Jan. 21, 2009 - Obama Issues Directive to Shut Down GuantánamoAnd just for good measure:
President Obama signed executive orders Thursday directing the Central Intelligence Agency to shut what remains of its network of secret prisons and ordering the closing of the Guantánamo detention camp within a year, government officials said.
May 20, 2009 - Senate blocks transfer of Gitmo detainees
In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States. Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.
Dec. 8, 2010 - House bars moving Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil
The House of Representatives on Wednesday approved legislation to prohibit moving terrorism suspects from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay to U.S. soil, a blow to President Barack Obama's efforts to prosecute them in criminal courts. The proposed legislation prevents moving such prisoners to the United States under any circumstances by prohibiting the administration from spending any money to do so.
Feb. 12, 2011 - House CR would broaden Guantanamo transfer limitsBlame for the continuation of this fiasco lies with the legislators who continue to impede its closure, and, more broadly, with the American electorate, whose apparent fear of Supermax-housed terrorists over the degradation of justice enables congressional conservatives to vote this way in veto-proof majorities. What the White House has been pursuing lately with regard to the legal fate of the detainees is unattractive, but about the best option there is within the restrictions that have been drawn.
Limits on the Obama administration's ability to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the United States or to other countries would be broadened under the terms of the continuing resolution House leaders plan to bring to the floor next week. A defense authorization bill passed by Congress in December and signed into law by President Barack Obama with some grumbling last month bars use of defense funds to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. and puts significant restrictions on transfers of prisoners to other countries, except in cases where a court has ordered a prisoner's release. The continuing resolution posted Friday on the House Rules Committee web page would apply those restrictions to all federal funds regardless of the source. It would also appear to extend the restriction indefinitely, remaining in effect until Congress legislates to the contrary.
In fact, Obama is to be commended for his brave leadership in this matter.That's the biggest load of bullshit ever, IMO.
Senate blocks transfer of Gitmo detainees; House bars moving Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil; House CR would broaden Guantanamo transfer limits --- If you'd just read the #tcot (top conservatives on twitter), you'd think Obama's "flip-flop" decision to keep Guantanamo open happened inside a vacuum.Obama wanted to move the prisoners to the continental U.S. without having trials or rights for many of them. There wasn't going to be any change in the policy of keeping people in prison without rights or trials. So the fact he tried to "close gitmo" (in name only) is irrelevant here. It's more of a distraction then anything.
That makes me wonder, on that score who might have done better (i.e. what former president or recent candidate would be more receptive or lenient to Manning or whistle blowers?)Well, Nixon never managed to do anything to Daniel Ellsberg. He was investigated and tried. But Manning is being detained without charges, and had been held in solitary confinement for much of that time.
They were veto-proof majorities. Read the links.Then why not veto it and make them pass the bill without his signature. He still signed off on these bills man. To say he's not responsible is just false.
So, Obama should end his presidency on this matter so that the assholes who did this can come back in armed with the full knowledge that torture is supported by the American people? What do you think the result is gonna be? More people getting tortured. All so he can say he tried?First you say I have a mind reading ray because I remember what I actually said, but now you're telling us how people are going to vote?
A number of British nationals and residents were held for years even though US authorities knew they were not Taliban or al-Qaida members. One Briton, Jamal al-Harith, was rendered to Guantánamo simply because he had been held in a Taliban prison and was thought to have knowledge of their interrogation techniques. The US military tried to hang on to another Briton, Binyam Mohamed, even after charges had been dropped and evidence emerged he had been tortured.Fun times.
Except this isn't poker. Its politics. And it isn't a game. There's 752 people whose conditions of imprisonment are at stake, nay their lives.This is speculative. Anyway, you made your point and you aren't saying anything new here.
And for someone who thinks it is, why would you continue to play a bad hand? He doesn't have the votes. He doesn't have a hand to play, because, unfortunately, the voting public is squarely behind his opponents on this issue.
This does make me wonder what else exactly Manning handed over to WL. These leaks are good specifically because they remove the shadow of doubt (in all but the most feverish neo-cons) that the United States has been running (and running poorly) a hellish military prison to detain mostly innocent people. At high cost to the tax-payer too, if you want to put it into their language.I think this is it. A lot of people have been speculating that they put Manning in these conditions because they wanted him to turn on Assange, show that Assange helped him or something like that.
A third party sounds refreshing, but chances are the lords of multi-party Europe would behave equally monstrously given the opportunity.While it's important to point out there are problems with EU governance (such as too much reliance on Austerity measures in the wake of the recent financial problems), they aren't pulling anything like this.
Romney wants to "double Guantanamo." His own words. There are no "random Republicans" here. Just actual ones. You know, the kind that invade Iraq and torture detainees. Obama does not do those things.Again, the question is not the location but rather the fact that people are being held without trial. Bradly Manning was held in solitary confinement for months which some people consider torture.
President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there...Romney and Obama just have different rhetoric for their respective hardliners.
Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the order vindicated Obama's predecessor. "I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order," he said in a statement. "The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities."
There seems to be a vast discrepancy between perceived powers of the Presidency and the actual checks and balances in the system. The political system in the United States moves very very slowly by design, except in rare cases where there is total consensus.More like a vast discrepancy between the amount of power supporters claim the president has when he does something they like vs. the amount of power his supporters claim he has when he does something they don't. I mean, both the ban on closing Gitmo and HCR were done in congress. If Obama deserves "credit" for one then obviously he deserves as much "credit" for the other.
Please don't straw man and godwin me. Answer my arguments if you feel like it, but creating some fictional giant for yourself to topple, while my own words are up on this page is difficult. You'll note that I argue that the premises of those who disagree with me are wrong, not make up premises which they never stated. On the whole, those disagreeing with me have done the same.Kind of a surprising response, since I think it summed up your 'philosophy' pretty well, in which any electoral gains by the republicans are tantamount to some kind of apocalypse.
R 215 006
D 082 126
I 000 001
-------------
T 297 133 (House)
R 048 001
D 029 021
I 000 001
-------------
T 077 023 (Senate)Recommendations to interrogators at Guantánamo Bay rank the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) alongside al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon as threats. Being linked to any of these groups is an indication of terrorist or insurgent activity, the documents say.As the largest state sponsor of the Pakistani military, we have been funding both sides of the conflict in Afghanistan, while considering the ISI to be as dangerous as Al Qaeda. That's not news in how stupid it is, but it is news that the US military has explicitly known that fact for so long.
"Through associations with these … organisations, a detainee may have provided support to al-Qaida or the Taliban, or engaged in hostilities against US or coalition forces [in Afghanistan]," says the document, dated September 2007 and called the Joint Task Force Guantánamo Matrix of Threat Indicators for Enemy Combatants. It adds that links to these groups is evidence that an individual poses a future threat.
The revelation that the ISI is considered as much of a threat as al-Qaida and the Taliban will cause fury in Pakistan. It will further damage the already poor relationship between US intelligence services and their Pakistani counterparts, supposedly key allies in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other Islamist militants in south Asia.
He did not end the war in Afghanistan, he escalated the violence.
For all the sensitive types that can't read actual wikileak files with out having tanks on your lawn or SWAT teams down your chimney, please rest assured that none of my links here or inside lead directly to *sekrets*The Department of Defense begs to differ.
You can hate Obama all you want, but you should show up and vote for him in the end, because the alternative will probably be worse. That may suck, but it's the plain truth."The" alternative? Aren't you really contending that all alternatives will be worse?
No, it's not hopeless, but the 2012 US Presidential Election seems pretty straight forward: Barack vs some Republican, who will probably have a Republican Congress. Obama ain't perfect, but he's better than a one party rule.What, are they the Nazis or something? Honestly I'm not even sure what would be so bad about that compared to the current situation where Obama just lets the republicans run things.
As Iron Mouth alluded to previously, we need a decent Congress to go along with a half way decent President ie mostly unified majorities in both chambers to work with a liberal President.Except we had that for two years, and nothing happened. So sorry, now we know that isn't true. A democratic house and senate won't get us anything "good". It just won't happen. So why on earth expend energy in the hopes of getting one again? So they can sit on their ass some more? The fact that the Democrats were so ineffective is a big part of the reason they lost so badly in 2010. It wasn't that they were "too liberal" it was that the economy still sucked, due in large part to the lack of an adequate stimulus, due in turn to the inability to pass an appropriate package when Obama took office.
History tells us that Congress are bigger wimps than the President. It doesn't help to shellgame this by always looking to something else that is required. "Oh, I could vote for a different candidate, but Congress needs to change first!" "Oh sure, Congress might try to do something, but the President would just veto it." Yadda, yadda, just add Scalia/Ginsburg epithets. Textbook nihilism.Yeah, they all hide behind each other's skirts and try to blame "the other side" for their compromises. It's almost like most people in congress are most interested in avoiding blame for the bills they pass then taking credit.
Compromise is what democracy looks like. You seem to want a system where you don't have to convince the majority to advance your personal views of right and wrong.Again, one more time, the democrats HAD a majority and didn't do anything with it. Yet the democrats still tried to claim they were just powerless despite having a filibuster proof majority in the senate (as well the ability to change senate rules)
Human rights advocates say the severest of the Bush-era interrogation methods are gone, but the conditions at the new interrogation sites still raise questions. Obama pledged when he took office that the United States would not torture anyone, but former detainees describe harsh treatment that some human rights groups claim borders on inhumane.There are no credible human rights groups that don't acknowledge there have been improvements in these areas under Obama; the only complaint is that the improvements haven't gone far enough, and that the potential for abuses still exists. I don't mean to say Mission Accomplished, by any stretch. But the only present political alternative in the US is the political faction that still to this day rejects the very premise that torture and the other egregious human rights violations of the Bush administration were immoral--a faction that still publicly argues that we didn't go far enough.
More than a dozen former detainees claimed they were menaced and held for weeks at the Joint Special Operations Command site last year, forced to strip naked, then kept in solitary confinement in windowless, often cold cells with lights on 24 hours a day, according to Daphne Eviatar of the group Human Rights First, which interviewed them in Afghanistan.
So, exactly, how did 'the whole Nader business' have a damn thing to do with how that went down?
The CIA’s infamous secret network of “black site“ interrogation centers is gone. But suspected terrorists in Afghanistan are being held and interrogated for weeks at temporary sites, including one run by the elite special operations forces at Bagram Air Base, according to U.S. officials who revealed details of the detention network to The Associated Press.posted by saulgoodman at 1:44 PM on April 27, 2011
...
Human rights advocates say the severest of the Bush-era interrogation methods are gone, but the conditions at the new interrogation sites still raise questions. Obama pledged when he took office that the United States would not torture anyone, but former detainees describe harsh treatment that some human rights groups claim borders on inhumane.
....
U.S. officials in Afghanistan add that Petraeus insisted on opening the Joint Special Operations Command site to inspection by Afghan officials and the International Red Cross last May.
International Red Cross ICRC spokesman Simon Schorno would not comment on the JSOC or conventional forces detention facilities, but confirmed the group “has access to internment, screening, and transit facilities under the control of the Department of Defense.” [Source]
3. The liberal-moderate-conservative numbers in 2008 were 22%, 44% and 34%. Those numbers for yesterday were 20%, 39% and 41%. A big conservative jump, but in all likelihood because liberals didn't vote in big numbers.So from the start, we know that you and Tomaksy are talking out of your assholes. Why? Because that 2% difference is well within sampling error.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. --MLK--
For nearly 30 years, you've advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That's not easy. For despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you're making a difference....You don't wait for appropriate times, you create them by continuing to advocate for social justice. Gay rights advocates were told to shut up every election year under Bush, Clinton, and Bush. If they had done so, the gains made in the current administration would not have been possible.
Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. --Obama.
Perhaps the most believable account came from Ali Hasan, senior South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, whom I visited at his home in Lahore. “My professional view,” he said, “is they’re all lying. Siddiqui’s family is lying, the husband is lying, the Pakistanis are lying, the Americans are lying, for all I know the kids are lying. And because they’re all lying the truth is probably twenty times stranger than we all know.”I've read the article twice and still have no clue what actually happened to her, nor how this explains "how America makes its enemies disappear."
« Older Rumor Sweeping World's Science Community that CERN... | A federal justice report on po... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:48 AM on April 25, 2011