Subscribe“there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. . . . I am not going to release [these] individuals” -- Obama (L.A. Times.)Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
what is your solution for the people that can't be tried because Bush tortured them? What would you do with Khalid Sheik Mohammed?Why couldn't you prosecute KSM? Supposedly Abu Zubaida fingered him before he was ever tortured, in fact, that was how we even found out who he was. It wasn't untill Cheney wanted evidence linking Al Quaeda to Iraq that Abu Zubaida was torture.
More than your complaints, I'm interested in your solutions.
In fact, what people really want is not to know. I think this is what Cheney understands. This is why he is coming out and talking. These people who want this simply want to hear the right magic words, not see anything contrary in the news, and never have to think about it long and hard enough to arrive at the conclusion that of course the United States is up to all kinds of horrific things, because so much of its future depends on the rest of the worlds. What is upsetting to so many of these people about Obama is that he isn't whitewashing the history.I'm not sure exactly what Cheney is thinking, but I think you're right that Obama wishes this would just 'go away'. But frankly I'm glad Cheney is out there pushing this issue from "the other side". Cheney wants to be vindicated but whatever. He obviously doesn't want to "look forward" here.
Obama's problem is that he can't, because Cheney won't shut up long enough for his whitewash to work. His mere presence in the news is enough to bring the whitewash to the fore because he draws attention to the camps that are still open, the torturers in the CIA who still probably work for the CIA, etc. The more we talk about the issue, the more the story starts to focus on the complexities at the same time as the issue gets blurred with other things, like the stories of rapes at Abu Ghraib. Where do the people go after closing Gitmo? What about the guys who you think are really dangerous but don't have enough evidence? What about them? Oh they go to another secret camp? So closing Gitmo is just a publicity stunt? Etc. It's a mess.
We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.
In a new AP poll out tonight, President George Bush received a vote of “Biggest Villain” from 25 percent of Americans. Bush’s 25 percent topped Osama bin Laden by three times the percentage points. Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and even SATAN received FAR LESS votes than Bush.They would only do that if they were more afraid of the terrorists then the GOP returning to power. I'm not convinced that's the case. (And yes, the poll isn't that serious. it was an open ended question and bush just got the plurality of votes. But the point is, with all the other problems caused by Bush and the republicans, a few terrorist wouldn't really be that scary)
...none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. [Officials] said only a relative handful -- some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen -- were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings.Report on Guantanamo Detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data, February 2006
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
And we know what consistency is the hobgoblin of.
You seem to be suggesting keeping those who can’t be prosecuted as POWs is the only reasonable thing to do. Since the US has no evidence that this former child soldier actually threw the grenade that killed a US soldier, I guess you are suggesting that he should be preemptively detained until terrorism no longer exists, or he dies in prison, whichever comes first.No no no. read what he said:
We only have to keep them in jail until the risk of republicans returning to power is passed.I'll quote you and say, "facts please". Many have already been released. Does that mean that the permanent return of the GOP is already locked in?The people who have been released were small time. These are the big boys. The effect would be different.
Are you willing to take that chance? I'm not.
Just attending a terrorist training camp is a federal crime.
Now let me be blunt. There are no neat or easy answers here. I wish there were. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. I refuse to pass it on to somebody else. It is my responsibility to solve the problem. Our security interests will not permit us to delay. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.
Now, over the last several weeks, we've seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I'm an elected official; I understand these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We're confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending all of our time relitigating the policies of the last eight years. I'll leave that to others. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.
And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that, frankly, are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold most dear. And I'll focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; but, second, I also want to discuss issues relating to security and transparency.
Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.
As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following face: Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Republican Lindsey Graham said, the idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.
"Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety."?
If the GOP gets back in and goes fucking haywire like they do, you tell the parents of all the sons and daughters that have their kids killed that you did it all because 3 people got waterboarded.Are you talking about people who get killed because republicans get re-elected? Wouldn't that be the fault of the republicans? Are you more afraid of Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber and New Gingrich then KSM? And you think the solution to scary government is to let the government detain people without charges so the mean fuckup party doesn't get elected?
It doesn't matter. Obama isn't going to do what you want. He is going to do what he thinks is right. He thinks it is wrong to let terrorists go.
Qualify for what? How is closing Guantanimo and trying the cases where there is sufficient evidence of their guilt a politically hard choice. He's basically saying 1) If we have good evidence you're guilty, you'll get a trial. 2) if we have weak evidence you're guilty you get a military commission and 3) If we have no evidence you're guilty, we're just going to keep you in jail forever with no trial. How can you excise #1 out of context of the other two?
Doesn't this qualify:"Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety."?
The people who have been released were small time. These are the big boys.How do you know?
That's how. Any other questions?
he'll give only as much due process as he can afford while still insuring a conviction
As much hay as the media has been making about the numerous polls allegedly showing that Americans don't want any of the GITMO detainees brought to the US prison system and tried in US courts, and as much crap as Republicans and more politically craven Democrats like Reid have been throwing around about the risks (Reid literally issued a statement saying that the detainees would not be allowed to set foot on US soil only the day before this speech), it's absolutely willfully obtuse to pretend it didn't take political courage for President Obama to state categorically that some detainees will be transferred to our maximum security prisons and tried in our courts.Please. Just because the republicans throw a hissyfit like they do every month doesn't mean anyone actually cares about an issue. Remember when they made a huge deal out of John Kerry's "botched joke" right before the 2006 election? Remember how well that worked out for them?
I'm more concerned with how the president manages to work with congress and the other centers of power in Washington.Well, it's certainly the case that the "power centers" at least the ones I can see seem to be insanely stupid. Just look at Harry Reids comments a couple of days ago talking about how we couldn't possibly put gitmo detainees in US prisons because that would be equivalent to releasing them. The media is absurdly trivial. But do you really think any of these people actually care about Gitmo Detainees? I mean, personally afraid of them? I don't know I guess they could be, but it seems hard to believe they're not just posturing. Hate them maybe -- after all if you do all these horrible things to people it will really make you hate them.
Despite how some are casting it, this administration doesn't have nearly the insider advantage going in that Bush's did. When Bush first took office, beltway dwellers on both sides of the aisle were lining up to sing the praises of his foreign policy team and to ballyhoo the depth of experience and political savvy of his cabinet. A lot of good will and trust was wasted on the Bush administration on that account. Meanwhile, even if he were perfect (which I've got no illusions about), President Obama's got an uphill battle--not with the voting public necessarily, but with the Washington political and legal establishments, and other power centers like the media and the corporate interests that run it.
I don't see what the president can do other than work to develop a plan to resolve their status, and that's what he's committed to do. So personally, I'm satisfied with how things are going at this point. Thought that doesn't mean I don't want and expect to see continuing progress.This is what Obama actually said about these people:
I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.Now obviously I don't know what evidence they have or whatever (and neither does anyone else, outside of the government as far as I know) but if they haven't actually broken any U.S. laws: receiving training, leading troops (against other Afghan factions) and hating America aren't crimes as far as I know (I know Ironmouth claimed that it was up thread).
« Older We previously discussed the similarities, or lack ... | NASA recently released a serie... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Any chance a mod can correct the main FPP link with this one?
posted by saulgoodman at 10:03 AM on May 21