This Week: Obama Thanks Cheney For Good Advice And Hedges On Closing Gitmo and War Crimes Investigations
By Nicole Belle Sunday Jan 11, 2009 12:00pm
I have never been one of those who saw Barack Obama with blinders on, projecting all my best liberal hopes upon him. However, that said, I will say that just days from his inaugural, it is heartbreaking to my liberal soul to see Obama become so deeply embedded into the Beltway Bubble crowd that he can validate all the logical fallacies that have had so many of us beating our head against the wall for the last eight years.
For example, in a discussion of the War on Terror and what measures must be taken to "keep the country safe," Obama tells host George Stephanopoulos that he appreciates Cheney's advice to not judge the Bush administration's action without the full knowledge of what has taken place, a strange challenge from the most malevolently secretive executive this country has seen, though one not completely ignored by Obama:
"I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what’s going on before we make judgments and that we shouldn’t be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric," Obama said. "So, I’ve got no problem with that particular quote. I think if Vice President Cheney were here, he and I would have some significant disagreements on some things that we know happened."
Now, I wish I could be as post-partisan as Obama, because my inclination is to retort back that taking Cheney's advice on how to keep the country safe would be a little like taking Bernie Madoff's advice on my 401k. Maybe that's why public office isn't really my forte. More troubling though is Obama's hedging on items that the country has said definitively they want him to work on--like closing Gitmo.
"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," [..].
"We are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true," Obama said.
"And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up. That’s a challenge."
Really? Intent on blowing us up? Let me explain something: if you held me for over five years without charge or basic judicial rights, I'd want to blow you up too. Hell, I'd like it if you stop trying to feed me through my nose. It's not that complicated. If they're dangerous, try them. By holding them without charges or trials, WE'RE ACTUALLY MAKING US LESS SAFE, because we are confirming every bad thing the global community thinks about how the US considers itself above the law.
And finally, Stephanopoulos brings up Bob Fertik's (of Democrats.com and Change.org) campaign to get the Obama administration to commit to investigating the Bush administration for their abuse of office. While not a definitive "no" like Pelosi, et al., Obama is clearly hedging his bets:
We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth…And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices. I don’t believe that anybody is above the law.
I realize there's a danger in saying too much before the inauguration (and while Bush can still issue pardons), but I find it disheartening that the "Change We Can Believe In" does not include accountability. The whole notion that we shouldn't look back is ridiculous, even when Reid and Pelosi used it. Our whole notion of criminal justice is all about looking back. Unless of course, we've developed some sort of "Minority Report"-like ability to charge people with crimes before they commit them.
Login or Register to post comments.
I tend to doubt they'll be any war crimes investigations or trials. Foreign policy weighs so heavily on the US, that any mistake could lead to charges of War Crimes, even the Bay of Tonkin rationale for the Vietnam war (or is that Gulf of Tonkin?)
So any Chief Executive would be leery of creating something that may come back and bite him in the ass.
That's Hillary's job.
The first black president,
taking on the third generation of the most powerful crime family in US history?
"Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture."
This is an unrecognized, at least an uncommented upon major component.
The wingnuts THINK he is a liberal, they SEE his complexion, that already has their heads exploding.
If he actually went after any the WHITE guys for being CRIMINALS, that to the wingers would no doubt be: UPPITY in extremis, beyond even their most quiescent endurance.
Meanwhile the Limousine Liberals congratulate themselves on being 'post racial'.
What we are as a country, is post civilization.
I am not going to come down on Obama for things he cannot change, only the ones that he can change.
He is being handed a stacked deck. Maybe this a poker face he is presenting.
What I do know, to the Masters controlling the Game, nothing matters except how much wealth they can accumulate.
Bushco and the Banksters ride off into the sunset with trillions in their pockets, a list of their crimes a mile long and with nary one posse person after them.
Yeah...this is the FAMILY that was implicated in a plot to take over the government,and possibly assassinate the President in the 1930s and 40s...and that MAY have had a hand in assassinating a different President 20 years or so later....
Not to mention ALL manner of other nastiness.....
(just joking here---> )Maybe Obama has been shown the Big Book of Presidential Secrets......
(hoping desperately that that is a joke...)
How does a criminal end up at the Hague? What is the step by step procedure and who initiates it?
"the U.S. has now completely disengaged from the ICC. This was signaled powerfully in April this year when the Bush Administration took the unprecedented step of “un-signing” the Rome Statute, the international treaty which establishes the Court and sets out its functions. The basis of U.S. opposition to the ICC has been that, as the world’s only superpower, its military forces spread across the globe are uniquely at risk of politically motivated prosecutions."
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/international...
like Baltazar Garzon issuing a mandate for arrest. This puts a name on the Interpol list of wanted people. If the villain put his feet in any European country, he MUST be picked up and arrested by the local authorities (no discretion here) and extradited to the country where the judge issued the order.
BTW, he doesn't matter one n'gwee if the political elite do not want the Judge to issue the order. There is no "Justice Department" like in the US, where the President choose whomever he please, a rather stupid notion if you want a truly independent judiciary as Bush 43 and Gonzo have shown.
It goes without saying that the laws of the US do not apply in Europe.
*evil grin*
our country does not recognize the ICC, if a criminal is put on the Interpol list, he can be arrested in Europe and tried at the Hague?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service...
It authorizes the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. This has led opponents of the act to call it "The Hague Invasion Act".[1][2]
Use military force on the Netherlands where the court is.
the Rome Statute. Can he?
n/t
I will look to that act of re-signing as a way for justice to be done.
If it works anything like American law, it won't work ex post facto.
Many legal scholars think it won't stand up in court. Bush is relying on those who come after him to enforce it, should it come to that.
and they take it to the World Court.
Any member nation of the UN can do it. AG Holder has the ball in his court... what did you want PEBO to do... say oh yeah we will prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law... remember Bush still has 10 days...
That would be just enough time for him to grant full pardons to the whole lot of them. Give him a little credit for keeping things under his hat a bit please... geeze..
As far as Pelosi not going for Impeachment... then Cheney would have been President... IF it could have gotten done... but how many votes would it have gotten in the senate??? Do you really think you would have gotten an impeachment vote through the Senate against Bush with 51 Democrats???? Now get real... She was... so get off her case... she was being realistic for a change... that's why she took it off the table... it kept them from giving the whole lot of themselves pardons for god's sake
.
Impeachment happens in the House of Representatives... PERIOD!
The Senate has no bearing over an impeachment with the exception that the Senate tries the case. However, for the Senate to even attempt to try the case, there first MUST be an impeachment from the House of Representatives, who, for unknown reasons, refuse to. Or more correctly, John Conyers and his House Judiciary Committee refuse to move on any of the impeachment charges, which several sit on Chairman Conyers desk.
Not enough votes in the Senate to... CONVICT!
However, when the Senate has to explain how torture is not antithetical to America's past performance concerning it's use, then I suspect an awakened America. So stay asleep, people. The Senate is not going to have that debate.
And when the Senate has the debate on how being lied to, a Federal offense, is somehow ethical, then Americans will awaken from their long slumber.
And when the Senate debates the redeeming qualities of falsifying evidence so as to commit an act of FRAUD against the Republic, well, that should shake some people to the core.
Or when the Senate discusses the merits to being usurped, well then, Americans will truly see the fraud before their eyes.
And maybe, just maybe, when the Senate debates the necessity to violating the Fourth and Eighth Amendments Americans will have had enough and throw off Tyranny so as to be safe and secure and then be free to pursue happiness.
.
Well why won't they just impeach and then if found to have committed treason/warcrimes execute them?
that the responsible exercise of power puts on Obama.
As a Commander-in-Chief that wants to do the right thing, (the very definition of a true leader) he is more restricted and limited than most of us will ever be.
That is why Bush's legacy is so damning: he plainly refused to be a responsible leader. He preferred to get his way, no matter what the consequences.
If Rick Warren says it's a go, then it might happen.
Post-partisan is just the political establishment's current way of saying, "the king is dead, long live the king".
Obama serves the same narrow segment of society that Bush served. He'll pander differently, because their voting base is different, but the difference will be one of style, not substance.
It must be nice to be smarter than the rest of us poor rubes.
Rolling my eyes...
Who said anything about being smarter than you, Lumbergh? Try to focus.
Why didn't you include the rest of his answer about the AG? Are you just trying to create negative comments about the issue?
I found his whole framing that we need to look forward not backward as eerily reminiscent of his colleagues in the Senate who, after achieving the majority, seemed disinclined to do the business that the voters gave them the majority for.
Eric Holder has his own issues and is probably better suited for a post on its own.
Eric Holder would be the one to decide whether there will investigations. Obama said Holder works for the people. What is it you didn't get about that statement?
More so than any other nomination currently. The rightwingers are fighting Holder big time. Does that mean that if Holder doesn't get the nod, the idea of investigations goes out the window?
By placing this on Holder's doorstep, Obama made this an issue for the nomination hearings.
I'd prefer a unilateral statement regardless of who holds that post.
Obama has made it clear he would not interfere with investigations.
to the new nominee if Eric Holder's nomination is cut down by the Republicans because of his stated commitment to investigate?
It's a political calculus that I regret.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNoVjrOJmM
God, wouldn't that be the most incredible confirmation hearing in our lives!!!
Woo! Yeah, baby!!!
I can just see the sweat pouring off Feinstein's brow right now.
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr Obama, are you listening?
Oh good god, that would be an answer to my prayers, if I prayed. I absolutely love Turley. Damn, he's so smart!
If Obama had said today that he was going to look into the war crimes of this administration, I doubt he have gotten any of his choices through confirmation hearings. A lot of repubs and some democrats would begin to fight him on everything.
Ashcroft or Gonzales works for the people.
If you mean, he only prosecutes people, not officials then you may have a point.
And I'm glad she spoke up. There are several on here that are concerned about the policies Obama is outlining.
I know prosecution would be a difficult and dangerous task, but it is beginning to look like even a slap on the wrist is off the table.
"We don't want the people who conduct our intelligence operations looking over their shoulders worried about criminal prosecution" loosely quoted but both Cheney and Obama made the same/similar remark.
Basically Obama is once again being surprisingly honest. While I doubt there'll be any 'revelations' once he's sworn in, it could still be possible that Dumbass and Vader might really have intel that we and Barry don't have (yet, in Obama's case).
If President Obama tells us that there are legitimate security concerns with releasing some of the Gitmo detainees, will we believe him because he's not GeeDub or Vader, or will we just assume he's sold out?
Time will tell.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Here I am reading along nicely in Nicole Belle's article, and find her already finding fault with Obama's presidency even before he is sworn in! That's beginning to sound like a lot of wingnuts. He's being cautious in his statements now, because he is not yet the president! Give him some slack. Wait until after he's been there for a couple years before you start judging his performance.
I can't even imagine the hell that would have broken loose today if soon to be President Obama had said, Yes, I am planning to investigate the bush administration for war crimes along with other crimes. That would have been insane.
He did say he was going to close Gitmo but he said there have to be some plans in place before that could happen. If he had said he was closing it on Jan 21, again all hell would have broken out.
Remember when he said he would be president for all the people? He will be. He's not just governing for the right or the left, he going to be governing for what's best for our country and that will be for me, a welcomed change.
I agree with this. He can't say anything or telegraph his hand in any way.
Do I think he will do anything about the criminality of this administration.....Don't know.
He doesn't have the power...yet. He also knows one thing, he can't do what he wants to do if something horrible happens to him or his administration. He's a student of history, and I believe he's learned that lesson.
There are steps that have to be undone, Legally, (most of the junk that this last administration put in place) before a lot of stuff can be DONE.
I am preferring to trust this man. I know that that is counter-intuitive, and maybe stupid, but it's really all we have at this point.
Once power has been successfully transferred....then we will see.
Not sure it would be prudent for Obama to get specific regarding his intentions on past/future torture,illegal wiretapping and other potential crimes committed. We need to have a quick concensus in the house to get quick action.If Obama talks about the past, which I believe do need to be addressed in hearings surely the (R) will make life as difficult as possible in the near future ie. delaying and downsizing the needed stimulus package.
Is ANYONE surprised at the dishes of pablum Obama is serving? Where were you during the Primaries? He's a talker and a public speaker and a standard successful American. Nothing more. Wake up folks - this is your country. Accept it, drink it in, savor it and then put it in your pipe and smoke it. Like the flavor? Damned rascal.
Mark my words, Obama's Presidency will be more about his talking to the nation than any real change... and there'll be a million+ apologists lamenting that he didn't get a fair shake because of what was left to him by the previous miscreants.
Change my bloody ass... change from Bush and his cabal, sure. Not exactly a benchmark worth taking seriously.
Try KY Jelly.
Folk with true courage and conviction use a combo of sand and vaseline... grow a pair.
I sure miss the Obama who was going to:
Get us out of Iraq in 16 months
Repeal the upper-income Bush tax cuts
Start us down the road to energy independence
Close Gitmo
Doesn't seem like it was that long ago. Thousands of years in "American Idol time" I suppose...
Mcjoan over ah Daily Koss has a good essay what happened after Watergate and how the establishment pushed all the Nixon crap under the rug after Tricky Dick left.
It also says how hard it will be to prosecute anyone for their actions.
Not saying it won't happen but I won't be sitting in front of C-Span waiting for the hearings to start.
Answering the Past
Are Bush/Cheney's offenses punishable by death if their orders resulted in the death of a detainee?
nobody got a death sentence for killing prisoners in Abu Graib...
Is this a surprise? When Pelosi said impeachment was off the table, did anyone still hold on to the hope that Bush/Cheney Inc. would be held responsible for what they've wrought on the country and world? No one in the Democratic field of candidates sans Kucinich was talking about making these bastards face their guilt, and we came real close to electing him, didn't we?
This is elite ass-coverage for the big boys in power. Nothing less and nothing surprising here. Anyone holding out hope for a Bush arraignment best hope is that a local beach cop slaps the cuffs on him on some future tropical vacation.
I don't know what Obama's intentions are, but boosh still has a few days to put out a blanket pardon, that possibly could include himself. So by saying nothing, he's keeping booshco off-balance.
Additionally, if anyone were freed from illegal detention/torture they could file a complaint against boosh in American court as long as it's within the Statute of Limitations. And as overseas citizens against an American, that would inevitably end up in the Supreme Court.
wow...............a lot of negativity and the guy is NOT even in the office yet. sounds like premature ejaculation.obama has been handed a financial crisis/credit freeze/unemployment/defecit which for the most part reared it's ugly head september/october 2008. i believe many of you are underestimating Obama. let's let Obama get in office. Bush and company set this changing of the guard to be difficult purposely.
As for the 'negativity and the guy is NOT even in the office yet' stuff, after being swindled and lied to for years by the US government, we are entitled to feel 'negative' if we want to.
It is our DUTY to question those in power. Remaining silent is dangerous.
want to be negative.....go for it enjoy......this is complicated. Obama has good poker face for now.
i'm personally going to read between the line(s) and be a contrarian. there are plenty of pissed off members in the congress/senate. i'm going to be patient. it's not easy just a choice.
Your going to be like all the brain dead republicans that supported "their guy" no matter what.
Say, isn't it time for you to throw a water fountain through your window?
..
That was quick; I wasn't sure how enigmatic that reference was.
I've been sort of in this mood all day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGTtwRZAlt0
Here's anudder for Chris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytfmh_HpcjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MmyGmHea-U
Your going to be like all the brain dead republicans that supported "their guy" no matter what.
--------------------
more of, I'm waiting until he gets into office and starts doing things.
You are wringing your hands and going "woe is me" over stuff that hasn't even happened.
I enjoy my life. I am happy and joyful to be alive.
I am also realistic, skeptical and a little pessimistic about life ... and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised.
It is possible to be both 'negative' and 'positive' at the same time.
that is exactly right calgarylady!!!!!!! it was my understanding by barrys promisses in the primarys that he was outraged by the fisa act and that he would fillabuster that bill, then he goes and craps on his own promiss by voteing for it , and this mook said hed roll back the huge tax breaks for the rich , then he crawfishes on that, ect ect, just when are we allowed to question his actions that we see as no different then the repigs policys? i dont see obummer going against the bills he voted for in the first place ,
I appreciate your support!
Reveals you!
was it my fly unzipping that gave you the clue?
leads to demandish, impetuous, selfish behaviours. Useful when you need barking dogs but anoying when they start barking all the friggin time!
dont forget to feed the pit bulls before the match!
That's what I have been trying to say, but it seems no one is listening. He is getting hung before the trial.
... but a little discourse is always healthy. Just an observation from your neighbour to the north, that's all.
Same as the old boss................
The SAME as Bush? You are batshit nuts.
I realize the inauguration hasn't happened yet. Yet it looks as if you live in Afghanistan you are still in for some good times. If you are a victim of rendition, you may have a long wait. Also not a word on FISA. But we always can listen to Rick Warren....
Yes. change is a' comin'
Another "we have to move foreward" statement given by another politician more interested in protecting a corrupt system, instead of serving the people.
So just like with Clinton we will allow the current criminals to go free so that they can menace us 20 or 30 years later. And The Great Game continues.
We didn't have the blogosphere with Clinton. People are waking up to the criminal behavior of politicians and won't let them get away with their crap anymore.
Although Obama has alot of Clinton appointees, which is good in my eyes, our problems now are with the renegades from the Nixon administration.
One criminal element at a time. And having a hand on the levers of power first might be a good thing.
One thing I'd like to say here....how many potentially embarrassing events have been avoided by the incoming administration already. Edwards, Blago, Richardson....
I don't think our man and his friends are stupid.
Just my opinion, and possibly too optimistic, but it seems like the Dems are getting their own house in order first. Could be wishful thinking..but...could also be what's about to go on the table.
Obama f****d himself?
I bet you ladies would like to buy a DVD of that.
ys, what did you expect him to say? That he got some bad advice from cheney?
Certainly not a statement that makes even more excuses. How about no comment at all.
Keep in mind he is not president yet, and he has to wait till he become one, and there is only one president at a time. What he will and will not do is not yet for discussion as regarding the criminal that still hold powers. He has been rejected to be house in a traditional manner with protection while waiting to move into the whitehouse. Obama have received more threats before he took office than any other president during office. I don't think he is going to tackle the former president until after he deals with this country economy. And surely not until he actually become the President.
"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,"
But Obama said unequivocally that it will close. "I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values."
maybe Obama wants us (DFHs, Liberals, etc) to MAKE him do the just and leagal things.
"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," said Obama. "And obviously we're going to look at past practices. And I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up."
Dick Cheney will be teaching hunter safety courses in his golden years.
I used to wonder ifthe golden pond was on Henry Fonda's character's Depends.
Say what? Did Cheney threaten to take out all of your family in one of those closed door meetings? The NWO hangs in the balance... we can't have a little thing like a presidential election derail the ambitions of the international elite: How does the boot of fascism feel on your neck? Corporatism is issuing your marching orders and stepping out of line wouldn't be prudent.
i understand the whole don't be too specific before
bush is out of office thing.....it's like poker, it's
best to bluff or remain stoic while you hold your cards.
with bush, you let him even get an inkling and he will
give a broad carte blanche pardon to his whole administration.
i feel obama is just waiting to let bush play his hand
and then sweep in and start the long awaited clean up
of this unpresidented group of criminals in the bush
administration.
Those of us with alarming trepedations about Obama will be greatly relieved if he comes through and does the right thing. I think we'd even be willing to eat crow. My own trepidations became very strong because Obama renegged on his promise to vote against telecom immunity. I am alarmed at his choices for many of the positions in his administration. Extremely alarmed.
But what's going to happen to people who keep saying, just wait and see, he hasn't even been inaugurated, he'll do the right thing, we can count on him? What will you do if he doesn't? I think a clearer picture of him emerges if he's evaluated on what he's done to date. Or if you aren't willing to do that, hold back on your trust. This election of Obama was America's one chance to undo the depredations of GW Bush's administration. If Obama refuses to tackle that job, we are in DEEP deep trouble. Take everything into account and stay nimble on your feet.
To reiterate my first comment: we'd ALL love to eat crow about this.
It's finger lickin' good.
Southern-fried, particularly.
See: Sun, 01/11/2009 - 12:52 — ysbaddaden
The last thing he needs to be doing is handing out soundbytes that the oppo can use to paint him as Joe Stalin. I hope he stays vague, noncommittal and uninformative until after his cabinet's all confirmed, and he's got momentum on his economic agenda.
...that Obama is being incredibly smart.
Remember: he has an unbelievably tremendous job ahead of him just on domestic issues. He is talking "post-partisan" in order to get his domestic program passed.
By dumping the crimes of the past on the Attorney General and basically keeping a "hands-off" approach, then the AG can go ahead with whatever he deems necessary, and the Repugs can't have as easy a time of trashing Obama's entire agenda based on the idea that it's all left-wing payback. After all, the Justice Department is back to being independent, right?
If this is the reasoning, then the best thing he can possibly do is get the right person into the AG position. And he's trying to do that.
of negativity is dangerous. The gun has a tendency to go off in your face.
Describing your social life?
Only my disappointment with men in general.
to the exception.
Or the exceptional.
my bad.
Ooh...you've been a bad...bad...girl...
The funny thing was back in the 1820's when they had so many Frankenstein plays, there was a musical comedy based upon it called The Model Man, where the scientist Frankenstein was a woman making her perfect man. Apparently he wore a monocle and even had a song or two of his own, drawing comparisons from todays critics to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH2nQHPs4aA
I voted for Barrack Obama because even though he may be a politician by trade, there was a certain believability as well as a genuine desire to put the rule of law back in government, because without it we as a nation are nothing without our laws. I have said it before to many friends when the subject came up in conversations since the election. He just might pull a Gerry Ford and say for the betterment of the country we have to move on. What he said today came pretty close.
If whistleblowers are allowed to come forward, this could be the best opportunity in a couple of generations to finally purge those from government who like Bush believed that the Constitution is just a piece of paper. That piece of paper is what separates us from the rest of the world and those especially who broke THE LAW in wiretapping US citizens should be held accountable for their actions and prosecuted to the fullest extent of THE LAW. If this isn't what happens, then all we as a people ever do in a four year election cycle is to replace one set of corrupt suits for another and it then becomes apparent that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, where Republicans will hit you over the head with a St. Louis slugger while the Democrats will accomplish the same outcome using a velvet glove. Many of us here went ballistic over FISA just this past summer. I can appreciate the fact that he isn't in office yet and time will tell whether we are going to experience more of the same from Washington. Bottom line, Obama is still a politician.
Many seem to think the best way to rein in the problems left by Bush et al is to throw a grappling hook off the port side of the wagon causing the coach to make an immediate hard left. Others think you have to get your hands on the reins, seize the power while maintaining momentum and gradually make a course correction that won't topple the whole wagon.
It raises the question - is the cargo worth saving?
... just how badly the Justice Department has been treated lately? And how that's connected to this thread?
First, Bush turns the whole justice department into his political hand-maiden (so wrong, so damnably wrong). Then he puts little piss-ants from Pat Robertson's frikkin "Law Skool" in charge of hiring. How do you think the career lawyers felt?
Then he puts Mr. "Can't Recall" Gonzales, the hapless pet poodle, in charge of the whole machine. Then Gonzo fires any attorney who won't attack democrats on made-up charges. Then Gonzo can't recall how he made ANY of those decisions. Remember Gonzo's wild ride to Ashcroft's sickbed, trying to get a near-comatose Ashcroft to sign illicit orders? This stuff just goes on and on and on ...
... John "Torture Memo" Yoo? Writing memos contrary to every notion of justice ... not even his bosses would sign his filthy memos. But what he wrote still became Bush's excuse to torture.
Think there might be some lingering RESENTMENT in what is left of our Justice Department? Maybe a LOT of lingering resentment?
HERE'S MY POINT: The Justice Department, eager to clear its own good name, will jump at the chance to even the score with Bush/Cheney. All Obama has to do is stand out of the way -- which is politically expedient anyway. But, publicly, Obama would be foolish to broadcast his intentions.
Uh-oh. He's doing what he said he'd do - he's listening to everyone.
*
Recent rulings have strengthened their rights, which was needed and may help return us to a country which tries to follow its own laws. But, as was pointed out in post here months ago ..
Once you've tortured them you can't just untorture them.
Waterboarding aside, so much information is coming out about Gitmo abuse and abuse on the way to Gitmo in other facilities that probably any detainee can challenge any and all charges against him from his own treatment amounting to torture. Since that taints anything they said as well as anything that used after that to talk to others, and potentially makes any future confession they might make while in custody considered tainted. You can't convict ANY them. Not the big fish, not the little fish, not the ones you should have thrown back.
If you assume all to most of your information is tainted, you can't be sure on some of the fringe players if they really were ever convictable anyway. Maybe some of the hired help really did only standard domestic services? Regardless of how many other pressured detainees agree they were in on the third plot to kill Mickey Mouse by now.
So, you can't try them, and you can't hold them indefinitely. Releasing them is political suicide. Some you know aren't harmless, some might have been once but aren't now. Some, probably still are harmless, but no one wants those, which is why they are still there.
It seems complicated to me. I'm glad its not my job to sort that one out, even if it needs to be closed asap.
I always said I was voting for Obama because I wanted to be disappointed by a new generation of politician. I just never thought I'd be disappointed even BEFORE the inauguration... I dont know how much more of this I can take. If he turns out to be the same old, same old- Then I just have to give up.
At this point I'll be REALLY suprised to NOT be disappointed.
Was all that hope I felt on election day just a big load of wishful thinking bullshit?
"The last thing he needs to be doing is handing out soundbytes that the oppo can use to paint him as Joe Stalin. I hope he stays vague, noncommittal and uninformative until after his cabinet's all confirmed, and he's got momentum on his economic agenda."
Man, I hope youre right.
because what he's saying is he will look at the evidence and will make up his own mind. He wasn't actually agreeing with Cheney's assertion that Barack will agree with him once he sees the evidence. I think Barack is a pretty smart guy and I think he questions everything before him, which will be detrimental to Cheney's words.
Sorry,
My benefit of doubt was lost back when he granted immunity to the current and future Administrations ability to conspire with telecom communication CORPORATIONS to spy warrantlessly on Americans.
Closing the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is a good idea.
A better idea: return the entire US Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay to the Cubans from whom the US Government stole it as "war loot" after the 1898 US War on Spain.
Seriously. It's stolen land.
believe that the average poster on here, is that gullible to give blind trust in a politician. Forgive me, but, I call BS. It isn't like a politician was completely 100% honest right up until, tada! Bushinator was selected. Now either a majority posting on here haven't been around very long, or are lying about how much they just luvs them any politician in particular and trust said politician until such time as it's disproven. If you people do not hold a politician, any politician's, feet to the fire, you get Bush the sequel. Do you really want that again? For 8 years the world has witnessed the left constantly saying how bad Republican supporters are because they blindly support "their guy" without thought. Now these same people are doing it themselves. But don't worry. I have my special "yes we can" t-shirt all ready for the new Prez to visit Canada in the near future, and I promise to swoon over him like he's the second coming of Jeebus, if that makes anyone feel any better /Snark
.. made me giggle. Point, he is absolutely a politician and a slick one at that.
But, as to you and the potential t-shirt swooning episode ... when and if it happens ...
PICS! I'll do my usually low-brow board response .. pics or it didn't happen!
(yes, yes, on some future date)
Are you guys crazy? You expect the President, days before being inaugarated, to state flat out that he is going to prosecute Cheney without any consideration of the facts? Because that's what he would have been saying if he disagreed with Cheney. And do you actually think it would be strategic to announce your intentions of prosecuting many people from the last administration when you have huge hurdles ahead of you (economy, war, etc.) and such a statement would only cause a huge number of people to turn against you? This is not to say that he may not focus on prosecution, which I actually think would be reasonable considering the current crisis, but his statements don't suggest that. They just don't make him out to be the leaders of the French Revolution. But I suppose that's what we liberals want, right?
As for Gitmo, do you disagree? Do you think it will be easy to just let everybody go? Do you really think there aren't any people in there who may be terrorists that, if we could, we should charge with crimes? Just because Obama is a liberal doesn't mean he shouldn't think before he acts. For you guys to criticize Obama for remaining reserved, you sound like you want the George Bush of liberal democrats. Let the dude get elected before being disappointed with the man. Its embarassing, really.
Sorry, Gitmo is not about "just letting people go" as you put it. It is about following the Rule of Law. If these people are criminals, then charge them, try them, then jail them for life. However, the first two steps were omitted, and that's a problem because America is supposed to champion the Rule of Law. Such a quandary, NO?
However your argument, can you prove that the people being held in Gitmo for the last several years without being charged OR tried, aren't terrorists?
Understand that I'm not arguing for the terrorists, but instead for the Rule of Law to be followed. Something the Republican and Democratic enablers have failed at.
The dude was elected, last November! I think you mean sworn in. And, btw, Obama is not the president, as your first sentence illustrates as somehow he is. I think what you mean is that he is the president elect.
Thank you for those very important corrections. I don't know how I could have been understood otherwise. And yes, it is about either letting people go or charging them. What do you propose Obama do and what should he have said differently?
Abide by the Geneva conventions, which he did say the other day in a presser. I do find it perplexing that people are actually using the NIMBY excuse concerning detainees being let free in America. Clearly these people would be sent to their home countries. However the case, what Obama is most concerned with with Gitmo is what to do with the detainees who pose the greatest threat that have been mistreated or coerced into confessions through illegal tactics. In every court of law such admissions are grounds for mistrials. And when the only evidence we have hangs on confessions coerced through torture, that poses a huge problem for the US legal system. Not as in the case overload, but as in our reputation as a whole, internationally. Specifically, that America thinks Herself to be above international laws and treaties...
Now, how does America view Rogue Governments?
But of course,
It's not a Rogue Government that spits on the Rule of Law when America does it... YES?
so you don't have a problem with obama's comments
as an aside, why do we liberals think it wise for the president elect to lay all his cards on the table before he begins to play the game?
...no authority to make any policy, sign anything, etc. until after he's sworn in at noon, on Jan 20th, I'll be content to just wait until then to see what he actually does.
In the meantime, I think he is prudent to say as little as possible about what he might, could, should, or maybe will do. As, Cheney and Bush et al are still in charge until that moment when Obama says, "So help me God," there is no reason to give them any reason to pull any more shenanigans before they exit. They have a history of doing illegal, awful, stupid things and I would not put it past them to continue that MO right up to the 20th.
Obama has made it clear that he doesn't want to show his hand too early. While it is great that the dialogue has begun about what his presidency might look like, I'll not be joining in to beat him up before he is even through the door. The repugs are itching to do that. I can't see why as a liberal I would want to join them.
The swearing-in ceremony will begin at 11:30 AM on January 20th. I assume that Obama is officially the president around noon, and Bush is president until Obama is sworn in. I guess the Bushes will be moved out by then.
What do you want to bet that his very last-minute act will be pardons for everyone in his administration, effective 11:59 AM, overshadowed in the news by the inauguration. Given his and Cheney's admission of torture and openness about that admission, which is a war-crime no matter what they call it, he'd be nuts NOT to issue pardons for his administration. And if he doesn't know that, Cheney does.
Excised - this double posted.
"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," [..].
I don't give a flying fuck how difficult it is. I don't give a flying fuck if it takes the labors of Hercules to get it done. And, I don't give a flying fuck what the so-called "complicating factors" are - in the end they don't mean shit. If Obama keeps that ongoing crime against humanity going much longer than about a week after he's inaugurated, then he's a war criminal too. We've dealt with dangerous people before. Clinton put several of them away for life using the criminal justice system that was in existence prior to 9/11: You make your case, using legally admissable evidence, and let the jury decide. If you can't do that, then you've had absolutely no business arresting and holding them in the first place. Send them home. This isn't rocket science. Right is right, wrong is wrong, crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity and war crimes are war crimes. Period. No foot dragging or endless debating. Worried about civil suits or criminal prosecutions? Too fucking bad - should have thought about that before you decided to become a war criminal. Close the fucking place and every black prison. Stop Renditions. Just fucking do it already! Put up or STFU, Mr. Obama!
That Obama could even consider letting GITMO stay open even 1 second longer than he otherwise might need, is a horrible indictment against him. Jesus, but this is disgusting!
bet your sweet ass paul!im sick of this we cant have justice because it might upset some folks! obummers in the tank for the corporations and this new year will prove it!
right now! Wah, Wah, Wah!
do you need a wahhamublance?
What gives you the idea of Obama is considering letting GITMO stay open even 1 second longer than he, as you put it, "otherwise might need"?
What in the hell is wrong with Obama acknowledging that it is going to be difficult? Sounds like you'd like the Bush type - somebody who never recognized his weaknesses . . .
Lets develop a nickname for the " continue looking forward ", " lets not dwell on the past ", crowd.
I can wait eight more days and hope for a little better.
statement yet.
should return the flavor and thank Obama for re-authorising the patriot act.
99% of people who were and who are locked in Gitmo are totally innocent. The reason that only 3 people have been trialled from the thousands incarcerated, it's because you have no case against these people. and of those 3 trials one concerned a mental retarded teenager and another Bin Laden's "chauffeur", both for acts totally not related to terrorism and on basis of highly dubious evidence. The only thing that can be described by Bush's comments 'the worst of the worst', are the US serviceman populating that torture camp. Clueless ignorant muslim paesants are no part of my description of the 'worst of the worst'.
I wouldn't listen too closely to Obama's words yet, he's still in transition, you don't want to alienate the cooperation from the leaving administration.
'still evaluating the whole issue...looking at past practices...no one is above the law...'
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but it sounds to me like he might be just keeping his options open into putting some smack down on the WarPigs.
'you need to look forwards as opposed to looking backwards..."
Sometimes in order to go forwards, you have to rectify actions of the past. Dick and George have not only spit all over the Constitution and We the People, they squandered the good will given to our country after 9/11 by using it turn our Government into little more than a big bully that is hated ridiculed. Anyway you slice it Dick and George ARE guilty of war crimes.
If you ask me, I think Dick and George should be very, very afraid.
Login or Register to post comments.