TOPICS

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1197)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (733)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
(h/t Heather)

Will Rogers famously said that he wasn't a part of an organized group, he was a Democrat. Sadly, when it comes to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), that's even more true. I understand that Nelson is a conservative Democrat and comes from a historically conservative state, but there's no excuse for his abject stupidity in discussing Guantanamo and how to deal with the detainees there.

What's so odd about Nelson's NIMBY attitude is that he himself points out the flaws in his logic: we have and are successfully housing some really dangerous men (including both foreign and domestic terrorists, like Moussaoui and Eric Rudolph) in prisons on American soil without incident. Nelson just doesn't want them here.

Well, Sen. Nelson, I'd prefer that we have a country that wasn't full of criminals and people who wish us harm too. But unfortunately, that isn't reality. I live within 30 miles of San Quentin prison and Bay Area residents (for as liberal and hippy as our reputation is) do not seem to be all that concerned about our collective safety. The fear that these people will be on American soil so that we deal with them as befitting our justice system forgets that they will also be under heavy lock and guard as well.

And then in another annoyingly wrong nod to bipartisanship, Nelson lends credit to the Republican meme of Jack Bauer/the-ends-justify-the-means issue of keeping American safe is somehow the moral equivalent of respecting the rule of law:

WALLACE: Senator Nelson, who’s right about the balance between, on the one hand, keeping the country safe and, on the other hand, living up to our values?

NELSON: Well, they probably both are in some -- to one degree or another. I don’t think anybody wants to see this country attacked again. And I think it’s also a question about whether or not it is held against us because these tactics have been used.

But look, the president, when he was running, said that we’re going to stop waterboarding. John McCain has said it’s torture. I think what we have to do is understand that this decision apparently was decided last -- last November.

But what we need to do is make sure that the intelligence information that’s gathered is accurate, that we do everything within our power to get good intelligence, and it may or may not consist of coming from enhanced techniques.

Oh holy FSM. I'm so tired of this dishonesty. NOTHING of value came from torture, and to suggest that it might is accepting the Republican framing of this issue. Nelson should be ashamed of his ignorance. If we had to torture three people over 30 days more than 200 times looking for some way to connect Iraq to 9/11 (unsuccessfully, too), then how can anyone with the least bit of common sense much less intelligence think that it kept us safe? Does Nelson actually think that the 108 detainees killed via "enhanced interrogation techniques" have actually deterred terrorism?

Think about it, Sen. Nelson, before you spout off on television again, hurting your party and the President's stance: If your son, brother, cousin or friend (even if he had jihadist tendencies--something we have not yet proven) was killed in the name of the American "War on Terror", would you be inclined to be sympathetic to the American cause, or would you too seek revenge for the US's dehumanizing treatment?

WALLACE: Senator Nelson, congressional Democrats, I think it’s fair to say, jumped ship on the administration this week on the idea of closing Guantanamo. What do you need to see from the administration in the way of a plan before you can get behind this?

NELSON: Well, the president needs to come forward with a complete plan, a comprehensive plan. I think there are differences between those terrorists that have committed crimes in America against American law, such as Moussaoui -- they’re already in prisons here, Supermax prisons -- 30-some out in Colorado.

So consequently, I think what has to be done is a distinction made between those criminals and those who are -- who have yet to be tried by tribunals. I think the tribunals can occur anywhere, and I’d prefer not to see them occur in America, on -- in the -- within the continental United States.

Once they’re convicted, and assuming they will be, then I think we need to work out with their countries an arrangement where they’re incarcerated there. Those countries have a responsibility, too. They are, after all, their citizens, their residents, and they need to -- they need to step to the forefront on it as well.

WALLACE: I’m a little confused by your answer, though, Senator Nelson. Are you saying if someone is convicted -- now, I understand the administration is trying to get other countries to take some of these detainees. But -- and so far, the Obama administration has had the good fortune of getting only two picked up, one by Britain and one by France.

Are you saying that you would be willing to accept convicted terrorists in the United States, even perhaps in Nebraska?

NELSON: Well, no. Look, and federal prisons -- we don’t have any in Nebraska, so it’s not about “not in my backyard.” This is a situation where we have Moussaoui here. We have the blind cleric from the first bombing of the twin trade towers. We have them here. I’m just saying if they committed violations of American law, that’s one thing. They can be tried here, and it might be even hard to argue that they shouldn’t be kept here.

But on those that are detainees that have violated the laws of war, we don’t have to worry about bringing them here. I think they need to be kept elsewhere, wherever that is. I don’t think -- I don’t want to see them come on American soil.

[snip]

WALLACE: Senator Nelson, who’s right about the balance between, on the one hand, keeping the country safe and, on the other hand, living up to our values?

NELSON: Well, they probably both are in some -- to one degree or another. I don’t think anybody wants to see this country attacked again. And I think it’s also a question about whether or not it is held against us because these tactics have been used.

But look, the president, when he was running, said that we’re going to stop waterboarding. John McCain has said it’s torture. I think what we have to do is understand that this decision apparently was decided last -- last November.

But what we need to do is make sure that the intelligence information that’s gathered is accurate, that we do everything within our power to get good intelligence, and it may or may not consist of coming from enhanced techniques.

But you know, right now you’ve got questions about whether or not you’re getting accurate information from the CIA. Former Speaker Gingrich said back in ‘07 that the National Intelligence -- the NIE was (inaudible), not -- not workable, was not good, it was full of misinformation. And then you had Peter Hoekstra , Representative Hoekstra, saying he got lied to.

I think we need to get our intelligence at the best level that we can and stop the focus quite so much on enhanced techniques.



Login or Register to post comments.

29 comments

But Nelson is a tool for the re=Thug Party. A classic wanker that suddenly feels important and empowered.

He should take both his hands out of the front of his pants for a few minutes in order to seriously consider whether or not he is acting in the best interests of America and his constituents.
*

How about, since these "enemy combatants" have neither been charged with a crime, nor tried, how about sending them home? The vast majority of the poor bastards being held at gitmo haven't done a damn thing other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I have a big problem with continuing to incarcerate what are, for lack of any credible evidence to the contrary, innocent men. I've got a question: How would Americans like it if the Iraqi or Afghani governments started rounding up our troops and holding them indefinitely, without trial, not as POWs but "enemy combatants"?

I am increasingly of the opinion that Ben Nelson shouldn't be allowed in America.

That tie is reason enough to keep him out.
*

That hair is reason enough to keep him out too!

Ben Nelson= Relic from the horse and buggy era.

From his website:

"As a young man at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Ben Nelson spent his Sundays serving as a lay minister to rural Nebraska congregations. In a nod to his public service leanings, Nelson chose law school over the ministry. Nelson enjoyed a successful career in insurance law. He has served as CEO of the Central National Insurance Group...

This guy is an actuarial type. An insurance salesman/lawyer/minister.

Does it get any worse?

Wow, Nelson is a member of three of the absolutely least trustworthy classes of human being. Talk about a trifecta!

No.

this gdcser won't even vote for an option for us to choose to have single payer or a govt adminned plan:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Friday that he will oppose legislation that would give people the option of a public health insurance plan. The move puts him on the opposite side of two-thirds of Americans.

---

Nelson's problem, he told CQ, is that the public plan would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans. "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game," Nelson said. Including a public option in a health plan, he said, was a "deal breaker."

...

So since, [as even he admits] "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game...", because it would be BETTER for the American People, we can't have it. We can't have it, because the detriment would be shouldered by a mega wealthy multi national industry.

He's the kind of guy who will put insurance companies' profits before the healthcare needs of the US population.

What he thinks about where the illegally detained human beings at Gitmpo should go -- not a surprise, coming from a selfish, venal 'Christian' poseur.

what's somewhat interesting at the same time they say UNfair advantage for single payer public plan on the otherside of their mouth they tell us how bad it would be to have government run the plan.
i thought these people believed in the "market". my argument is if the public plan is so bad people won't join/participate. maybe the real concern is that they are afraid it will work.

to shoulder the cost burden of health care, to protect the profit margins and CEO bonus packages in the corporate world.

That is it, as simply as I can say.

What a filthy piece of garbage. I'm sure he was holding his bible when he spewed that satanic bullshit too!

How can assholes like this even walk out in public, without getting stoned by the masses?

Are we a nation of laws, or not? Simple as that. Do we believe in incarcerating people without a trial forever, or not? Yes or no? If it were you, or me, or anybody, trial or not?

If we can deal with Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, and any number of violent serial killers--proven killers--then we can deal with any of these poor bastards. Let's see the damn evidence. Either that or we're no better than China or the Soviet Union.

I live less than a mile from a maximum security prison. When there is a rare escape, the inmate is hunted down like a dog. Yes, they're in prison for a reason, but it's animalistic. If we can deal with them, we can deal with the most hardened criminals. We're either a nation of laws, or we're not.

They should be released. The evidence is no doubt tainted, we can't believe anything that the administration who created this says, which makes the chain of custody of any physical evidence suspect, to say the least.

And I assume that any spoken word or written evidence was made up, since everything regarding the run up to 9/11 was a lie ("We didn't know").

Send them to their homes and families, if any are left or will have them back. Just being IN Gitmo makes them outcasts at home. No marriage for those guys, and it's on us.

Ben "Lightweight" Nelson never fails to satisfy in that regard.

that members of both parties "assume" guilt of these individuals at Gitmo? How can they be guilty, if their captors have never proved it? The debate is not really about giving these people a fair day in court, but more, where to hold them indefinitely. First prove they're guilty.

why is ANY democrat, even DINO ben (gutless ingrate) nelson appearing on Fox News? why?

Is Nelson really stupid? I mean really. Is he stupid?

Yes

No.

Movements need martyrs.

If they are being held for crimes against us, why should they go home?

Why not let them come here, have the trial here, aren't we at war?

Why are people who want war so much scared of dying?

That's why they don't want these detainees in American prisons - too much civilian oversight! Better to keep them on foreign soil, but under US control. That way, they can do what they want to these people without anyone else seeing. Shadow governments don't function well in plain sight.

security risk to nearby 'Murkin suburbia are either dishonest or stupid. Face it. If mobsters and well-connected groups (Aryan Nation, etc) haven't been able to break any of their "leaders" out of Super Max yet (and what, waltz into the nearest Dairy Queen and ask a customer to borrow a cell phone?), what makes anyone think a group of ragtag prisoners from Gitmo would be able to do it?

(DINO-Neb.)

Ben Nelson is an arse upon which everything has sat but a man.

He wants to be everything to everybody and winds up being nothing to nobody, except to the looney fringe 20% ers.

This sap from NE is the posterboy for political cowardice. Get a god damn spine Ben and have the balls to stand for something redemptive instead being a backward looking status quo maintainer.

Nelson likes the attention he's getting. He knows he gets attention when he speaks out against the Obama administration. He's the new Joe Lieberman.

When he says he may support a filibuster, you know the press is going to jump all over it, and he knows it too. It's the Lieberman syndrome, trash your party while staying in it, pretending you're having a "conscience" issue. Lieberman kept in the spotlight saying he's not sure if he's going to switch parties. Notice that Joe has kept quiet lately because his threat of changing parties doesn't mean s*** anymore.

Soon Nelson's trashing of all things Democratic won't mean s*** anymore either. He's being used, and eventually Fox will get tired of him, and find another stooge waiting in the wings, probably Evan Bayh.

Nelson doesn't seem to know that he's in the majority, made larger thanks to Specter's defection. Does he know? Does he care?

Why do they always pick the dumbest bluedog dipshits to be on television?

Oh, never mind. I guess that was rhetorical.

whom I guess isn't actually dead. there he is on tv. wow whoda thought

29 comments

Login or Register to post comments.