videos calling for attacks on the US.
He has been shown to be a person who has "climbed the ladder" of organizations who do wish to attack the US.
The guy made videos saying all this.
Like I said, his future or outcome is not set in stone. He has options.
After all this, it lends me to believe, there's more to this guy than meets the eye.
ok, I'm done. early rise for me fiver. Gotta start before 7 am tomorrow.
buenos noches amigo.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
GN Peace.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I enjoy our conversations. It gets so old with all the bickering when it ends up being about the person. I'm glad you and I can move past that.
Peace fiver.
And Merry Xmas.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Same as Brian Kilmeade did on Faux TV, with his advocacy of car bombing comments.
I believe Brian 'two fingers' Kilmeade still has his job at Faux AND liberty. I missed the news report of the USAF dropping JDAMs on Faux corporate HQ in response too. (as they do to other foreign news offices)
I would like to see Cheney , Bush , Rumsfeld and the whole bunch in prison for life at least , in fact I would prefer they were sent to the Hague and then made to pay the ultimate price for their crimes and that justice be served , but seriously , can you imagine this country if Obama and the Dems did go after Cheney , Bush and company , or if they turned them over to a world court ? All hell would break lose , it would be real ugly ( to say the least ) .
This is an American-made problem and requires an American-made answer. They had no problem lying the world (yes, a coalition) into two wars and writing the legal opinions to abduct and detain anyone on the planet, imprison and torture them, without trials. No effort was too small for that. No laws, treaties or conventions too tough to overcome.
I say fuck 'em. If they have to work Christmas and New Years, do your fucking job. Hell, go right through Easter, just git-er-done guys.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
It's the Democratic Congress that wants to pass this excuse this month.
What a coward. Having a Congress controlled by the party he leads draft an excuse that he can pretend stops him from doing what he doesn't want to do anyway. So much for administration's "best efforts" to solve this "conundrum."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Let's see. It's not what the constitution says. It is what fiverites tell you it implies.
There are not three branches of government.
"When a majority of Congress belongs to the same party as the elected President, the Executive controls the Legislative Branch. Even when Congress does something the Executive opposes, this is merely a ruse."
Article 22.....Always Blame the White House (Obama Hatred Corollary)
TFR
What do you think should be done about them?
They find a way to give them a trial post-haste, or they release them. The end. You're a nation of laws, or you're not.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
So America is the Death Star. Not to be trusted again.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Just when Barry Apologist Lemmings were feeling all fuzzy and warm lately and they began squirming out of their cocoons, up pops this issue and lo and behold their squabbling begins. Such pathetic hypocrites and boring as well.
It may have popped up again because the President addressed the issue just today. He indicated that he intends to close Gitmo. It's a start.
I'd remind you that Bush and Cheney got us into this mess.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
a day when Americans believed in themselves, and would stand up for the right thing. Try them, or let them go in this country, help them in every way possible, with faith that you're doing the right thing and people will learn from that. Stop listening to the fear mongers and the haters, they are NOT American in their beliefs nor their actions.
has broken its own laws in the service of the war industry. Taking our country back will be difficult, we need to consciously work toward knowing the threat and understanding how to use our institutions to get all of us out of this mess. I mean all of us.
How about you give each of them $15 million in damages, put them in the witness protection programme, and find them places to live and allow their families to come and live with them. They can be monitored in the programme. Not exactly set free. but...
That's pretty cheap for what America has done to then, not to mention your own reputation in the world. You might be able to buy some friends.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
That's the kind of thing i have been thinking about. Some variation of that...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
You know this issue will NEVER get past the politics involved. It will NEVER get past the cry,"Keep me safe," people seem wont to bleat out.
It's a real crossroad for America. Honour 240 years of history and law, or run up the Swastika and kill whomever the fuck you please. I'm betting on the latter. The bloom is off the rose: the curtain has been pulled back. The truth is evident.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
is the incredible cowardice, moral depravity and slothfulness of CONgress, who categorically refuses to face up to the litany of stupid decisions they took during the Dark Ages of 2000-2008.
Mucho Democrass as well as Reichpubliscums supported the Patriot Act, the invasion of iraq under false pretenses, the authorization of ever harsher penalties (and torture too) for anything the state would label "terrorism" the unbelievably fast erosion of our civil rights, the evisceration of the Rule of Law, due process, the presumption of innocence etc. etc.
Senators and Representatives KNOW they are accomplices of all that.
Gitmo detainees are the living incarnation of all that, and Congress just does not want the American people to (finally!!) awaken to these facts.
Just look back at the incredible creativity, contradictions, false logic and outright lies Congress came up with when came the time to address Obama's promise to close the best recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.
Truth is, if Obama was a real fighter, he'd veto everything in sight until Congress bend over and get real.
You either believe in the rule of law, or you don't!
incredible cowardice, moral depravity and slothfulness of CONgress, who categorically refuses to face up to the litany of stupid decisions they took during the Dark Ages of 2000-2008.
Who says bipartisanship is dead? Alive and well in matters of war and destruction.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
http://www.truth-out.org/white-house-drafts-e...
torture victims....detainees...and maimed Iraqi children will grow up...
learn to fly and be the perpetrators of future 911's....
and they won't be hating us for our freedoms....
but go shopping in the meantime....
It seems odd that anyone would behave as though there were a choice about whether or not a person was entitled to due process. But I suppose that goes hand in glove with pretending that you can declare war on a tactic.
Eventually, when the SCOTUS are passed away and the detainees are passed away, what has been done in the name of keeping us safe will be declared unconstitutional.
It isn't as though we haven't done it before knowing all the while that what we were doing was illegal under the rule of law that we claim to respect.
As the John Woo letter and doctrine approved torture of American men women and children, if there was this imaginary '24' style ticking clock to justify whatever.
Knuckles 2008, almost unemployed :(
Knuckles in 2010 :)
It shouldn't be a problem really.
Is yours the land of the logistically challenged?
Let's not pretend it's harder than it really is. Either you follow the standard of allowing every supposed criminal a fair trial, or you don't. The action determines if your country is a banana republic or a democratic state.
If liberals can't even spell this choice out plainly, I don't thiink there is much hope for the nation. Has everyone who understand had their balls cut off and stored away in Dick Cheneys safe?
Don't forget there is already a "chilling effect" at work on the good people of America - soon, if things continue down this road there will be very few that will dare say anything at all, for fear of being incarcerated. Then it will be truly too late. Chilling indeed.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Keeping everybody and everything safe and secure and monitored (for your/their protection)
then release them. It's that simple. Send them back where you found them.
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
Does Obama also think it is ok that other countries also detain Americans indefinitely without a chance for a trial? Is the rest of the world on equal ground? If you go forth with such amazing violations of the constitution and human rights, then you must expect that your own citizens can also be treated the same way abroad. Pretty scary, if they accept this premise.
...where? Everyone keeps saying "Try them or release them." Well, we know the difficulties in trying them thanks to "enhanced interrogation." But everyone seems to be forgetting that the countries of origin for the majority of these detainees don't want them back. Or did everyone miss the part about diplomatic efforts failing? That's what that means. These are men without countries now.
need to ball-up and say "Not only will we take these people into detention into our state, WE WANT THEM IN OUR STATE, to show that the US is a nation of laws, that those laws will be respected, and our jurisprudence can work in ANY CASE."; but I don't know of any state right now that has the balls for that.
All of them should. My gutless governor, Granholm, doesn't.
Here's a solution with a clear answer: Release them to U.S. soil, since we dragged them here against their will. If they commit an ACTUAL CRIME while in our country, you know, something illegal that we can prove with ACTUAL evidence, arrest them and hold them for trial.
Problem solved by a nation of laws.
Probably Guilty central - no cover charge, open anytime, come on down.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_green...
Comments, Karoli?
"What's been most striking to me since I wrote that Manning article has been how the debate over detainee abuse has "evolved" -- and not evolved -- from the Bush years. Back then, Bush defenders were completely incapable of separating their opinions of the detainees from the question of whether the treatment was abusive and inhumane (these are Terrorists, so who cares what is done to them?). That has been the primary response to those defending the government's treatment of Manning as well (he's a Traitor!!) -- except now, of course, it's found among many progressives: note how identical is the response from this front page writer of the liberal blog Crooks & Liars ("the meme o the day seems to be on Manning’s so-called torture, to which I say ‘boo hoo'") to that of The Weekly Standard ("Don't Cry for Bradley Manning") and RedState ("Give Bradley Manning His Pillow and Blankie Back"). This convergence is a perfect microcosm for how much our political discourse over such matters has transformed since January 20, 2009. "
Obama is learning that it's easy to say something in a campaign, but a different story when you are faced with governing!
we could build a new maximum-security prison to hold them all on GW Bush's Waco ranch.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Art is either plagiarism or revolution." -- Gaugin
As individuals, Americans are generally relatively brave. But collectively, we act as pathetic cowards. We are afraid of giving a bunch of prisoners a fair trial, because we tremble at the thought that some of them who are guilty may be set free in the process. To me, if we're really as tough as we like to think we are, we shouldn't be worried about that. Give them all trials, and imprison those whom the evidence clearly shows are guilty. Let the others free. If they act against us, well, we captured them once, we should be able to take care of them again. On the other hand, perhaps a few will respect the fairness with which they were (eventually) treated, and maybe think twice about fighting against us. But whimpering and wringing our hands about possibly letting some go, even those we know were imprisoned mistakenly, only sends the message that we are cowards and bullies.
Comments are closed on this entry