glory, glory, and relief,
bush is gone
let us speak his name no more
the citizens of the usa are free again
Posted by: jgaw | January 23, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am
How about we see how you jgaw feels about our new administration in 6 months?
Posted by: Carrie | January 23, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
Thankfully a return to the rule of law and respect for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Posted by: William J. LePetomane | January 23, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Music to my Ears UNDOING THE BUSH DAMAGE! Oh glory days! Happy days are hear again!!!! Go President Obama Go Hillary get this country right again!
Posted by: Angie in PA | January 23, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
jgaw – maybe you have forgotten that you have always been free (no matter who is in the White House). I think you forget that since 9/11 there have been no more attacks on this country because BUSH was in office and was willing to make decisions (tough decisions) that you or no one else would or could make. I’m sure Barack will make his share of mistakes in the years to come (GITMO) and his popularity will not remain as high as it is today. He hasn’t been given 8 years to fail yet.. But for the countries sake I hope he doesn’t. And no I didn’t vote for him.
Posted by: Jan | January 23, 2009, 10:10 am 10:10 am
Jan: ” I think you forget that since 9/11 there have been no more attacks on this country because BUSH was in office”
OK, so I think YOU forget that from 1993-2000 there were no more attacks in this country by foreign terrorists “because” CLINTON was in office. Wow, bumpersticker ‘logic’ is fun! Shall we go into a comparison of the overseas body count next?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
Thank you President Obama for replacing Isaiah Thomas. We couldn’t have afford another year with that lame duck. Now with a new Roster and personnel I am confident that this country will get back to respectability and claim our # 1 superpower status :P
Posted by: Jmetal83 | January 23, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am
Perhaps ABC will begin moving toward covering the White House and the Presidency as something that has existed before and will after Bush–”Undoing the Bush Rules” and “Bush White House Values”?
Posted by: Mavsreader | January 23, 2009, 10:53 am 10:53 am
Mavsreader: This is exactly how a change in administration has always been covered. Don’t you remember all the stories about Bush bringing dignity back to the trashed-by-frat-boys Whitehouse in 2000?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
Jan: what do you mean “I’m sure Barack will make his share of mistakes in the years to come (GITMO)”? What’s with the bracket’s around GITMO and why is that in the same sentence as ‘mistakes’? I am really confused.
anyways, Jake, one of these days i hope u pull out that clip with Obama saying he looks forward to getting advised by her [Hillary] when u show this love fest between them. And I bet these detainees who can not be transfered anywhere nor tried will start dying one by one.
Posted by: Question | January 23, 2009, 11:08 am 11:08 am
omg you people are s0o0o dumb its all about the congress who started the war everyone knows that im a true rebuplican at hear and mccain should of won he deserved it not obama already changing everything and making BUSH look bad why you think the gas prices went down know we have to live another four years with democratic presdent and democratic congress house wow
Posted by: lisajean | January 23, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
you people talk about how your rights were violated, you were not “free” please explain to me how you personally were violated and not free? you personally, I really want to know. I don’t want to hear some talking point from John Conyers. I want to know how the counter-terrorism policies personally violated YOUR rights and freedoms and what evidence you have that YOU were personally violated!!!
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 11:24 am 11:24 am
Obama is acting in a careless and dangerous manner. This is because he has no experience and is putting politics over the safety of the American citizen. As much as I don’t like Bush, I am already wishing he was still president
Posted by: brian | January 23, 2009, 11:41 am 11:41 am
” Never mind that 9/11 occurred with repeated and specific intelligence warnings, and that it took hours to militarily respond after the first attack.”
Like Ryan says, as always, scratch a ‘progressive’ find a Truther.
” It’s just that I find it ironic that Tapper et al keep emphasizing the break with the Bush years as endangering to national security.”
From today’s NY Times:
“The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.
The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen. ”
Those lovable scamps are at it again!
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 11:42 am 11:42 am
“since 9/11 there have been no more attacks on this country”
Because the right wing got everything it wanted … including “Obama”.
For The Pup’s determination to sock it to Afghanistan, no matter what, see globalresearch.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Sean: “I want to know how the counter-terrorism policies personally violated YOUR rights and freedoms and what evidence you have that YOU were personally violated!!!”
This argument is so pointless it can be refuted with a poem (First they came for…). Remember that a US CITIZEN arrested ON US SOIL was declared an enemy combatant and disappeared for years. The truth is that yes, the government should have that power (used for better or ill in past wars). But there is NO possible argument that the president alone should have that absolute power. And Gitmo was created solely to allow the President to ‘disappear’ and maltreat people without having to be checked by the Congress or Supreme Court as intended by the Founding Fathers.
If the courts could handle Timothy McVeigh, and Congress can Constitutionally set up any court system they like that the (conservative) Supreme Court accepts, there is no reason for Gitmo. Lock them up and throw away the key, just do it without creating a strongman-President end run around the Constitutional (ie, do it within the checks and balances framework).
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am
BertieW: “The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored ”
Seeing as how this occurred under the Bush administration’s Gitmo policy, I would assume you are presenting it as evidence for why Gitmo has failed? Because it sweeps up minor functionaries – drivers, illiterate low level ‘troops,’ etc – and radicalizes them? It would require some pretty classic doublethink to present a manifest failure of the current Gitmo system as an argument to keep (??) the current system…
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am
When are these know-it-alls going to free John Walker Lindh??
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
jhw539
1st,
Your poem wasn’t very good…comparable to the poem during the inauguration that I’m convinced was written in the car on the way.
Al-Marri didn’t disappear, he was held at a military brig in Charleston, SC. I know this because I was stationed at the exact same Naval base at the same time.
2nd, Members of both parties in congress were briefed on the policies and procedures and asked there opinion, they were agreed to unanimously by both parties leaders. Of course “letters” were written later with “concerns” mainly to cover the backsides of those needing votes in upcoming elections.
So it wasn’t just the President that “disappeared” people.
There are no US citizens held at Gitmo, therefore they are not covered by the constitution or habeus corpus, and they were taken on the battlefield not as representatives of any foreign nation but as members of a terrorist group, therefore they are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how personally they had there freedoms violated!!!
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
jhw539,
It proves that you can’t just send people back to there home countries and everything is gonna be good again. Some of these people need to be held because there home countries don’t care/don’t have the resources or honestly the interest in holding/monitoring them.
It doesn’t matter the admin in charge, it has to do with the receiving country, most of which really don’t want these guys.
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
meanwhile in the real world….jobs losses are accelerating while our elected leaders ponder what to do with future terrorist leaders at gitmo and handing out cash for abortions overseas. Nice Work!
Posted by: david | January 23, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
“Seeing as how this occurred under the Bush administration’s Gitmo policy, I would assume you are presenting it as evidence for why Gitmo has failed?”
I think its an example of why releasing people from Gitmo is a big mistake.
Take aways:
- you are deluding yourself if you think the prisoners are harmless
- the ‘rehabilitation programs’ are not effective
- more bleeding heart Gitmo releases will result in more recidivist terrorist
sean: “Your poem wasn’t very good.”
It wasn’t mine and if you do not have any facts to offer you are not worth arguing with.
I was referring to the Padilla case as the US citizen declared an enemy combatant, and using ‘disappeared’ as a shorthand reference you clearly don’t understand (look into South American recent history sometime).
And if the president had the backing of Congress (or the conservative Supreme Court), then there is zero need to hold them at Gitmo. It’s not like we do not have adequately secure facilities in the States (as you just cited).
BertieW: “I think its an example of why releasing people from Gitmo is a big mistake. ”
And I think it’s an example of why torturing innocent people in Gitmo is a bad idea that breeds more terrorists. If they were guilty they’d be locked up for life quite easily by our sympathetic judiciary, just like Timothy McVeigh.
Belle- Why do you repeatedly refer to President Obama as a pup? He’s forty-seven years old, has taught Constitutional law and served in the senate since 1996. Afghanistan can’t be ignored, and I doubt if the troop deployment will in any way be similar to the mismanagement of Iraq.
” With 15 of 19 of the 19 hijackers being Saudis, why in the world would they have released him back to Saudi Arabia?”
Here is Obama executive order:
“Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, *they shall be returned to their home country*, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.”
You can see your boy is proposing to do exactly the same thing- return them to their home country.
jhw539
I understand that “disappeared” is a term used to describe the arrest, torture , and ultimate executions of 10s of thousands of South American dissidents, no the term used to describe a single person, perhaps you should read up on it’s proper use and not use it too try and exaggerate a situation.
The need to hold them at Gitmo, approved by congress, is because as soon as they set foot on land in the US, they are afforded legal rights they do not deserve to receive as enemy combatants/POW’s. Do you think that POW’s held during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam should have been afforded the same legal rights as a US citizen?
I sure don’t.
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
jhw539,
Still waiting for you to explain how YOU are “free” again, pretty tough when none of your rights were ever violated huh.
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
jhw539,
Well, I have to go back to work, lunch break is over, I know this is what you do all day with your handouts from the Dems so have a good one.
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
“Why do you repeatedly refer to President Obama as a pup?”
The Pup, short for The Puppet.
More Inaugural stupidity: All The Pup’s Men apparently anticipate it would be COLD in DC in January, so that Perlman, Ma et al. were muscled into a Milli Vanilli performance.
“It’s not something we would announce, but it’s not something we would try to hide,” they say.
But they DID try to hide it.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
oops. correcting typo:
More Inaugural stupidity: All The Pup’s Men apparently couldn’t anticipate it would be COLD in DC in January, so that Perlman, Ma et al. were muscled into a Milli Vanilli performance.
“It’s not something we would announce, but it’s not something we would try to hide,” they say.
But they DID try to hide it.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
“Afghanistan can’t be ignored, and I doubt if the troop deployment will in any way be similar to the mismanagement of Iraq.”
Riight. Tell it to the Russians, during whose failed attempt to subdue Afghanistan the US invented Bin Laden, built his caves, etc.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
“And I think it’s an example of why torturing innocent people in Gitmo is a bad idea that breeds more terrorists. If they were guilty they’d be locked up for life quite easily by our sympathetic judiciary, just like Timothy McVeigh. ”
A fascinating rehabilitation of the “Blame America First” psyche not seen since the 80′s.
All these guys were just wandering around in the poppies field happily braiding each other’s beards when the big bad US military swooped in and grabbed them for no reason at all.
When we cruelly imprisoned them on a tropical island and gave them 3 meals a day, the lovable scamps had no choice but to suddenly learn all about terrorism. You might ask who did they learn terrorism from since they were all innocent and there was no one there who knew anything.
When we forced them out like Felix Unger the big unexplained gaps in the resume meant that the only jobs they could get were as head of a terrorist cell.
“served in the senate since 1996″
just stop- we all know that a lie.
BertieW: You seem profoundly ignorant of the situations of their capture (being on a battlefield) and the realities of Gitmo (explicitly defined as torture, at least during WWII). Forced to stand for 40 hours, doused with cold water in a 50F room until hypothermia sets in, smashed against a wall – these are the documented, approved methods used at Gitmo…
BertieW: ‘”If they were guilty they’d be locked up for life quite easily by our sympathetic judiciary, just like Timothy McVeigh. ”
A fascinating rehabilitation of the “Blame America First” psyche not seen since the 80′s.’
It’s “Blame America First” to want terrorists to be condemned to death and spend the remainder of their short life in a maximum security prison? Now I’m really confused.
“You can see your boy is proposing to do exactly the same thing- return them to their home country.”
Bertie- What does the Obama executive order have to do with you bringing up the Saudi detainee who was released by the Bush administration and the other more recent release within the last several weeks of detainees, who more than likely, weren’t given appropriate review and investigation either. Both of these examples have to do with the exercise of very bad judgement during the Bush administration. We have a trial system which determines the guilty in order to protect others. Obama’s application of the judicial system to the detainees should prevent further inappropriate releases from Guatanamo.
BertieW: “1. Are they innocent or not?”
NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY TRIED.
That’s the entire, complete, crux of the issue. You are willing to believe them guilty and worth of death because President Bush said so. Period.
I want them tried, verified guilty by an appropriate panel, and THEN condemned. We can have courts where evidence can be kept secret, and the testimony of a couple soldiers “He shot at us” is fine. Gitmo is an end-run around the Constitution and is an embarrassment.
Do you even see the difference? Our country is built on it.
BertieW: ‘”If they were guilty they’d be locked up for life quite easily by our sympathetic judiciary, just like Timothy McVeigh. ”
****************************************************
Hello. Timothy McVeigh got the needle, not life imprisonment. Some were unhappy about that-not because he got the death penalty, but that it was premature because the investigation was considered incomplete.
You seem profoundly ignorant of the situations of their capture (being on a battlefield) and the realities of Gitmo (explicitly defined as torture, at least during WWII). Forced to stand for 40 hours, doused with cold water in a 50F room until hypothermia sets in, smashed against a wall – these are the documented, approved methods used at Gitmo…
Posted by: jhw539 | Jan 23, 2009 12:46:29 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jhw539…….If these were Americans in a middle east prison, what kind of treatment do you think they would get?
Yeah, right, it is ok for our guys to be decapitated and who knows what was done to them before they killed them.
Let’s treat these terrorists like guests in our homes. Does any other counry abide by the Geneva Convention? No, we are the only one that comes close to abiding.
“Riight. Tell it to the Russians, during whose failed attempt to subdue Afghanistan the US invented Bin Laden, built his caves, etc.”
***************************************************
The Russians invaded Afghanistan for its strategic pipeline location. Some would say their rationale wasn’t much different from the ’03 Iraq invasion. Troop placement in a country doesn’t mean it’s being invaded or that its resources will be seized. It’s apples to oranges, and past similarity doesn’t predict the same outcome.
“Yes, it was a poor attempt at dark humor but does not impact my point.”
**************************************************
It wasn’t being addressed to you, jwh, but to Bertie. Nor was it an attempt at dark humor, but a presentation of facts to counter BERTIE’S assertions. Excuse me, you’re charging the wrong windmill!
Mildred: “jhw539…….If these were Americans in a middle east prison, what kind of treatment do you think they would get?”
If they received that treatment as a state sponsored policy, the US would go to war and be widely considered justified (as Afghanistan was a justified war). So I’m not really sure where you’re going with this line of reasoning – you think all the countries whose citizens we are holding should declare war on us? Or you want us to adopt the (evil in my opinion – there are some moral absolutes) morality of terrorists?
“If these were Americans in a middle east prison, what kind of treatment do you think they would get?
Yeah, right, it is ok for our guys to be decapitated and who knows what was done to them before they killed them.”
So you think we should cast aside our ideals and national identity in the interest of showing we can be as cruel and inhumane as our enemies.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 23, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
“NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY TRIED.”
Oooo the terrorists are Schrodinger’s cat now- no one can possibly know if they are guilty.
That part where they started out being arrested on a battlefield and the part where they go back to terrorist cells when they are released, doesnt give jhw539 any kind of a tip off either way.
“I want them tried, verified guilty by an appropriate panel, and THEN condemned. We can have courts where evidence can be kept secret, and the testimony of a couple soldiers “He shot at us” is fine. Gitmo is an end-run around the Constitution and is an embarrassment.”
This just in…this just in…. Obama denies habeaus corpus and an ABA approved ‘appropriate panel’ to foreign innocents:
“Pakistani intelligence officials say a suspected U.S. missile strike has killed at least nine people in a northwestern village near the Afghan border.
The officials say a suspected U.S. drone – an unmanned aircraft – fired three missiles into a house Friday outside Mir Ali, in North Waziristan province.”
The officials say a suspected U.S. drone – an unmanned aircraft – fired three missiles into a house Friday outside Mir Ali, in North Waziristan province.”
**********************************************
Bertie- And we just readily assume that two days after Obama sat down in the WH office, that his administration planned and authorized the drone attack. I think there’s a lot more to a drone usage than a couple of days planning by an administration just coming in –which has obviously been occupied with a myriad of tasks, most of which are overturning the previous administrations enactments.
Whatever in the world does a theoretical cat in a box have to do with determining the guilt and actions of the Gitmo detainees? Something which the previous administration had years to establish. It was just another mess left behind. It’s rub a dub dub, scrub scrub scrub, no time for droning. Good Day and have a nice one, Bertie.
Bush had 5 years in which he could have brought these ‘obviously guilty’ people to trial. He failed miserably.
The Bush administration couldn’t get it done.
Don’t blame President Obama for the mess Bush left.
I have a feeling President Obama’s administration will get more accomplished on this issue in the next year than we’ve seen in the past 5 – and it will be done with better values.
” I think there’s a lot more to a drone usage than a couple of days planning by an administration just coming in ”
I am in favor of blowing up the terrorists if the target selection board signs off that they are satisfied.
I am pointing out the incongruity of people worrying about habeous corpus, UCMJ and the right to examine witnesses for prisoners in GITMO while at the same time having a policy that allows suspects to be blown up at a distance.
“Whatever in the world does a theoretical cat in a box have to do with determining the guilt and actions of the Gitmo detainees? ”
Because the detainees are already guilty or innocent. Their guilt is not being create by a trial as jhw539 implied. People can reasonably determine if based on their past history, based on how and where they were apprehended, based on evidence gathered if their are likely to be guilty. Everybody that is guilty isnt provably guilty under every possible system of adjudication- especially if they are part of an irregular militia, the areas may not be under the rule of law, and the court may not have subponea power for witness in foreign countries.
But to say “NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY TRIED.” is ridiculous. There is nothing inherent improper about UCMJ or military tribunals. They just used different rules and standards for evidence- which may be more appropriate than those used for dog bite cases in Trenton, NJ.
The trade off is between guilt and provable guilt. US citizens get the highest standard of protection under the Constitution. I am ok with irregular foreign combatants having a different standard of guilt. That doesnt mean that there is anything improper about it- it may in fact be more appropriate to a battlefield.
This mistake idea/wish fulfillment/spin that perfos has about has about how canceling in progress trials, taking a year to decide where to ship the terrorists and then retry them in civilian courts somehow speeding up justice is not not supported by a scrap of evidence or even an argument (other than the general proposition that everything Obama does is magic).
My belief is President Obama’s administration will get more accomplished on the detainee issue in the next year than we’ve seen in the past 5 – and it will be done with better values.
“My belief is President Obama’s administration will get more accomplished on the detainee issue in the next year than we’ve seen in the past 5 – and it will be done with better values.”
1. You can believe what ever you want but you’ve made no justification for it.
2. Having terrorists locked up is all ready batting 1000.
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
glory, glory, and relief,
bush is gone
let us speak his name no more
the citizens of the usa are free again
Posted by: jgaw | January 23, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am
How about we see how you jgaw feels about our new administration in 6 months?
Posted by: Carrie | January 23, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
Thankfully a return to the rule of law and respect for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Posted by: William J. LePetomane | January 23, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Music to my Ears UNDOING THE BUSH DAMAGE! Oh glory days! Happy days are hear again!!!! Go President Obama Go Hillary get this country right again!
Posted by: Angie in PA | January 23, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
jgaw – maybe you have forgotten that you have always been free (no matter who is in the White House). I think you forget that since 9/11 there have been no more attacks on this country because BUSH was in office and was willing to make decisions (tough decisions) that you or no one else would or could make. I’m sure Barack will make his share of mistakes in the years to come (GITMO) and his popularity will not remain as high as it is today. He hasn’t been given 8 years to fail yet.. But for the countries sake I hope he doesn’t. And no I didn’t vote for him.
Posted by: Jan | January 23, 2009, 10:10 am 10:10 am
Jan: ” I think you forget that since 9/11 there have been no more attacks on this country because BUSH was in office”
OK, so I think YOU forget that from 1993-2000 there were no more attacks in this country by foreign terrorists “because” CLINTON was in office. Wow, bumpersticker ‘logic’ is fun! Shall we go into a comparison of the overseas body count next?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
Thank you President Obama for replacing Isaiah Thomas. We couldn’t have afford another year with that lame duck. Now with a new Roster and personnel I am confident that this country will get back to respectability and claim our # 1 superpower status :P
Posted by: Jmetal83 | January 23, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am
Perhaps ABC will begin moving toward covering the White House and the Presidency as something that has existed before and will after Bush–”Undoing the Bush Rules” and “Bush White House Values”?
Posted by: Mavsreader | January 23, 2009, 10:53 am 10:53 am
Mavsreader: This is exactly how a change in administration has always been covered. Don’t you remember all the stories about Bush bringing dignity back to the trashed-by-frat-boys Whitehouse in 2000?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
Jan: what do you mean “I’m sure Barack will make his share of mistakes in the years to come (GITMO)”? What’s with the bracket’s around GITMO and why is that in the same sentence as ‘mistakes’? I am really confused.
anyways, Jake, one of these days i hope u pull out that clip with Obama saying he looks forward to getting advised by her [Hillary] when u show this love fest between them. And I bet these detainees who can not be transfered anywhere nor tried will start dying one by one.
Posted by: Question | January 23, 2009, 11:08 am 11:08 am
omg you people are s0o0o dumb its all about the congress who started the war everyone knows that im a true rebuplican at hear and mccain should of won he deserved it not obama already changing everything and making BUSH look bad why you think the gas prices went down know we have to live another four years with democratic presdent and democratic congress house wow
Posted by: lisajean | January 23, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
you people talk about how your rights were violated, you were not “free” please explain to me how you personally were violated and not free? you personally, I really want to know. I don’t want to hear some talking point from John Conyers. I want to know how the counter-terrorism policies personally violated YOUR rights and freedoms and what evidence you have that YOU were personally violated!!!
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 11:24 am 11:24 am
Obama is acting in a careless and dangerous manner. This is because he has no experience and is putting politics over the safety of the American citizen. As much as I don’t like Bush, I am already wishing he was still president
Posted by: brian | January 23, 2009, 11:41 am 11:41 am
” Never mind that 9/11 occurred with repeated and specific intelligence warnings, and that it took hours to militarily respond after the first attack.”
Like Ryan says, as always, scratch a ‘progressive’ find a Truther.
” It’s just that I find it ironic that Tapper et al keep emphasizing the break with the Bush years as endangering to national security.”
From today’s NY Times:
“The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.
The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen. ”
Those lovable scamps are at it again!
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 11:42 am 11:42 am
“since 9/11 there have been no more attacks on this country”
Because the right wing got everything it wanted … including “Obama”.
For The Pup’s determination to sock it to Afghanistan, no matter what, see globalresearch.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Sean: “I want to know how the counter-terrorism policies personally violated YOUR rights and freedoms and what evidence you have that YOU were personally violated!!!”
This argument is so pointless it can be refuted with a poem (First they came for…). Remember that a US CITIZEN arrested ON US SOIL was declared an enemy combatant and disappeared for years. The truth is that yes, the government should have that power (used for better or ill in past wars). But there is NO possible argument that the president alone should have that absolute power. And Gitmo was created solely to allow the President to ‘disappear’ and maltreat people without having to be checked by the Congress or Supreme Court as intended by the Founding Fathers.
If the courts could handle Timothy McVeigh, and Congress can Constitutionally set up any court system they like that the (conservative) Supreme Court accepts, there is no reason for Gitmo. Lock them up and throw away the key, just do it without creating a strongman-President end run around the Constitutional (ie, do it within the checks and balances framework).
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am
BertieW: “The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored ”
Seeing as how this occurred under the Bush administration’s Gitmo policy, I would assume you are presenting it as evidence for why Gitmo has failed? Because it sweeps up minor functionaries – drivers, illiterate low level ‘troops,’ etc – and radicalizes them? It would require some pretty classic doublethink to present a manifest failure of the current Gitmo system as an argument to keep (??) the current system…
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am
When are these know-it-alls going to free John Walker Lindh??
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
jhw539
1st,
Your poem wasn’t very good…comparable to the poem during the inauguration that I’m convinced was written in the car on the way.
Al-Marri didn’t disappear, he was held at a military brig in Charleston, SC. I know this because I was stationed at the exact same Naval base at the same time.
2nd, Members of both parties in congress were briefed on the policies and procedures and asked there opinion, they were agreed to unanimously by both parties leaders. Of course “letters” were written later with “concerns” mainly to cover the backsides of those needing votes in upcoming elections.
So it wasn’t just the President that “disappeared” people.
There are no US citizens held at Gitmo, therefore they are not covered by the constitution or habeus corpus, and they were taken on the battlefield not as representatives of any foreign nation but as members of a terrorist group, therefore they are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how personally they had there freedoms violated!!!
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
jhw539,
It proves that you can’t just send people back to there home countries and everything is gonna be good again. Some of these people need to be held because there home countries don’t care/don’t have the resources or honestly the interest in holding/monitoring them.
It doesn’t matter the admin in charge, it has to do with the receiving country, most of which really don’t want these guys.
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
meanwhile in the real world….jobs losses are accelerating while our elected leaders ponder what to do with future terrorist leaders at gitmo and handing out cash for abortions overseas. Nice Work!
Posted by: david | January 23, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
“Seeing as how this occurred under the Bush administration’s Gitmo policy, I would assume you are presenting it as evidence for why Gitmo has failed?”
I think its an example of why releasing people from Gitmo is a big mistake.
Take aways:
- you are deluding yourself if you think the prisoners are harmless
- the ‘rehabilitation programs’ are not effective
- more bleeding heart Gitmo releases will result in more recidivist terrorist
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 12:10 pm 12:10 pm
sean: “Your poem wasn’t very good.”
It wasn’t mine and if you do not have any facts to offer you are not worth arguing with.
I was referring to the Padilla case as the US citizen declared an enemy combatant, and using ‘disappeared’ as a shorthand reference you clearly don’t understand (look into South American recent history sometime).
And if the president had the backing of Congress (or the conservative Supreme Court), then there is zero need to hold them at Gitmo. It’s not like we do not have adequately secure facilities in the States (as you just cited).
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
BertieW: “I think its an example of why releasing people from Gitmo is a big mistake. ”
And I think it’s an example of why torturing innocent people in Gitmo is a bad idea that breeds more terrorists. If they were guilty they’d be locked up for life quite easily by our sympathetic judiciary, just like Timothy McVeigh.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
Belle- Why do you repeatedly refer to President Obama as a pup? He’s forty-seven years old, has taught Constitutional law and served in the senate since 1996. Afghanistan can’t be ignored, and I doubt if the troop deployment will in any way be similar to the mismanagement of Iraq.
Posted by: kathy | January 23, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
” With 15 of 19 of the 19 hijackers being Saudis, why in the world would they have released him back to Saudi Arabia?”
Here is Obama executive order:
“Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, *they shall be returned to their home country*, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.”
You can see your boy is proposing to do exactly the same thing- return them to their home country.
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
jhw539
I understand that “disappeared” is a term used to describe the arrest, torture , and ultimate executions of 10s of thousands of South American dissidents, no the term used to describe a single person, perhaps you should read up on it’s proper use and not use it too try and exaggerate a situation.
The need to hold them at Gitmo, approved by congress, is because as soon as they set foot on land in the US, they are afforded legal rights they do not deserve to receive as enemy combatants/POW’s. Do you think that POW’s held during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam should have been afforded the same legal rights as a US citizen?
I sure don’t.
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
jhw539,
Still waiting for you to explain how YOU are “free” again, pretty tough when none of your rights were ever violated huh.
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
jhw539,
Well, I have to go back to work, lunch break is over, I know this is what you do all day with your handouts from the Dems so have a good one.
Posted by: Sean | January 23, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
“Why do you repeatedly refer to President Obama as a pup?”
The Pup, short for The Puppet.
More Inaugural stupidity: All The Pup’s Men apparently anticipate it would be COLD in DC in January, so that Perlman, Ma et al. were muscled into a Milli Vanilli performance.
“It’s not something we would announce, but it’s not something we would try to hide,” they say.
But they DID try to hide it.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
oops. correcting typo:
More Inaugural stupidity: All The Pup’s Men apparently couldn’t anticipate it would be COLD in DC in January, so that Perlman, Ma et al. were muscled into a Milli Vanilli performance.
“It’s not something we would announce, but it’s not something we would try to hide,” they say.
But they DID try to hide it.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
“Afghanistan can’t be ignored, and I doubt if the troop deployment will in any way be similar to the mismanagement of Iraq.”
Riight. Tell it to the Russians, during whose failed attempt to subdue Afghanistan the US invented Bin Laden, built his caves, etc.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 23, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
“And I think it’s an example of why torturing innocent people in Gitmo is a bad idea that breeds more terrorists. If they were guilty they’d be locked up for life quite easily by our sympathetic judiciary, just like Timothy McVeigh. ”
A fascinating rehabilitation of the “Blame America First” psyche not seen since the 80′s.
All these guys were just wandering around in the poppies field happily braiding each other’s beards when the big bad US military swooped in and grabbed them for no reason at all.
When we cruelly imprisoned them on a tropical island and gave them 3 meals a day, the lovable scamps had no choice but to suddenly learn all about terrorism. You might ask who did they learn terrorism from since they were all innocent and there was no one there who knew anything.
When we forced them out like Felix Unger the big unexplained gaps in the resume meant that the only jobs they could get were as head of a terrorist cell.
“served in the senate since 1996″
just stop- we all know that a lie.
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
BertieW: You seem profoundly ignorant of the situations of their capture (being on a battlefield) and the realities of Gitmo (explicitly defined as torture, at least during WWII). Forced to stand for 40 hours, doused with cold water in a 50F room until hypothermia sets in, smashed against a wall – these are the documented, approved methods used at Gitmo…
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
jhw539 :
1. Are they innocent or not?
2. are we allowed to execute them like McVeigh?
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
BertieW: ‘”If they were guilty they’d be locked up for life quite easily by our sympathetic judiciary, just like Timothy McVeigh. ”
A fascinating rehabilitation of the “Blame America First” psyche not seen since the 80′s.’
It’s “Blame America First” to want terrorists to be condemned to death and spend the remainder of their short life in a maximum security prison? Now I’m really confused.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
“You can see your boy is proposing to do exactly the same thing- return them to their home country.”
Bertie- What does the Obama executive order have to do with you bringing up the Saudi detainee who was released by the Bush administration and the other more recent release within the last several weeks of detainees, who more than likely, weren’t given appropriate review and investigation either. Both of these examples have to do with the exercise of very bad judgement during the Bush administration. We have a trial system which determines the guilty in order to protect others. Obama’s application of the judicial system to the detainees should prevent further inappropriate releases from Guatanamo.
Posted by: kathy | January 23, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
BertieW: “1. Are they innocent or not?”
NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY TRIED.
That’s the entire, complete, crux of the issue. You are willing to believe them guilty and worth of death because President Bush said so. Period.
I want them tried, verified guilty by an appropriate panel, and THEN condemned. We can have courts where evidence can be kept secret, and the testimony of a couple soldiers “He shot at us” is fine. Gitmo is an end-run around the Constitution and is an embarrassment.
Do you even see the difference? Our country is built on it.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
BertieW: ‘”If they were guilty they’d be locked up for life quite easily by our sympathetic judiciary, just like Timothy McVeigh. ”
****************************************************
Hello. Timothy McVeigh got the needle, not life imprisonment. Some were unhappy about that-not because he got the death penalty, but that it was premature because the investigation was considered incomplete.
Posted by: kathy | January 23, 2009, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
kathy: “Hello. Timothy McVeigh got the needle, not life imprisonment.”
Yes, it was a poor attempt at dark humor but does not impact my point.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
You seem profoundly ignorant of the situations of their capture (being on a battlefield) and the realities of Gitmo (explicitly defined as torture, at least during WWII). Forced to stand for 40 hours, doused with cold water in a 50F room until hypothermia sets in, smashed against a wall – these are the documented, approved methods used at Gitmo…
Posted by: jhw539 | Jan 23, 2009 12:46:29 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jhw539…….If these were Americans in a middle east prison, what kind of treatment do you think they would get?
Yeah, right, it is ok for our guys to be decapitated and who knows what was done to them before they killed them.
Let’s treat these terrorists like guests in our homes. Does any other counry abide by the Geneva Convention? No, we are the only one that comes close to abiding.
Posted by: Mildred | January 23, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
“Riight. Tell it to the Russians, during whose failed attempt to subdue Afghanistan the US invented Bin Laden, built his caves, etc.”
***************************************************
The Russians invaded Afghanistan for its strategic pipeline location. Some would say their rationale wasn’t much different from the ’03 Iraq invasion. Troop placement in a country doesn’t mean it’s being invaded or that its resources will be seized. It’s apples to oranges, and past similarity doesn’t predict the same outcome.
Posted by: kathy | January 23, 2009, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
the war will be over in just about the same time.
how about turning them over to the iraqi goverment….
Posted by: Omentum | January 23, 2009, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
“Yes, it was a poor attempt at dark humor but does not impact my point.”
**************************************************
It wasn’t being addressed to you, jwh, but to Bertie. Nor was it an attempt at dark humor, but a presentation of facts to counter BERTIE’S assertions. Excuse me, you’re charging the wrong windmill!
Posted by: kathy | January 23, 2009, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
Kathy: “Excuse me, you’re charging the wrong windmill!”
Not exactly a charge, just an agreement and clarification.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
Mildred: “jhw539…….If these were Americans in a middle east prison, what kind of treatment do you think they would get?”
If they received that treatment as a state sponsored policy, the US would go to war and be widely considered justified (as Afghanistan was a justified war). So I’m not really sure where you’re going with this line of reasoning – you think all the countries whose citizens we are holding should declare war on us? Or you want us to adopt the (evil in my opinion – there are some moral absolutes) morality of terrorists?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 23, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
“If these were Americans in a middle east prison, what kind of treatment do you think they would get?
Yeah, right, it is ok for our guys to be decapitated and who knows what was done to them before they killed them.”
So you think we should cast aside our ideals and national identity in the interest of showing we can be as cruel and inhumane as our enemies.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 23, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
“NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY TRIED.”
Oooo the terrorists are Schrodinger’s cat now- no one can possibly know if they are guilty.
That part where they started out being arrested on a battlefield and the part where they go back to terrorist cells when they are released, doesnt give jhw539 any kind of a tip off either way.
“I want them tried, verified guilty by an appropriate panel, and THEN condemned. We can have courts where evidence can be kept secret, and the testimony of a couple soldiers “He shot at us” is fine. Gitmo is an end-run around the Constitution and is an embarrassment.”
This just in…this just in…. Obama denies habeaus corpus and an ABA approved ‘appropriate panel’ to foreign innocents:
“Pakistani intelligence officials say a suspected U.S. missile strike has killed at least nine people in a northwestern village near the Afghan border.
The officials say a suspected U.S. drone – an unmanned aircraft – fired three missiles into a house Friday outside Mir Ali, in North Waziristan province.”
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
The officials say a suspected U.S. drone – an unmanned aircraft – fired three missiles into a house Friday outside Mir Ali, in North Waziristan province.”
**********************************************
Bertie- And we just readily assume that two days after Obama sat down in the WH office, that his administration planned and authorized the drone attack. I think there’s a lot more to a drone usage than a couple of days planning by an administration just coming in –which has obviously been occupied with a myriad of tasks, most of which are overturning the previous administrations enactments.
Whatever in the world does a theoretical cat in a box have to do with determining the guilt and actions of the Gitmo detainees? Something which the previous administration had years to establish. It was just another mess left behind. It’s rub a dub dub, scrub scrub scrub, no time for droning. Good Day and have a nice one, Bertie.
Posted by: kathy | January 23, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
Bush had 5 years in which he could have brought these ‘obviously guilty’ people to trial. He failed miserably.
The Bush administration couldn’t get it done.
Don’t blame President Obama for the mess Bush left.
I have a feeling President Obama’s administration will get more accomplished on this issue in the next year than we’ve seen in the past 5 – and it will be done with better values.
Posted by: pefros | January 23, 2009, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
” I think there’s a lot more to a drone usage than a couple of days planning by an administration just coming in ”
I am in favor of blowing up the terrorists if the target selection board signs off that they are satisfied.
I am pointing out the incongruity of people worrying about habeous corpus, UCMJ and the right to examine witnesses for prisoners in GITMO while at the same time having a policy that allows suspects to be blown up at a distance.
“Whatever in the world does a theoretical cat in a box have to do with determining the guilt and actions of the Gitmo detainees? ”
Because the detainees are already guilty or innocent. Their guilt is not being create by a trial as jhw539 implied. People can reasonably determine if based on their past history, based on how and where they were apprehended, based on evidence gathered if their are likely to be guilty. Everybody that is guilty isnt provably guilty under every possible system of adjudication- especially if they are part of an irregular militia, the areas may not be under the rule of law, and the court may not have subponea power for witness in foreign countries.
But to say “NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY TRIED.” is ridiculous. There is nothing inherent improper about UCMJ or military tribunals. They just used different rules and standards for evidence- which may be more appropriate than those used for dog bite cases in Trenton, NJ.
The trade off is between guilt and provable guilt. US citizens get the highest standard of protection under the Constitution. I am ok with irregular foreign combatants having a different standard of guilt. That doesnt mean that there is anything improper about it- it may in fact be more appropriate to a battlefield.
This mistake idea/wish fulfillment/spin that perfos has about has about how canceling in progress trials, taking a year to decide where to ship the terrorists and then retry them in civilian courts somehow speeding up justice is not not supported by a scrap of evidence or even an argument (other than the general proposition that everything Obama does is magic).
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
It’s funny that self made experts on ‘moral relativity’ would make reference to the famous cat from quantum mechanics.
Posted by: Skip | January 23, 2009, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm
My belief is President Obama’s administration will get more accomplished on the detainee issue in the next year than we’ve seen in the past 5 – and it will be done with better values.
Posted by: pefros | January 23, 2009, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
“My belief is President Obama’s administration will get more accomplished on the detainee issue in the next year than we’ve seen in the past 5 – and it will be done with better values.”
1. You can believe what ever you want but you’ve made no justification for it.
2. Having terrorists locked up is all ready batting 1000.
Posted by: BertieW | January 23, 2009, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm