as suspected, guantanomo hype merely liberal political posturing..

[dickay]

After years of democratic complaint that the Bush policies towards detainees were immoral and unconstitutional, when the ball is finally in their court Obama and his administration decides now to agree with Bush afterall???? Amazing how that works after the liberal machine has worked so hard to slander the practice, isn't it?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...tainee-rights/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ated-humanely/

Not much surprising here though.......regarding national security, since placed in office Obama and his administration have pretty much come to quietly agree with everything Bush had in place prior.

[OldFatGuy]

As suspected, you use a misleading title to make a right wing, or anti-liberal point.

News flash for you Dickay. The President signed an executive order ordering the closing of Guantanimo Bay detainee facility. Just as he said he would.

The stories you linked to above have NOTHING to do with Guantanimo, though that didn't stop you from titling the thread that way. It has to do with AFGHAN detainees IN AFGHANISTAN. Different detainees, different issues, and I challenge you to find one speech or document in the campaign where he disagreed with or stated he would change the U.S. stance on AFGHAN detainees.

[dickay]

As suspected, you use a misleading title to make a right wing, or anti-liberal point.

News flash for you Dickay. The President signed an executive order ordering the closing of Guantanimo Bay detainee facility. Just as he said he would.

The stories you linked to above have NOTHING to do with Guantanimo, though that didn't stop you from titling the thread that way. It has to do with AFGHAN detainees IN AFGHANISTAN. Different detainees, different issues, and I challenge you to find one speech or document in the campaign where he disagreed with or stated he would change the U.S. stance on AFGHAN detainees.

apparently you didn't read both of the links..

[OldFatGuy]

apparently you didn't read both of the links..

No, apparently you didn't.

Last month, the military judge in charge of deciding whether to charge Guantanamo detainees with crimes told The Washington Post at least one of the prisoners was tortured in 2002 and 2003, alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Mohammed al-Qahtani.

Of course the Pentagon gave itself a passing grade. Big shocker there. But a MILITARY JUDGE has already agreed torture did occur there.

But you're right. I said "stories" above when I should've said "first story." The second story is about Guantanimo.

EDIT: In fact, now that I read the title again, it's not misleading. You chose to title it based on the second story, but I focused on the first.

Geez, my bad. That was totally uncalled for. I jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on faulty reasoning.

Maybe it's time for me to take a break again. Sorry Dickay.

[dickay]

The stories you linked to above have NOTHING to do with Guantanimo, though that didn't stop you from titling the thread that way.

first they had nothing to do about gitmo;

Of course the Pentagon gave itself a passing grade. Big shocker there. But a MILITARY JUDGE has already agreed torture did occur there.

Then you quote a reference about gitmo from the same links?? Hmm...as I said, someone apparently didn't read the links. Nice try however.

What is obvious is the very loose line being drawn by the justice department to try and separate afghan bases and gitmo. it screams of hipocricy and the ACLU has agreed;

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

It was you who in the past claimed all of the detainees under US custody should have constitutional rights, and now are you defending their claim that they don't???

What bothers me is the obvious slander that took place during a politically charged 4 years of campaigning by the democratic congress and then into obamas run for the presidency. You had people like Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and the move-on.orgs screaming of geneva convention violations and comparing US actions to those of Polpots, and Nazi concentration camps. Now when the shoes in on their feet, they obviously think America will simply forget it, and chalk it up as an honest mistake??? An honest mistake, which were in fact slanderous lies that increased worldwide hostility, put american soldiers lives in additional danger, and likely increased the violence and longevity of the wars taking place.

As for Obama closing gitmo...first of all he's extended the time table from what, 100 days to one year. Secondly he's refused to put to trial anyone in the bush administration who 'may' have been involved in crimes during the war on terror. Thirdly he has refused to change any of the interrogation or information gathering techniques or policies that were in place prior.

Here's an article summarizing view points of one of the most liberal reporters in the country, Charlie Savage;

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/18-11

Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush's "war on terrorism," the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor's approach to fighting Al Qaeda.

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.'s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.
The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team's arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the "state secrets" doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government "for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information."

These and other signs suggest that the administration's changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared - prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies.

Savage lists several other examples of controversial Bush/Cheney "War on Terror" policies which have been either fully embraced or preliminarily welcomed by the Obama administration, all of which have been previously discussed here (though one episode Savage didn't mention which is one of the most disturbing yet is the Obama DOJ's ongoing and increasingly aggressive efforts to keep Bush's NSA warrantless spying program shielded from judicial review, by invoking Bush's State Secrets argument).

Concerning the pending dispute over Bush's wildly broad assertions of executive privilege in order to prevent his aides (such as Karl Rove) from having to disclose information to Congress, Savage quotes Obama's White House counsel Greg Craig as follows:

Addressing the executive-privilege dispute, Mr. Craig said: "The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened. But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle."

That may be the most revealing quote of the article. If -- as virtually all Bush critics agree -- the Bush presidency ushered in a massive and dangerous expansion of executive power, isn't it necessary, by definition, to scale back some of those powers -- i.e., to "undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency" -- if those abuses are to be reversed? The cynical view has long been that Obama will not, on his own, meaningfully uproot Bush's executive power expansions because political officials do not get into office and then start voluntarily giving up their own power. Craig's statement constitutes a virtual affirmation of the cynic's view of Obama's intentions.

That last quote is the most damning IMO. While they campaigned against the abuse of power by the White House they are now unwilling to give it up. Clearly he now finds it necessary to have the same power they criticized the previous administration for.

Obviously, merely political posturing....and nothing more. So much for change. While I don't view this as vindication that Bush was right.....I view it more as vindication that our political system is so broken they will jeopardize our safety to get elected.

[dickay]

This part here is good;

These are not complaints that Obama has failed to act quickly enough to reverse Bush/Cheney policies. Indeed, there are many areas where Obama has explicitly said he needs time before deciding what he wants to do -- closing Guantanamo, proceeding with detainee trials; deciding if he wants to claim Bush's power to indefinitely detain "enemy combatants" on U.S. soil; responding to some FOIA requests, etc. Very few civil libertarians -- and certainly not me -- have objected to his needing more time before he finalizes his exact policies. That's perfectly reasonable. Some of these issues are truly complex, involve many moving parts, and require that many factions which he needs (e.g., inside the CIA) be placated. Taking some time is reasonable. The complaint is not that Obama has failed to move quickly enough to repudiate Bush/Cheney abuses. Virtually nobody is arguing that.

Rather, the criticisms are grounded in the opposite premise: these cases which have provoked objections are all cases where Obama has already taken affirmative actions to preserve and defend Bush/Cheney policies. In the State Secrets case, for example, the Obama DOJ explicitly rejected the ACLU's offer for more time, declaring they do not need or want more time, that they have had ample time to review the issues and have decided that they believe in the Bush/Cheney theory of what the State Secrets privilege allows. Here's what Greg Craig told Savage about why the Obama DOJ embraced Bush's State Secrets theory:

Mr. Craig said Mr. Holder and others reviewed the case and "came to the conclusion that it was justified and necessary for national security" to maintain their predecessor's stance.

There are people who believe that Barack Obama is kind, just and good, and thus are going to have a hard time believing that he's embracing some of the most abusive Bush/Cheney policies even when he does it right in front of their faces. Others aren't ever going to object to what Obama does in this area, because they believe (as Bush supporters believed about Bush) that there's nothing really wrong if Obama wields these same powers since Obama is a kind-hearted ruler and therefore can be trusted not to abuse these powers. As DCLaw pointed out yesterday, people with that swooning mentality can't be reached because they don't really believe in the basic premise on which the country was founded, as enunciated by James Madison in Federalist 51:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

We don't place faith in the Goodness and kindness of specific leaders -- even Barack Obama -- to secretly exercise powers for our own Good. We rely instead on transparency and on constant compulsory limits on those powers as imposed by the Constitution, by other branches, and by law. That's what it means to be a nation of laws and not men. When Obama embraces the same abusive and excessive powers that Bush embraced, it isn't better because it's Obama rather than Bush wielding that power. It's the same. And that's true even if one "trusts" Obama more than Bush.

[Slingshot]

It's wrong though. Every person has a right to a trial.

[dickay]

It's wrong though. Every person has a right to a trial.

i agree...every person does have a right to trial. The parameters to get to trial is what is debatable but regardless....my only point is the glaring double standard, not the policy itself. If it was wrong for Bush...then it has to be wrong for Obama the same. Some of the things Obama and other democrats vehemently detested from Bush....are being continued by Obama and many apparently no longer have a problem with it.

[Reade]

Like the republicans have never done the same thing in the past, come on. It all political posturing and both sides of the road do it.

[dickay]

Like the republicans have never done the same thing in the past, come on. It all political posturing and both sides of the road do it.

i never said republicans didn't do it.

[oriole^]

Of course, when Greens say that there isn't enough difference between the Republicans and Democrats, even if that Dem is named "Obama", we get called "spoilers".

The whole thing is reprehensible, no matter who's doing it.