Deja Vu: Obama Considers Holding Terror Suspects 'Indefinitely'
Haven't we already seen this movie? Didn't we already reject this policy with Obama's election? I didn't vote for him because I wanted him to embrace Bush's policies, and if he does, I want a damned good legal explanation:
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.
On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
[...] Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.
Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise.
"This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.
Utterly unacceptable!!!
Where they going to keep them, in a dungeon under the Washington Monument?
Are they going to rewrite the Constitution while they are at it?
Change you can believe in? If your a citizen of the Empire!!!
So Mr. Obama is taking the easy way out. So simple, so convenient!!!
They are just brown people.
[Fixed link. You need to have the http:// in the URL for it to work-Sitemonitor]
ah ty!
is from the WSJ which is owned by Rupert Murdoch the same person that owns Fox news. Wait and see folks.
Is that what we did by election?
obama has shown time and time again why the establishment has embraced him
Don't blame me I didn't vote for him. I could forsee he wasn't a true progressive. I won't vote for president again until we get a true progressive. I made the mistake of voting for a republican lite Bill Clinton in '92. I'm much wiser now and that will never happen again.
This good cop, bad cop nonsense of one party with two faces had got to stop. Do we believe in democracy or not? Most don't, or don't care.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Graham makes me sick. Literally viscerally sick to the stomach. What is it about that guy?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Lindsey believes in those rights. But those rights are for us, not for them!
what the FUCK!! is going on down there!!!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Wait. We need a majority.
Wait. We need bipartisan participation.
Wait. We need a veto proof majority.
Wait. We need to look forward.
Wait.
Aren't we all glad we voted fascist-lite this time?
I hate it, it makes me sick. But I shudder to think what would be going with PALIN/mccain in charge.
Beeeutiful.
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
I have to agree.
Yet, this all points to the fact that We have no representation in government- all we have is the option for fast/slow loss of liberties?
Think I'll wait for something more concrete than a quote from Lindsey Graham before I get too upset. He said among the proposals being studied. That doesn't mean it is getting serious attention. And Lindsey Graham is not famous for being a buddy of the democrats or this white house.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I thought you were always pissed off:)
and shame on a constitutionalist who wants this, does it, or thinks that it is in any way shape or form legal.
FUCKING DISGUSTING.
me-oww!
whats the problem. More of the same?
...I don't think you'll get zapped for that one. {:-)
and explained how I was raised in a rules are meant to be broken type environment. So I have to be watched. LOL
(As long as the rules are broken for the betterment of humanity not the destruction of it.)
censorship causes more conflict then it's worth.
Sh*t there I go again ARGHHH!
...same as the old boss (in too many ways).
Nice. Where's tyree? :-) Hey tyree-- not so crazy after all, eh?
"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.!!
good evening edwin , yeah not so crazy after all, just more observent then the average bott!
the Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. We get what we paid for.
Speedy Trial Act of 1974
1. Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 2080, as amended August 2, 1979, 93 Stat. 328, is set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174. The Act establishes time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal prosecution. The information or indictment must be filed within 30 days from the date of arrest or service of the summons. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
In case that's not clear, Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
And as many of the illegally imprisoned people at Gitmo were turned in by grudge bearing or covetous neighbours and/or acquaitances, how will those witnesses be confronted?
Total assholage here.
me-oww!
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
..."the accused". Very vague, and purposely so. That means any human
being!!! Even brown ones.
They don't even have to be citizens! The constitution applies EQUALLY to all under the custodianship of the US govt. Even guys mouldering in a prison offshore who were turned in by people for only the reward money, who did absolutely nothing.
me-oww!
What was it Naomi Klein said before the election last fall? That Obama would be more likely to continue Bush's policies, while McCain would make them worse.
“The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action”
laying brick on not far from city limits is for.
Terrorists
no it's for pot smokers and meth cookers!
Maybe the Obama suit zippers are concealed behind the ears and it's Bush in there.
why, in controlling the white house and the congress, are the dems still acting as if they are more afraid of republican criticism than they are in fulfilling their own promises that they made to their supporters? not to mention the fucking rule of law that they appear to be just as willing to trample (can i get a harman?)... is that, too, trumped by their effort to be in the good graces of the rightwing?
is the dem leadership so fucking cowardly that they govern by basing their decisions on what will prevent them from the big, bad GOP from questioning their "homeland" security bona fides? or, maybe they aren't doing this out of fear, but are governing the way they always intended to?
again, another reason i am a proud independent.
What repubs accomplish by malice, the dems accomplish with cowardice. The only difference is that since its not malice with the dems, its possible sometimes they get something right.
they're acting as they are because they're sucking corporate dick just like republicans.
It's got nothing to do with cowardice. That arguement may have flown during the bush years but now there's no excuse.
Why can't we just see them dems for what they are. Thugs wearing bonnets.
My wake up call was the double cross at the FISA vote. I changed my party affiliation to GPUSA after that.
Anyone who claims to be surprised at this has been walking around with their eyes closed since the primary!
Ya I was involved with the Obama website and became part of the Stop
FISA mini-movement within that group. We caught 22000 members in a
week. We would cross blog onto other Obama blogs...ones that we
characterized as "Obamamama blogs" and "Glassy eyed Cheerleader
blogs".
And OMG did we catch hell for questioning his "holiness". I would
preface my posts with a quote from Obama himself TELLING us to hold
him accountable. We were labeled concern trolls and banned from
many of those blogs, even though it was known we were working HARD
for his campaign and bringing in serious money.
We knew this would happen then.
Politics seems to be a blood sport in the USA. I remember the first time I saw one of your political conventions on TV (as a kid) and I asked my Dad, why are those people so crazy?
In Canada, it's a big yawn, most of the time.
"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.!!
n/t
me-oww!
more kind of as a hipper, cooler, and younger left wing Reagan.
He's even saying "my gosh" every once in while. I think I heard a "golly" recently also.
we'd hear Obama let out a "Fuck Yeah!"
Here at home we refer to him as His HOmogenized.
I have failed miserably to catch this guy's so called charisma, genius & whatever shining description he's been given.
Instead after every speech I fail to hear anything direct or substantial with a bottom to it. I see his flat deadpan expression and wonder if there's anything inside, or what's he repressing. Nobody home.
Let's look at the first hundred some days of the not-so-progressive Hope Merchant.
The initial statements aren't matching the reality:
-"Close Gitmo!" Uh, wait. Lets not.
-"Release the Torture Pics"...Ummmm, Nah Bad idea.
-"Truth Commission!"...Look forward not back.
-"Quality Healthcare for All". ....Hey look, the "healthcare industry" is going to slow the growth of costs. Whoopie!
-"End The War"....Send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Look for these turnarounds in the coming months:
-Warrant-less Wiretap Investigations
-Credit Car Reform
-Wall Street Reform
This guy ain't a progressive....He never was.
Why is all this soooo SHOCKING????!
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.
We have gotten shovel ready highway repair jobs though.
Ideas 'floated' by the administration in no way means Obama came up with or will go along with such nonsense.
In fact, I've got 100 bucks that our constitutional law professor president will veto any such proposal if anyone wants to take me up on it.
But seriously think about it for a minute and you'll understand why the administration lawyers would even 'float' such an idea. How can these folks proceed to trial when their testimony was torture induced?
Seriously Obama was left holding the bag of shit from BUSH policies. Any trial is ultimately still going to be a show trial since it can't be a fair trial. But there's no way Obama would further tarnish America's image by following so closely to his predecessor's way of doing things. NO WAY.
So if anyone's going to further ridicule Obama, like the decision has been made, put your money on the wager. Or else, shut up while it's just innuendo.
Keep drinking the cool aid...
Broadcasting how cowardly you are in the subject line kind of kills your credibility to kibitz on anything. Sorry kid.
baaahhh baaaahhh
Jewel v. NSA
In a motion filed in a San Francisco court on Friday, attorneys for the Obama administration moved to dismiss a challenge to the National Security Agency's notorious warrantless wiretapping program. "The information implicated by this case, which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security," DOJ lawyers argued in the 36-page brief, echoing an argument made ad nauseum by the Bush administration.
How can these folks proceed to trial when their testimony was torture induced?
Haven't you heard, it's not torture? Rebranding in progress now.
"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.!!
latest studies show repeated and prolonged 'challenges' raise endorphin levels in prisoners. This hormone rushes to the site of say, busting a collarbone with a knee, which sends a signal to the brain that floods the prisoner with a sense of wellbeing.
Hey everyone, let's look at this a minute before we get all upset. First consider the source of this statement. It's Lindsey Graham. Now let's look at exactly what Lindsey said. He said this is one of the things being considered. He didn't say it was being considered seriously or one of two things being considered. I imagine there are several things if not many being "considered". We all know Lindsey is all about the drama. Lindsey won't miss a minute to take his drama before a mic or a camera. Let's wait until we hear something final from the Obama white house before we fire up the tar and pluck the chickens.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
he's playing with the Cons and not some road to final doom.
"My hope is..."
Hope. Its not just a marketing scheme anymore.
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
there are triple the number of Kings, double the Knights and Pawns mixed in w/ millions of Proles.
I'm am absolutely positive Graham brought it up just to make himself look like the good and reasonable one by asking 'how do you hold people indefinitely without a trial?'.
I think this 'proposal' Graham attributes to the Obama administration was never serious but one that was laid out when brainstorming what to do. First possibility: the status quo, before listing 2,3,4,x,y,z
I think this 'proposal' Graham attributes to the Obama administration was never serious but one that was laid out when brainstorming what to do.
Since when does inside brainstorming become public disclosure? Unless it's to pave the way for the release of the 'new plan'. Soften the horde to the idea, before the announcement.
"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.!!
Unfortunately, when it comes to defending the rule of law, we have little reason to trust Obama either.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
...POP, and I hope you are, we should expect the White House to quash that statement very quickly.
If you don't hear something by tomorrow, you can probably figure it's true.
On the other hand, Obama showed he was no progressive when he voted in favor of telecom immunity, so this should not be that big a surprise.
Did anyone find something similar to this in any other paper besides the Wall Street Journal? Have we heard or seen it anywhere else?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
...Patricia, but this is all I could find:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/14/ling...
I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
I appreciate you looking "really hard" after seeing that photo. ;)
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
...for the comic relief it was intended to be. Thought we could all use it. {:-)
:) I'm always up for a laugh and fun!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
"This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.
Just hypnotize Graham into thinking that John McCain won the election. He'll come up with a justification in 0.0001 of a nanosecond.
"He'll come up with a justification in 0.0001 of a nanosecond."
and four cheap rugs from Baghdad too.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Pictures of Americans abusing people don't incite violence towards Americans. Americans abusing people incites violence.
As far as indefinite detention goes, I hate to say it but if these people cannot be convicted of a crime they need to be set free, and of course paid an ungodly sum of money for being effectively kidnapped and tortured for years on end. AND if that results in the death of any Americans the blame falls to the people who ordered/authorized it, NOT the people who (hypothetically) set it right.
Also, if keeping our servicepeople safe was a concern of "national security" then they wouldn't be sent in harms way in the fuckin first place!
Pictures of Americans abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib was the single most cited reason when Iraqi's were asked why they took up arms and joined the insurgency as former FBI agent Ali Soufan testified to congress yesterday.
Soufan is one of the good guys that speaks fluent Arabic and gleaned all the intelligence from Abu Zabaydah BEFORE the CIA took over and got the same intelligence that Cheney claims helped make the nation safer.
So it is an issue of keeping service people safe right now. Obama realizes that the photos will be released eventually. What the motion was was a stall, as he continues to extricate as many troops from harms way in the withdrawal.
Do you jerk off to his picture, or something? Just wondering.
"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.!!
Because I doubt it was the pictures. It was the torture.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/here-a...
But fair warning to others that click: these pictures are a bit bloodier than others we've seen.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Sorry for forgetting to warn people,I can't edit it because the edit button isn't there
Also U.S. airstrike in Afganistan kills 95 children
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=94607&se...
...damned if you don't. Problem is, the world knows they exist. It doesn't matter that they won't be released. It just shows the world (whether true or not) that Obama is not that much different than Bush on this issue.
If we don't proscute our war criminals, we're hypocrites. Plain and simple.
Shout it from the mountain tops
he's different than BUSH. there are serious potential consequences. he knows right and wrong. we may NOT get everything we want regarding this issue but people that think will understand that. you have a general say don't do it. do we believe him or call his perceived BLUFF.
i just find it interesting that some people don't understand the complexities of this. pakistan has a heavy anti-american movement currently and the taliban is gaining strength. i don't like it but we now have to deal the mess this country created. there could be consequences that could be
devastating. i don't like it either but it seems reasonable to me that could be possible. those that don't understand opposition/compromise and that life is less than perfect aren't going to understand. accountability is fine but there are people that want others to believe obama is perceived as perfect and therefore will be the scapegoat for all this bullshit. this is easy "social physics". this is how they take "we the people" out of the system. people don't want to understand complexities/compromise.
That is the REAL reason Obama doesn't want those photos released. Because then war crimes would be REAL and that huge bulge under the carpet would have to be addressed & then REALITY would be such a distraction. Then we wouldn't be able to MOVE FORWARD into the brand new war(s)in his very next breath after Iraq.
He doesn't give two shits about troops dying, you kidding?
He's more worried about discouraging new recruits.
"Soufan is one of the good guys..."
What's your definition of "one of the good guys"? He tells Congress what they want to hear?
"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.!!
What do you mean he tells congress what they want to hear? He tells them that water boarding doesn't work and it's torture.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Sorry, but I don't trust anyone. I'm cynical, remember? I am, really. Why should I trust any of these people?
I am reacting to the 'good guys' thing. Where? I haven't seen any.
(PS I trust the goodness of average citizens, but politicians, especially in Washington, hub of the Empire, NEVER.)
"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.!!
baaaahhhh baaaaahhhhh
You are not in tune with reality.
sends them directly to Afghanistan.
Horseshit.
oh noes..... its like bush never left, now all hes got to do is ,,,, get another right of center repig nominated for the supreme court, and the cats out of the bag, you elected a black republican corporate enabler!
Oh, folks but lately I have been spotted
With a Big Mac on my breath
Stumbling into a Colonel Sanders
With a face as white as death
I'm afraid someday they'll find me
Just stretched out on my bed
With a handful of Pringles potato chips
And a Ding Dong by my head
You have the honor of being the third to make the ignore list.
although we don't agree on much i still read your stuff this for some reason is striking me as funny as hell.
the Obamaniacs will admit that he's not the good guy that they thought he was?
Not saying he shouldn't have been elected. He was clearly the better choice when put next to McCain.
But the Obamaniacs seem as intent to forgive these egregious moves just as willingly as the hardcore Republican 23% would forgive W. his worst excesses.
... whether an actual decapitation is necessary for a Raider fan to admit that their team committed a penalty.
Politics to some is nothing more than blind hero-worship and "Go Team!" For a while I foolishly thought that this attitude was limited to the Republican side of the aisle.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
okay he's terrible do you feel better now. most issues are in the works. some of these issues are bigger and beyond obama. there are many variables and several palyers. obama has stated intentions and sometimes compromises get in the way. it does NOT necessarily mean he decieved/lied,whatever. i do believe he should be held accountable but i personally think it's complicated and early in the game. so many want to isolate these issues and deny their interconnectedness/complexity.
I can see what Obama is doing and it's chess and I see it done in eight moves....It's brilliant. Give the man the chance to knot the rope for the other guy(s). This is just Shakespearean chess....touche! Go Rock Obama!
....Lindsay Graham won't escape either. And that's a good thing. That drunk needs his ass legally lynched.
Brutus
he he another hes a devious geinus plotting the downfall of the repigs party, will wonders ever scease?
And pretty well done too.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
well i hope it was!
I voted for him and am quite disappointed. I should have expected this when he cowardice drove him to fold on FISA.
that was my first clue , after that it was all down hill!
is from the WSJ which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Draw your own conclusions and wait and see.
Forgive us, but so far it ain't looking too good. No prosecutions for torture, not releasing photos, move torture operations to Bagram Air Base or black sites in other countries... need I continue? (Cuz I can.)
"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.!!
128 days and he hasn't done shit. No, I'm not going to jump on your wagon.
Good luck. As you know, I am not American. I came to C&L years ago because I was corncerend about American international lawlessness. I don't see much has changed in foreign affairs in 4 or 5 years (meaning, since I came here.)
I usually don't get much involved with your domestic policies, unless they have universal/international applications/implications. (Which ends up being much of what goes on, because of the Empire.)
"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.!!
America's shadowy empire is not the thing of rightwing fantasy a NWO, bla, bla, bla. It is a deliberate conspiracy, very real and hurts the world every day with its injustice, cruelty, arrogant defiance of world laws, and war profiteering. It must be stopped.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Hardly. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell had as much to do with Iraq as Exxon and Chevron. The American military just happens to be the strongest tool - a tool used by many.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The elites, the Washington establishment, the corporate media, the pentagon, the MIC. That's what I'm talking about. Sure there's plenty of other bad guys in the world, but none are as powerful as these.
President Obama isn't brave enough to take them on, he's a status quo guy unfortunately. Unless he's a genius at politics and he's planning to placate cons until "real change" comes. I believe this campaign slogan less and less every day. Actions speak louder than words.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
But I still believe that the House of Saud and the Likkud Party have far more affect on American actions than any group of millions of Americans. And most all those corporations are multi-national.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
,
But we're also dealing with an administration who now wishes to defy a court order requiring release of more torture photos. Obama has based this "change of heart" on easily deconstructed lies.
No more benefit of the doubt from me.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
my guess that are smarter than that. think about it for couple seconds it might hurt but give it a try.
obama is NO longer candidate obama. he's the president that has influential consultants. take secretary gates he changed his mind regarding the photos as did other generals/pentagon officials.
if released those photos would be plastered all over the middle east newspapers. further "inflaming
the anti-american opinion" is NOT smart. vulnerable people in the middle east will see those photos
and possibly exacerbate conditions. there could be consequences that seems reasonable as much as i would like to see prosecution. you don't always get what you want.
here's a question constituent: Would you have applied the same rationale to the release of the first batch of Abu Gharib photos?
Would you have not pursued the prosecution of the people responsible for those abuses (staff at Abu Gahrib)?
Would you prevent the release of any information that could put the US in a bad light so as to maintain our exceptional image abroad?
some similarities but plenty of differneces with a fluid situation like this. those photos inflammed/exacerbated the conflict like they were intended. NOW obama wants to reduce/get out of these war(s). i believe and see/understand where you're going with this and i do have an understanding for hypocrisy were just going to have to disagree. i may be wrong but i believe it's possible the immediate consequences could be potentially serious. i do understand the consequences of not prosecuting and opening this investigation more but it could be reality may win this one. hey i would like to be a participate at the gallows but may be compromise/realism is going to get in the way idealism.
You must have been against Obama two weeks ago when he agreed these photos/videos should be released?
What a madman he must have been. What could he have been thinking?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
nope your mistaken. i wasn't against it. that info from before may not/is not nearly as inflammatory. hey look at it your way. obama's terrible a wolf sheep's clothing whatever i'm telling you could be mistaken as i. his general(s) say don't do it you have to listen to that. maybe the previous release of material has done some damage. we may not be sure. my guess is you believe your sure so be it. your the better dude. i know your belief is strong as is your opinion/answer. that's fine i respect that personally but it could be wrong. this is NOT a black and white/toggle switch issue. there are fluid variables and a lot of players. some generals on the ground say don't do it......being not as smart as you i'll give the general the benefit of the doubt. maybe this time would be to much. but you know better than i.
I'm not talking about the previous photo release. I'm talking about the present release. Two weeks ago Obama was for it; now he's against it.
And please quit with the accusation of arrogance not too subtly masquerading as false modesty. Whether true or not, it is irrelevant.
Were you so eager to do that for Bush? If so, you're hopeless. But if not, why would you do that for Obama?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
those situations are unique in themselves. obama changed his mind to my understanding because of the opposition to the release. the benefit
to the general implies that person(s),obama's consultants are being truthful. again, i want prosecution but excepting life is chaos not linear/ for sure and that compromises are made; i believe obama is doing what's best. you don't believe he knows what some of us want? this situation is interconnected with other issues. there are consequences and potential
predicted outcomes. i will just end it at that. your right that will make it easier. no offense self-justification is the favorite flavor of many.i only wish i had it figured out like you seem to.
your panderings brillent! alibis, excuses, projections , an answer for every occasion , and explainations for politico abuses galore, say you aint a lawyer are you?
to think i was going to comment and just say the same thing about
your entries negative, find fault, black /white,wrong doing and ongoing criticism regarding obama's every move BUT i won't.
some similarities but plenty of differences with a fluid situation like this. those photos inflammed/exacerbated the conflict like they were intended. NOW obama wants to reduce/get out of these war(s). i believe and see/understand where you're going with this and i do have an understanding for hypocrisy were just going to have to disagree. i may be wrong but i believe it's possible the immediate consequences could be potentially serious. i do understand the consequences of not prosecuting and opening this investigation more but it could be reality may win this one. hey i would like to be a participate at the gallows but may be compromise/realism is going to get in the way idealism.
So you must of been very critical of Obama two weeks ago when he agreed to the release of these photos/videos. Funny, I didn't hear the criticism from any Obama apologists then.
You also must have been infuriated when the torture memos were released. The same logic applies.
But really, isn't this logic nothing more than: if Obama does it then we must support it?
Sounds... Bushian.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
obama has become a profeshional turd polisher!
Because, with all the potential jobs out there, this cutting edge industry could seriously reduce our unemployment problems;)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
if one can hold on long enough and has a few bucks saved up he will be able to buy a new chevy dealership when thoes chinese made chevys hit the us of a!
There's just to much on his plate right now. He says he's going to leave this one up to Jeb Bush.
good call !
I would have said long slow lingering sucker of corporate dick. Damn! He's good at it.
Others say he loses rhythm (insider joke).
how about Never ever getting what you want until we realize we have to Take it.
Never any accountability for torture and u.s. bad acting continues around the world.
...note the topic is never about domestic destruction aided and abetted in trillions out the front door in broad daylight.
So stop complaining! We don't always get what we want.
"How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?", he's not asking a rhetorical question. He really wants to know how we can make that standard operating procedure.
John Yoo and other Bush era legal minds to help him with that.
me-oww!
to raise the bar is a fine art.
For taking the position you have. I hope that Move on and all the blogsphere rebels violently at this idea. This was a fundamental point in the last election. I know I definitely voted to end this indefinite holding of suspects, secret torture camps, and the trampling of the rules of law. Obama really needs to think this one through. If he takes the road of Bush on this, I will vote third party for certain. I will vote for the third party candidates because he will have proven that there really is no difference between a Democrat or a Republican.
Bad Jew! Bad Jew! Listen to you and you and you. This sounds like all the "bad Jews" who denied Moses after Moses parted the sea and then went up the hill to fetch a pale of water.
You gotta have a better plan than to sound like the "evil republicans" who got you here. Give the Obamesiah the thousand days he needs to wrap up the program. Don't get blamed like the Jews do. The shining staff awaits us all! BE THE FAITH you speak of.
Moe Jew Joe
a patriot. We got a fucking politician.
What worries me is the reports that the results of interrogations and investigations have been handled so incompetently under the Bushiites that even the most obviously guilty cannot be successfully brought to trial. We may have no other choice than to hold them, not take them to trial, and deny the worst of them the martyrdom that they so fervently desire. I hope that the Obama administration puts a ton of resources into straightening out the Guantanamo record-keeping disaster.
Sorry Susie but in this country there is NO legal rational for indefinite detentions what-so-ever. It is totally illegal and abhored by all freedom and democracy loving peoples.
but it isn't in the least bit. Exactly 2 years ago we went down this same exact road with thinking that the new Congressional Dem majority would actually DO SOMETHING about all the crime and corruption rampant in DC. And just about this time of year in 2007 it was becoming increasingly obvious that it wasn't going to happen. But most people kept waiting and hoping to no avail. Please don't sit and wait and hope this time! Sound out LOUD to our elected officials that this is NOT going to cut it! Obey the laws(prosecution for war crimes, no illegal detentions, remove troops from Iraq, etc. etc.) or be charged yourselves for obstructing the Rule of Law.
So Obama wants to "hold terror suspects indefinitely." Does that include Prick Cheney?
"Respect for the rights of others is peace." --Benito Juarez
Comments are closed on this entry