President Obama Talks Detainees, Supports Indefinite Detention for Some Detainees

Obama does an effective job of getting suckers to cheer him on with his smooth talking.
While he adopts most of the Bush/Cheney policies that kept us safe.
I’m pretty sure Obama is convinced that most Americans are stupid.

my question is, why get back to us with whatever garbage Cheney comes up with? That paranoid old coot is both revolting and irrelevant. Maybe if he loves Guantanamo so much he should go live there.

Yes Jake he does, and he gave the reasons for it, they are unable to prosecute, mainly because of the tainted evidence.

I’m usually not one to complain, but I’m a little upset that I wrote an unheeded letter that we needed a solution before these detainees were held over two years, or we would be entering the twilight zone of justice on detention. I’ll try to see if I can add something more constructive at this point. On the plus side, at least the questioning tactics pushed a limit that will always be debatable, and there are very many places on earth where political opponants can expect long term detention or life for fear of what they might do to the ‘good’ of the state. So we still aren’t doing too bad to recover, if we can get this detention issue resolved.

“they are unable to prosecute, mainly because of the tainted evidence.”
This is false. The great majority of them can’t be prosecuted because, like so many of the 400,000 Germans we held in captivity at the end of WWII, they have neither been charged with nor committed any crime. They are very dangerous members of Al Qaeda. That’s why Bush held them, and that’s why Obama is holding them–not just at Guantanamo, but at Bagram.

I guess that sums up the question (nothing yet about the answer). How to define the difference between a terrorist and a political opponant?

Chaney doesn’t get it; he didn’t get it when he was in office and he especially doesn’t get it now. The American people repudiated the “Bush method” and elected a Democrat. He needs to shut up and let a sense of unity replace the divisness created by Bush and Chaney.

“It is important for the left-wing goofballs to have a full understanding of what Mr. Obama is actually doing, rather than simply what he says on television.”
ROFLMAO!
The projection and lack of self awareness is hilarious.

Obama is going to ruminate and ruminate and come to the same place Bush already was.
Obama is going to tell America that this new policy, indentical to Bush’s, is his own idea.
Obama said that he didn’t want to “point fingers” and then pointed fingers at Bush 28 times. He is such a liar. Obama’s acolytes will not even consider what Obama does- only what he says.
Obama will not release those memos precisely because they would vindicate Bush. Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence said that high value data was obtained via EIT’s. Obama’s claiming that EIT doesn’t work is crap. He is not in any position to lecture.

“When will a left-wing goofball explain why Mr. Obama opposed habeas corpus rights for these men?”
Most likely because the plan for ending detention has not been finalized.
I do find it quite funny that right wing have to pretend to care about civil rights to get their digs in at the left.

Posted by: Ryan C | May 21, 2009 7:00:51 PM
This is typical of you, Ryan. YOu deride people personally and are totally unable to martial facts to your support.
Obama said we cannot spend in an limited fashion and he’s spending in an unlimited fashion.
Obam said he’d read every line of bills he signed and he hasn’t done it yet.
Obama said he did not want to run car companies and he’s running two of them.
Obama said he did not want to nationalize banks and he is not allowing banks to free themselves of his clutches.
Obama constantly says he does not want to point fingers but all he does is point fingers.
Obama has no plan for what to do with those terroists and gave no date for closing Gitmo.
Obama excoriated indefinite detention and now he embraces indefinite detention.
Obama said that Bush was wrong to deny rights and Obama himself argues to deny rights to those held at Bagram.
Obama is full of crap.

“Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence said that high value data was obtained via EIT’s.”
You mean this guy?
The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

I’m not as quick to totally dismiss the “tainted evidence” argument as F.H. Obama did use the qualifier, “mainly”. i.e. Is the only evidence we have that KSM killed Daniel Pearl a cooerced confession? How many prisoners actually fall within this category? No doubt we’re sitting on some really bad guys whom we haven’t tortured and lack admissible evidence of crimes. Japanese and German POW’s were state soldiers. I vividly recall the debate after 9/11 as to whether Al Qaeda was the proper party upon which to declare war. Maybe we should still do that?

Yes, Ryan, Obama was scheduled after the AEI speech was calendared. That means HE caused the matchup, which HE lost both on content and in “supermaxing” the impact of your favorite Darth Vader in the news.

“Most likely because the plan for ending detention has not been finalized.”
D’oh!
Ya think, Ryan?
It was soooooooooooo easy before the election.

“Yes, Ryan, Obama was scheduled after the AEI speech was calendared.”
Actually, he scheduled it this week.
So the claim he moved it up is false.
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.

“Most likely because the plan for ending detention has not been finalized.”
Nice guess, but 100% wrong. And why guess at all? Why not go look at the briefs and arguments made in the case by Mr. Obama’s justice department? The “pland for ending detention” was not mentioned. If Mr. Obama has ever mentioned any plan for ending detention at Bagram, please let us know about it.
The goofballs are very uncomfortable with this issue, as well they should be.

Posted by: robertb | May 21, 2009 7:13:23 PM
Exactly.
Obama is a tool.

Actually Obama was quite clear that the road he will choose will be harder because he will not take shortcuts.
- You’re cracking me up. It was all so easy before the election. He had all the answers.
He certainly has his work cut out for him but he has doen a great job in his nearly 4 months so far.
- ROTFLMAO. The economy is going great! Unemployment is WAY UP! Obama has become Bush! He hasn’t even fixed what’s wrong with the credit markets!
Fabulous job!

Cheney, as a private citizen, is more of a treasure than he was as a VP.
***************************************************
He’s certainly more visible as a private citizen, but then he’s busy conducting his own defense with a slew of advisors and speechwriters, which he can easily afford. Yes, it is ironic he’s been far more public these past two weeks than he has the last four years. I wonder why this national treasure kept himself in hiding during the Republican presidential campaigning. You must have really missed him then.

“The economy is going great! Unemployment is WAY UP! He hasn’t even fixed what’s wrong with the credit markets!”
There are many optimistic signs about the economy, certainly many more than we had just 6 months ago.
“Fabulous job!”
The American people certainly think so.
His job approval is in the low 60′s.

“Cheney, as a private citizen, is more of a treasure than he was as a VP. Obama should talk with him in private and learn from his experience and wisdom.”
Oh Yes absolutely they should meet! Cheney can demonstrate how we break international law and torture detainees to confess false information in an effort to get the torture to stop.
Then Cheney can pass along his wisdom to Obama on how to use that false information and lead us into an illegal war killing 4500 + of our honored mean and women in uniform and over 100,000 of their citizens all while taking our eye off the real evil-doers, ignoring our constitution and lying with a smile!

“Oh Yes absolutely they should meet! Cheney can demonstrate how we break international law and torture detainees to confess false information in an effort to get the torture to stop.”
Let’s see any of you prove that anything done in 2002 and 2003 was considered torture by the US Congress. You are incredibly dishonest.

“No Ryan, Obama scheduled after Cheney, therefore assuming he was aware of AEI”
Again, Obama scheduled the speech once.
He did not have the speech previously scheduled so the claim he moved it up to coincide with Cheney’s is a lie.
I have no doubts that he wanted to contrast himself with Cheney.
AI also have little doubt Obama won that battle outside of the gullible viewers of FoxNews.

“Let’s see any of you prove that anything done in 2002 and 2003 was considered torture by the US Congress.”
ROFLMAO!
I doubt the Republican majority Congress considered waterboarding torture.
And even they were later forced into action banning waterboarding in 2005 shamed by McCain.

“move up” is SOOO different than “move”, just like “unlawful combatant detention” is SOO different from “preventive detention”, and “military tribunal” is SOO different from well, “military tribunal 2.0″

“Because people are stupid.
I have already stated this over and over- they are cultists.”
so 60% of Americans are cultists because they think Obama is doing a good job?
Please tell me that you are involved with party outreach drjohn.

“So which Democrat voted to defund the programs?”
None. Democrats did not control the agenda and waterboarding was not widely known.
“Which Democrat said it was torture back then?”
Jane Harman apparently objected to some of the treatment though its unclear of it was specifically waterboarding.
But most Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) were unaware of the program until it came out in the press in 2004.

“And even they were later forced into action banning waterboarding in 2005 shamed by McCain.”
Prove it.

Mark, don’t know what you’re getting at with “political opponent”, a completely vague term that goes from Cheney to OBL.
robertb- The purpose of law is to define the terms, so that we can all have the security of common agreements. If the difference between “terrorist” and “political opponent” cannot be defined, then there is no difference between a terrorist held by an appointed general today, and a Cheney being held by an appointed general tomorrow.

robertb….all you proved was the fickleness of the American voter.
Much like lower taxes and more government programs simultaneously appear to be popular with the public.

Obama blamed Bush no less than 25 times in his response-to-Cheney speech today, after calling for better bi-partisanship. Obama’s bashing of Bush is a deliberate strategy to appease those on the left who are becoming unhappy with his presidency. Bashing Bush may keep his popularity up for a while with the left, but he can only go to that well so many times before it dries up and reality sets in.

Padma- Besides the fact that the past need not define the present, If that ‘secret report’ is real, we need not always agree with opinions of international courts in order to use them most of the time. It is not necessary.

“So Ryan, do you think Secretary of Defense William Gates”
ROFLMAO!
The best thing about Obama’s gaffes are that they drive the right wing nuts that no one cares about them.

That is to say, there is no way to enforce the past being ‘torture’ since the definition at that time either was to the contrary, or at least debatable. But now, if we want to say that certain tactics defined in a certain way are unlawful for us to use, then it becomes so. Please, let’s not keep going back to the past when the issue we all need to face now is lawful detention.

KAt- in the same way, people turn to debating the past when they have nothing valuable to add at present.

Our only check on the power of the president is that he’s elected.

“Obama has reserved for himself the option of ordering water boarding?” I had no idea…WHAT A HYPOCRITE……

Mark – Besides the fact that the past need not define the present, If that ‘secret report’ is real, we need not always agree with opinions of international courts in order to use them most of the time. It is not necessary.
************************
The ICRC is the initiator and the guardian of international humanitarian law. E.g. That pesky Geneva Convention type stuff that Bush didn’t care for.
As for the “secret report” it became declassified and was part of the first release of information coming out from the Bush Administration.

Posted by: kat | May 21, 2009 8:03:14 PM
MarkLeavenworth made those comments you responded to – not me.

Well, after listening to Darth Cheney’s speach we finally know who the real president was for the last 8 years and his initials weren’t GWB. Why is Cheney intent on defending policies of the last administration if they weren’t the product of his oxygen-deprived brain? Why is GWB so strangely silent? Could it be that he really didn’t know what Cheney was doing while he was in hiding all those years? Sounds vaguely reminiscent of Reagan and the Iran-contra arms traders who set up in his own white house.

Our only check on the power of the president is that he’s elected.
*****************************************************
The Bush and Cheney cabal may have wanted the presidency to operate that way, but that’s not so in the real world. The constitution provides checks and balances so that no one or no branch becomes overpowerful. That’s a concept a middle schooler should have down, to be honest with you.

Sorry I’ll go with a source who has not lied to the public repeatedly.
=======
Look for a transcript or tape of Axelrod on Hardball today. Matthews asked Axelrod about it. Axelrod said, after talking about the EO banning the methods, that the President would do everything he had to do to keep the American people safe.
He did NOT say, “No. Aboslutely not. Obama would never waterboard a terrorist, even in an emergency.”

You talk of paygrade and also of making motions to invent new terms to prosecute the US for past acts? I hope that’s not a US tax-dollar being spent.
**************************************************
I said nothing of paygrade and inventing new terms to prosecute individuals for illegal acts. To prosecute someone for homicide, as an example, is prosecuting the defendant, not the US.

Great speech by Obama. I don’t envy him for having to deal with this issue. But I think he is on the right path.
Cheney made his case as he has done so often before; unapologetic, uncompromising, divisive. He said two things though, that deserves to be followed up by journalists:
1. The secret documents he keeps refering to – I haven’t heard a convincing, substantive argument by the Obama administration for why these cannot be released. Pointing to Cheney’s obvious hypocracy on transparency is really not an answer.
2. He claims that Obama reserves the right to use EITs in case of emergency. Is that true or just a typical Republican distortion-of-facts half truth?

“The Army has always been required to abide by the Army Field Manual, and those who violated it at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and punished for it.”
If it were already illegal, why the need to change the law?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would do two things: one, establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees; and, two, prohibit cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners in the detention of the Government. It is pretty simple and straightforward.
“The CIA has never–until now–been bound by it,”
It would have been sooner if Bush had not vetoed the bill.

“2. He claims that Obama reserves the right to use EITs in case of emergency. Is that true or just a typical Republican distortion-of-facts half truth?”
Not Republican but certain typical Cheney dishonesty.

Or better for you Kat, you seem to hold an opinion of the possibility of the threat for expanded presidential power for the “Bush-Cheney Cabal”, but yet you also say that is not the real world?

Why is GWB so strangely silent? Could it be that he really didn’t know what Cheney was doing while he was in hiding all those years? Sounds vaguely reminiscent of Reagan and the Iran-contra arms traders who set up in his own white house.
*******************************************************
I doubt he didn’t know anything. I’m sure Bush is keeping silent out of self-protection and also not to disturb the Bush Legacy Project.

And, asked directly about what Cheney had said about Obama reserving the right to do enhanced techniques in emergencies, Axelrod did not say Cheney was wrong, nor did he deny it.
Instead, he said Obama would do everything necessary to keep Americans safe.

I have a question? What about Americans who are now prisoners in other war torn countries? How would /does the US think if our troops, citizens would be treated so? I have heard during World War II, Vietnam our troops were treated inhuman and many died because of similar treatment. It might be a different year but the reason behind the Geneva Convention should still stand correct? Do we as Americans make our own rules and justify it by creating wrongful treatment we would not allow for allies and our own troops? Do we forget our past agreements?
I know of the sadness that we as a country experience during and after 9/11, two wrongs don’t make a right!
People who hate will hate. Good will prevail, we have to keep faith and come up with a better plan

Maybee,
I will try to catch the replay and if not that tomorrow I will go thru the transcript.

Chok another one up for jhw539.
Faye- we don’t ever compromise our values. We strive for the truth and for justice. The reason we could disagree with others is because the definitions of the terms are debatable. There is no standard in nature for justice, besides nature herself. Men have to set the standard, and we hold eachother to the definitions that we agree on. If definitions are honestly debatable, then we have no standard set. When people begin to pretend that definitions are debatable, when they don’t really believe that, then it is that men have let their own standard fail of themselves, and nature takes her toll. Whether or when that happens, no one can say but One, who sees and knows the hearts of men. It is, however, unfailingly the standard by which nations rise, and by which they fall.

Faye, you must understand that this is not a traditional war.
Islamic terrorists are not engaging in traditional warfare. They do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. They use children and mentally challenged people as well as brainwashed recruits as couriers to detonate suicide bombs. They fight from inside mosques and schools.
They torture (mutilate), disembowel and behead their prisoners. To equate our treatment of the terrorists with the terrorists treatment of our people is ludicrous.

The question remains. After the courts cases, after the transfers to other governments, after the signed releases…of those remaining who have been taken into custody which other nations will not take, who is going to decide their fate, and how will it be decided? I joked earlier about letting them fall through the cracks, but that really is an option that will likely bring severe corruption to the order of power within a few decades.

LOL Phillip V. uses the “it’s not torture” debate despite the fact 98 detainees have died in custody. Roughly, 12 due to torture according to the latest stats by HRW.
How does your piety allow you to be so sanctimonious about a woman’s right to chose, but you can make excuses for killing and torturing grown men & women? You don’t call what they did to those kids at Abu Ghraib torture?
Torturing is against the law, but I don’t think you care too much about that.

jhw:It is not the Constitutional role of the president to ‘get us there.’ You’re thinking of a dictatorship or monarchy.
====
No, I’m not. I’m thinking about a President who issued an Executive Order and now needs to find a way to get his own order executed.
I’m thinking about an Executive who has the intelligence agencies working for him, and has every ability to work out detention policies.
I’m thinking about the Executive who has the FBI and DOJ in his branch who can help him formulate legal framework to recommend to Congress.
I’m also thinking of someone who installed a car czar to oversee automanufacters, is negotiating bankruptcy with two automakers, is announcing agreements he’s made with auto manufacturers about CAFE standards, has asked for at least one CEO to step down, who is asking for more powers to step in on distressed private companies, and who talks about building a new foundation.
All the while, of course, saying how much he really doesn’t want to have to be doing these things.

Padma, I’ve never defended what happened at Abu Ghraib. or torture, and it was proscecuted, after being exposed by the American Military. Yes I believe that the Unborn are innocent and have the right to life. Once your pregnant you’ve made your choice. (My opinion) My disagreement with the president is over his inconsistant values, protect terrorists rights at the risk of innocent civilians, but won’t extend protection to the unborn or even medical care to survivors of abortion. Sorry yes I have a problem with that.

I mean, while it’s true that despots throughout history have always seized on crisis as an opportunity to take power, it is also a trend with presidencies to some extent. There is no good reason to be seriously alarmed. Is Senator Byrd out of the hospital yet?

How does Al Qaeda committing horrific acts give us the right to torture? Aren’t we supposed to be standing on higher moral ground, or justifying actions based on their behaviors?

If such power to imprison without trial or declaration of war by the senate, is to be made explicitly legal in certain cases by the senate, then it is not a question of when it can be done, but for the senate to define when it cannot. Essentially, the congress will have to spell out every case in which the president does NOT have the right to imprison without trial, or else to say clearly that the president does NOT have the right to imprison without trial.

“…or else to say clearly that the president does NOT have the right to imprison without trial.”
Doesn’t matter what the congress says. The president has the power under article II of the constituion, and the congress can’t take it away from him.

“Phillip V. uses the ‘it’s not torture’ debate despite the fact 98 detainees have died in custody. Roughly, 12 due to torture according to the latest stats by HRW.”
The fact that persons have died in custody is not evidence of torture. How many detainees have died in custody at Bagram during the Obama presidency? You don’t know, do you? In fact you don’t know anything about Bagram, do you? Google it.

So, as far as the liberals are concerned if Obama’s mother had wanted to abort him then that would have been ok? Hypocrites!

but won’t extend protection to the unborn or even medical care to survivors of abortion. Sorry yes I have a problem with that.
Posted by: Philip V. | May 21, 2009 11:01:46 PM
***************************
You do know this is a right wing lie? The nurse who accused the hospital of all of this that started this brew-ha-ha is under prosecution.
Here’s a little education for you re: SB 1095:
“The Illinois State Medical Society, which also fought the legislation and was cited by Mr. Obama on Saturday in his defense of his position, said in a statement that it opposed the package of bills, first introduced in 2001, “because they interfered negatively with the physician-patient relationship, attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neonatal care and greatly expanded civil liability for physicians.”
In addition, why would he vote for another law that is ALREADY on the books in Illinois, 720 ILCS?

“Yes, I think it is shameful that Bush sent non-Afghan detainees there to avoid rights afforded them under our constitution over 6 years ago.”
Where oh please tell me does the consitution apply to citizens of other countries?? Is that what you just said?
The consitution isn’t a document you use to fight a war, you fight a war to protect the consitution! What kind of disturbed logic are you using??

Where oh please tell me does the consitution apply to citizens of other countries?? Is that what you just said?
******************
The Supreme Court “said”.
Rasul v. Bush
Boumedine v. Bush
****************
“Where are the details to those “stats”.”
****************
Human Rights Watch – non-partisan global non-profit organization.

“The Supreme Court “said”.”
5th Ammendment…
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,…..
EXCEPT in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;….
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Are you saying the Supreme court violated the 5th ammendment of the consitution?

Law of Armed Conflict..
“Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.”
So what you are saying is we are protecting war criminals with our constitution.

KR – Might I suggest you research these decisions by the Supreme Court from last summer. It will put many things into perspective for you. Have a nice day.
Rasul v. Bush
Boumedine v. Bush

” Might I suggest you research these decisions by the Supreme Court from last summer.”
The Supreme court, if making a decision that circumvents the Geneva Convention, Law of Armed Conflict, and the Consitution, is now irrelevant and has gone beyond its powers.

Rasul v. Bush
“…decision establishing that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals.”
Does not afford them the protection of the consitution…
Boumediene v. Bush
The majority found that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to persons held in Guantanamo and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory.
Affords them a right to a trial, which international law already does. It does not however give them the full protection of the consitution, only in that it shares habeus corpus with international law, it gives them the right to due process and a trial, again, international law, Law of Armed Conflict already provide that provision.

“As the Court put it: “the Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom.”
Also of note, this was the decision from a US CITIZEN held at GITMO. The court applied it to foriegn nationals, which was the bridge that connected insanity to our consitution.

Bush anti-terror measures:
–Patriot Act
–wiretaps
–e-mail intercepts
–military tribunals
–Predator drone attacks
–delaying Iraq withdrawal
–Afghanistan
–indefinite detention
–denial of habeas corpus rights
–state secrets
–rendition
–Bagram
–Guantanamo
HopeyChangey anti-terror measures:
–Patriot Act
–wiretaps
–e-mail intercepts
–military tribunals
–Predator drone attacks
–delaying Iraq withdrawal
–Afghanistan
–indefinite detention
–denial of habeas corpus rights
–state secrets
–rendition
–Bagram
–Guantanamo
But hey–we’re workin’ hard on that Guantanamo one. It’s such a symbol, see, and symbols are what really count.

If a case cannot be made either under the geneva convention, or under LOAC, for a foreign national to be detained, then should we detain them? I could care less if we hang them by their toenails, but the fact is, the congress must take control of who can be detained and for how long and under what conditions. They can’t expect the military or the president to step up to the plate with the rules to explicitly limit the power of the president or the military. I think they should make it a case-by-case basis by some large majority or by unanimous consent and they should explicitly side with the court that such provisions cannot be applied to US citizens in any case.

“If a case cannot be made either under the geneva convention, or under LOAC”
Actually the LOAC and Geneva Convention mention a trial, but no specific construct. That is intentional because the authors of both realize that unlawful combatants captures on a battlefield would be tried by their captors. That process would be up to the captor. In WW2, the Germans that were captured in the US that were going to carry out strikes against our factories were tried, by military commision, and sentenced to death, and the basis of being unlawful combatants.
The problem that the prisoners in GITMO create is our application of our sense of measured punishment, losing perspective that their status and participation in conflict as an unlawful combatant is, within itself, an offense that can result in execution. We are too skiddish to actually apply that punishment, terrified that some lawyer or media outlet will publish some story that we are executing these detainees without ample evidence, when in fact evidence beyond the conditions in which they were apprehended is not required.
End result is we have become soft on the rules of war, not using summary execution punishment against these unlawful combatants because we are worried about how it looks. This is the case mostly because people do not understand what an unlawful combatant is and the danger they present to civilian populations. Using civilian population as concealment and cover to avoid direct combat, targeting civilian populations to instill fear, are all crimes punishable by summary execution which we are not willing, or strong enough, to engage.

In my opinion, it is the congress of the United States that has become too soft.

Well, KR. It really is not that far of a jump. I mean, we have all these Mexican nationals here now, kidnapping children and murdering. They should fall within your scope. After that, since they are organized cartels, they have many associated armed members. Should an armed associate of a foreign criminal organization retain their rights as citizens? Unreasonable.

KR- I’m equating a foreign national of a global organization which is known to use tactics such as beheadings, mass murder of innocent civilians, kidnapping of children, among other tactics, to terrorist organizations. Do you have some objection to that?

“I am well aware of where the military could and likely would take the interpretation of ‘judicial guarantees recognized by civilized peoples.’”
No you’re not. In fact you have no awareness of it at all.

“they would be the same as citizens who enlist in AQ”
Definately could be yes. Them being US citizens however would be afforded due process of our courts and punishment, just as if we apprehended a Mexican cartel member who had conducted terror acts against Mexico, he could be turned over to Mexico for prosecution and punishment. Its a little different dynamic than say, a Saudi picked up in Iraq conducting an attack on the US. He is treated more like a mercenary who enters a battlefield. In that case, he is more subject to our military commission than a Saudi court system. However, that determination can be made on a case by case basis, of which a military commission is intended to do.

Ironically, probably our only way out of this is to get as many veterans as possible through law school and into congress.

“I have. I also completely disagree with the Supreme Court based on the international laws I have posted. A right to a trial was already there. Military Tribunals, which are still in effect now under Obama, was that process. When they go into a US court, they come under consitutional law, not international law, and thus everything changes. Burden of proof becomes that of our laws which require significant evidence gathering and forensics that our military troops DO NOT DO and SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO. This is about fighting a war with individuals who play by no rules. You can’t send out a SEAL team to go raid a terrorist safe house and have an FBI forensics team in tow. It comes under the “impractical” terms of the Laws of Armed Conflict.
And for WHAT??? Individuals that, by definition of the Geneva Convention, are NOT PROTECTED??
It is lunacy.”
Why didn’t Cheney explain his positions like you did during his public debate with Obama? How you described it is actually a reasonable argument for why military tribunals are the best way to handle detainee trials instead of bringing them to the U.S.

“How you described it is actually a reasonable argument for why military tribunals are the best way to handle detainee trials instead of bringing them to the U.S.”
I’m not sure why they haven’t been able to effectively explain it. I think that, in concert with a rediculous Supreme Court decision, that explaining it in the detail given the political environment is futile. People have already subscribed to their beliefs and even after rational explaination, it probably wouldn’t do any good. Add to it that the administration has political capitol invested in this, nothing is really going to make it rational anymore.

After that, we would be sure to have a large influx of ‘protestors’, either armed or unarmed, from Mexico and the United States, who would either have to be prosecuted or else be granted the rights of wrongful deaths. Following them would likely be large numbers of armed patriots (including veterans) who fight the new order of what, by then, is more or less military dictatorship. They, too, would have to be prosecuted as friendly to the enemy. What remains would be a nice, orderly, well behaved and very clean society. The fascist Utopia.

And all because our congress is too weak to make legal terms clear and to grant anything other than a free hand to the executive branch.

No, Joe, it does hold water. The congress is asking the president and the miltary to define their own terms for this new class of ‘prisoners’.

“No, Joe, it does hold water. The congress is asking the president and the miltary to define their own terms for this new class of ‘prisoners’.”
So what’s the problem? The point you made before was that they were giving him a “free” hand. This instance suggest they are not. This is a major impediment to the president’s agenda and they voted against him even tho most of his party agree with him that Gitmo should be closed. How is they being weak in this case?

Their minds are weak, Joe. They’ve been unable to define the terms of battle or the objective. They’ve been unable to define who is and is not an enemy. “They’ve been unable to define the rules of engagement. They’ve been unable to define the rules of detainment and even complain that they were unable to decide for themselves the rules of interrogation. Now they are making a show of their strength, I guess in numbers? to say that the president and military have not defined the their terms yet? Strength in numbers is more suitable to the executive branch.”
===========
All the reasons you gave are because of the nature of this war. How do you define terms of battle with an enemy that can strike anywhere at anytime? How do you define who the enemy is when they wear no uniform and are not soldiers? How do you define the rules of engagment when fighting an enemy that uses suicide as a WEAPON???
Make no mistake. America has never been in a war like this so called “war on terror”. The closest I can think of is WW2 and the war with Japan when Japanese soldiers would frequently use kamikaze tactics to attack our troops and vessels. The war on terror is by its very nature undefinable. Because the enemy can be both everywhere and nowhere.

You’re right, which is why I said in an earlier post, that it looks to me that this war on civilization has nature’s blessing…exposing our leadership as weak in nature, with minds that are overly reliant on civilization, unable to define their terms in nature.

Where to start would be a good question. To which I would answer, we need to get as many combat veterans as possible through law school and into the legislatures, however many we can get to convert the strength of their senses and training into their minds. On the near term, if possible, to press the congress to define the terms of detention. But you can’t get blood from a turnip.

As for europe, most of the players have been laughing at our dispersements of tax dollars overseas.

“You’re right, which is why I said in an earlier post, that it looks to me that this war on civilization has nature’s blessing…exposing our leadership as weak in nature, with minds that are overly reliant on civilization, unable to define their terms in nature.”
===========
I disagree with that point. If that were true why would we be given the capacity for reason, compassion and strength of spirit? Al-Qaeda is the unnatural ones and they are on the wrong side of this conflict. Their beliefs tell them that murdering men, women and children will earn them the right to go to heaven which on its face is inherently evil. They show their true cowardess and lack of conviction by their very tactic of using suicide as a weapon (wholly unnatural) merely so they don’t survive to answer for their crimes. They are a threat like we’ve never seen and I agree we need a wholly new approach to defeat them.
Unfortunately we don’t yet know what that is and the last time we faced an enemy who used these tactics, we had to drop an atomic bomb on them. Which of course won’t work on Al-Qaeda for obvious reasons.
Unfortunately we stirred up a hornets nest when we went into Iraq and from the looks of things so far if we don’t find a way to defeat Al-Qaeda, no one else will….

“That may sound far-fetched, but consider that the larger force of AlQueda was originally the remains of the Russian/Afghan war and combine”
===========
That knowledge also is deeply troubling. The fact we helped to create Al-Qaeda to fight a war known to be where not a single bullet was fired. In effect our fear of communism lead us to create what in time would grow to be a far worse and more subversive threat to our way of life.
IF you believe in fate it could be argued by some that maybe the war on terror, in a way, is our penance for using another country to fight our enemies for us. Now we’re basically on our own, fighting an enemy of our own making.

“It also appears that if we continue to try to defeat an enemy whose limits we cannot define, that we will destroy ourselves.”
The enemy we now fight doesn’t care whether it lives or dies…how do you define its limits when it has none???
I honestly believe it’s not congress’ fault. There are incredibly complicated issues with no easy or clear answers. If you want me to, I’ll write another short essay on why that is…

It also strikes me that we are shown again, with this challenge to our values, that we are being called, not by individuals, but by force of nature, to define ourselves and our values, which we have also been neglecting.

Our knowledge of ourselves, our defining attributes, our strengths and our weaknesses, and our knowledge of the enemy, their attributes, strengths, and weakness, should fill many volumes. Without that before hand, we would have no business deploying troops. It is honor that we hold for our strength the notion of being right, which serves us in battle. But it is intelligence and reason that must direct that force…deliberations for which the congress was designed.

I’ll also give you a start on why it’s so ‘complicated’. There is very little difference between the blood that flows through Syria to Iran and the Arabians through the mediteranean and across south America, up through Mexico and into the United States, and the blood that flows into Palestine either up from Egypt or over from Lebanon, under Abbas, or voting for Hamas. Which tribes and which gangs do we isolate and destroy? In almost every case we will have also the women and the children to decide about.

“why not get in touch with the White House and privately discuss his concerns with Obama like a statesman before making his opposition known?”
Because I think Obama has been attacking Bush and Cheney constantly on this issue publically without any rebuke until now. I do not believe Obama has any respect for the former administration whatsoever. That being the case, and open and very public rebuke to Obama was probably the only medium to engage.
Obama has made the public information realm the arena of battle, not Cheney. Obama knows how to campaign and I think countering his campaign was the appropriate course for Cheney to take.

That sounds like a good direction. I do have an odd reservation, though. I’ve been wondering if the beheadings and kidnappings by Mexican cartels have reduced the drug activity of teens, etc. Like a wolf herding sheep?

“That sounds like a good direction. I do have an odd reservation, though. I’ve been wondering if the beheadings and kidnappings by Mexican cartels have reduced the drug activity of teens, etc. Like a wolf herding sheep?”
From what I’ve read and observed about the beheadings in Mexico, it seems as though it is done more because of its somewhat…popularity made by TV so to speak. They notice the reaction it made from cases like Nick Berg etc, and realize that it instills fear. While many islamic fundamentalists employ the tactic because of references in the Quran, Mohammad himself is said to have beheaded 600 people personally, and the Quran says to be like Mohammad. I believe “smite the neck” is the term in the Quran for beheading.
With that, I am unsure if the connection of violence and drop in drug % with teens is connected.

” If employed tortures and beheadings, or worse, if that actually served to combat them, would we use them?”
No I am thinking more of the legal limitations we employ, such as their detainment, rules of engagement, how we deal with nations such as Pakistan, etc. Less on the tactics side and more on the operational limitations.

The first place that this would breach our essential limits is on the unlimited detainment of those for whom no previously defined lawful detainment order exists. Can you answer, what reason would there be to hold a trial for a detainee, if they can be indefinitely detained without one?

“Understanding the tactic means you must understand the intent and desired result of the tactic. In simple terms its fear, but it relies on a very simple concept…. sensational publicity. Without it, its impact to influence and achieve its goal greatly diminished.”
=============
If it’s publicity they want, it’s publicity they’re going to get. There’s no way around that unfortunately. IF they drive planes into buildings or some such acts of terror they will get publicity. Al-Qaeda is not some schoolyard bully. Believe me, we won’t win anything by ignoring them.

KR- I see what is necessary is to share YOUR understanding of the problem. Then you are willing to give back. To go in, with limits defined by congress, into an environment that they will only read about on their blackberries…into a home with women an children and you have to take out enemy combatants who may or may not blow all of you up on the spot, for a war that everyone says can’t be won, while they tie your hands behind your back…that is a bind.

I guess I forgot what it’s like to be fresh off the lines.

Indefinite detention, though, that’s un-american. But then again, so is forced socialised government run healthcare, etc.

There’s a big difference between socialism, fascism, and sound policy. When you take a soldier that has been responsible for bringing in how ever many billion barrells, and redistribute that to everyone else who’s been sitting on their couch watching it on the news, that’s more like socialism. When you take a part of that and redistribute it to the soldier after the fact, that’s more like fascism. When you take a part of that and use it to try to help weave the soldier back into civilian life, strengthening the civilian world while stemming a tide of fascism, that’s sound policy.

POTUS, give up, leave it open for a while longer.. liberals don’t have anyone else to vote for.. you are it. If they had another horse to ride, you would have to cater to their every whim.. but they only have one.
Don’t be afraid of the left, they’ve been squawking for years.. go to the center and after 6 years of continuous service.. you can pretty much do as you like. You are really doing them a favor by holding serve, they are just not aware enough to realize it.

Joe- The urgency of getting my views out on this is done, but this is interesting enough of a conversation. What programs are you looking at, historically of that era, for which there were complaints which were proven false. I’m sure we can complete the list with all those that were miserable failures, mild failures, subsequently privatized, or longer-term dead-ends (most of the financial crisis today is the termination of the plan that was launched at about that time).

“(most of the financial crisis today is the termination of the plan that was launched at about that time).”
If you mean the regulations Roosevelt put in place were slowly watered down over the course of 30 years, I agree with you. It was also the fault of Greenspan, and the Bush administration for not paying any attention to the early warning signs. Such as the housing bubble in 2003-2005 and the foreclosure rate around 2006-2008 growing at such a drastic rate of 10,000 a day by the beginning of last year.
Of course the greed on Wall Street with the credit default swaps being sold around the world and massive leveraging at AIG but everyone knows about that.

No offense to you, Joe, but your mind jumps from point-to-point like playing connect-the-dots with yesterday’s news. That’s not a very good way to look at the previous century. Other nations do their planning in centuries and milliniae (including some of the tribes we’re facing now), so it might be a good idea to try to find some historical resources other than last year’s headlines.

“What programs are you looking at, historically of that era, for which there were complaints which were proven false.”
The argument I was making earlier wasn’t in relation to if the critics of those programs were proven to be right or wrong. I was making the case that they were all labeled as socialist at the time and I would say continue to be today.

“Well, anyway, if you do try to get your hands on some historical documents and references other than those that are being fed to you, be advised, there are long term plans, deeply entrenched in most cases, that take pride in their ability to edit and re-write history.”
===========
I don’t doubt that history gets re-written all the time but if I am mistaken about something I’ve said, by all means enlighten me. I would do the same for you.

Let’s steer this discussion back on topic. I’m curious to know what you would do with the detainees at Gitmo if you had the ear of the president. Anything that either Obama or Cheney haven’t thought of yet?

With the sentencing through civilian courts of those who cannot be fit into the military commission framework to the reasonable satisfaction of our allies, the anger of the inability to wipe these people off of the face of the planet would be quickly directed at the judicial system.

So you think Gitmo should stay open rather then risk the anger of our allies being re-directed at the judicial system itself?

I could care less about the anger of our allies, unless it happens to coincide with our national interests. It’s the public anger and the anger of the military that is directed at these enemies that we can neither understand, define, nor defeat. The reason for including our allies in the decisions about who can and who cannot be tried in military, rather than civilian, and the required framework for justice, is that it would limit their desire to make cases of those who could not be held by our legal standards, using a legal standard of their design. We would rather that they were not angered to do that.

Actually, that does leave the option of top generals recommending that the military cannot be expected to continue to hold commissions for some of these prisoners without endangering the balance of the constitutional powers. That would help soften the blow to the enlisted, help shield the president, help bridged the communication and trust gaps between the military and large parts of the public, and also would prevent the endangerment of the balance of the constitutional powers.

“So to let prisoners go because they cannot be found guilty by civilian courts would not hurt him so much with the public, but with his new power base, the military.”
=========
I disagree. If that happened, I think it would equally be as much of a political horror show for this administration from the backlash it would garner from the public as well as the military. It would make Cheney’s arguments with the Bush admin. and with Obama seem even more credible because Obama came down on the side of our laws being able to handle these detainees as opposed to some ad hoc tribunal run out of the public pervue inside Gitmo.

“Let them go.” You can bet there would be public outrage, that comming from the president. But his real trouble with respect to loss of power and handling challenges, would come from the enlisted and shorter-sighted officers.

His political opponents would be too willing to paint his administration’s every decision with that brush and since most of his policies are only able to be tolerated because of the public’s trust in him personally, if he falls, the democratically controlled congress will therefore fold like cheap suit.
Talk about a ripple effect. Most muslim countries have a higher favorability rating of Obama than the United States. So if he goes down, so goes his plans for economic recovery, the automobile industry, our financial system and mideast peace!
All basically held up by one man.

“Like I said, that anger from both the public and the military would be directed at the judicial system, (which the public is used to doing anyway).”
==============
The public is used to doing it but not on this level. You really can’t see the festering anger and/or lingering cynicism that would result if the courts failed to be able to convict one of these detainees of any crimes?
“The anger towards the president would be deflected best if top generals presented the case to the public. ALternantively, if the congress could pull together to side with the courts, they would also take the public anger, while preserving the constitution. I haven’t seen the character in most of them to do that.”
===============
The congress is basically a reflection of the people, not the courts. Hell, the people are still split on the issue of torture and whether it was wrong to implement it on certain individuals in times of crisis. The constitution was and always will be only as strong as any particular generations choice of safety over liberty.
Cheney’s argument chooses one at the expense of the other, where the constitution is almost seen as a burden to him.
Obama wants to try and search for the middle ground (the “sweet spot”)but I think he is willing to sacrifice liberty for safety, maybe not as easily as Cheney would, but if he has to as a last resort.

The congress is basically a reflection of the people, not the courts”
This is outside of our discussion, mostly, but the calls against the TARP were coming in 100 to 1.
Second, I say congress siding with the courts, because that would be two branches against one, which is the way the constitution was designed to operate. I doubt our forefathers expected women to want to fight for liberty, though.

For Obama, the choice is between increasing his power or preserving the constitution. Time is not on his side in delaying that decision.

Either way, a classical marble should be commissioned of Obama holding the sceptor of power in the left hand, and the constitution in the other, gazing at one or the other of them.

By the way, the idea that congress, as a whole, is a representation of the people, as a whole, and not the courts is not just my opinion, but this guy…
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Ben Franklin
That quote has implications not only for the congress but the constitution as well. (i.e. THE PATRIOT ACT) You catching my drift yet?
In other words, to protect the spirit of the Constitution in its purest form, people as a whole have to at least be willing…to die.

What you seem to not know is that the paralysis and ‘tension’ of indecision of one academic and his colleagues will not stop the advance of the executive branch.

If you think the advance of the president and executive power will bring the academic dream of socialism to bear fruit, I’m sorry you will be dissappointed at the soldiers in your streets.

“Also, the argument that the public does not deserve liberty is poor.”
==========
First of all that’s not what I said. Secondly, the point I previously made was not just mine, it was Ben Franklin’s. And it would help if you read the whole quote and not cherry pick the parts of it that follows your point.
Like I said previously, this is in essence what that quote means: to protect the spirit of the Constitution in its purest form, people as a WHOLE have to at least be willing…to DIE.
What don’t you agree with there?

Whereas you, seeing the reasons, maintain that there is a dilemma.

SO, then, are you in agreement with me that we each must do everything in our power to communicate to the public, to the soldiers, to the president, to our representatives that we must stomach the threat of danger if we are to preserve our liberty, or are you not?

“SO, then, are you in agreement with me that we each must do everything in our power to communicate to the public, to the soldiers, to the president, to our representatives that we must stomach the threat of danger if we are to preserve our liberty, or are you not?”
============
Bingo, Now you get my point!!!!
In order to preserve the Constitution in its purest form, the people (in this case, you and me) have to at least be willing to die.
And that’s when this debate leaps from the academic, into reality.

So, then, what is the dilemma that you speak of?

He also has to live with any decision to release those detainees into other countries if they end up getting released or escaping and re-assimilated by Al-Qaeda only to fight against and kill our troops in battle. Which has happened under Bush.
14% of those released from Gitmo so far have went back to some form of terrorism.

“Those are safety concerns, in one form or another.”
Concerns??? “Concerns” is waaay to light a word to use for the issues this president faces in trying to find a fair and just resolution to close Gitmo.

Mark my words…um Mark, if anyone from Gitmo (or anyone else for that matter) actually succeeds in launching another terrorist attack on this country, this polite little discourse we’re having will instantly become moot.
Congress will be compelled by a force (those nameless “people” I keep talking about) unlike any you’ve ever seen to strip the citizens of this country of almost every right under the constitution you can think of, and a few you might not. President Obama knows this which is why he desperately wants to prevent that from happening.
And you know the most unthinkable part of that whole scenario? The people will cheer it.
So, in effect, he’s not trying to abuse the constitution, or hide from it like Cheney would, with the whole preventative detention thing, he’s trying prevent it from getting totally shredded in the future.

The alternative is a fascist regime, very secure and orderly. When that reaches its conclusion, honor will have no aim, no free people to ponder, and the agressive tribes will have their victory.

“The alternative is a fascist regime, very secure and orderly. When that reaches its conclusion, honor will have no aim, no free people to ponder, and the agressive tribes will have their victory.”
==============
BINGO!
BINGO IS HIS NAAAME-O!!!!
You get my point again, congrats Mark.
The fascist regime you speak of, we’re just one Oklahoma City Bombing or one 9/11 away from that scenario. That’s all it would take. One more time. That’s how fragile the constitution is at this point in our history of the war on terror. Obama knows this and as he said wakes up ever morning and goes to sleep every night with this on his mind.

To be more illustrious….
They easily oppose crowds in the street to do something, very easy not to do.
Yet you say they now, while knowing that they are trading the constitution for safety, are only doing so because they fear the public response?

“To be more illustrious….
They easily oppose crowds in the street to do something, very easy not to do.
Yet you say they now, while knowing that they are trading the constitution for safety, are only doing so because they fear the public response?”
================
In a word, yes…YES YES a thousand, million, billion times YES!!!
You say “trading the constitution for safety” like it’s some abstract argument that’s never been done or out of the realm of possibility. I just got through explaining to you about the rise of the Patriot Act. Enacted by a republican controlled Congress, no less.

Unless it can be easily consumed.

To some extent, in time of immediate threat and danger, many things can go wrong. But after a time, it cannot be said that we have not had time to reason and reach the necessary conclusions. It is like a cherry tree, where the birds will give you a few days to pick them after they are ripe, but after that they will come and clear the tree.

Again, if we don’t have the strength of leadership in our ranks to rise up on the civilian side time and again to pronounce the immminent danger of the TRUE threat to our liberty, but we DO have the leadership to rise up again and again to pronounce the need to give away money, that is a weak republic with weak leadership.

“To some extent, in time of immediate threat and danger, many things can go wrong. But after a time, it cannot be said that we have not had time to reason and reach the necessary conclusions. It is like a cherry tree, where the birds will give you a few days to pick them after they are ripe, but after that they will come and clear the tree.”
==========
This is that time. That time is now. That’s what the election of Obama was all about. People agreed with Obama and came to the conclusions that we, as a nation, gave up too much of the constitution in the following years after 9/11 and we want some of that freedom back. But they also want the federal government to protect them and their loved ones from the big bad terrorists that we all know are out there still plotting other heinous attacks. The public is okay with keeping detainees locked up indefinitely, instead of offering them a fairer trial in the US because they’re afraid that a court somewhere will have to let them go inside the US, which could happen as I’ve said before.
Hence the balance Obama is trying to strike as president.

Those sound like very limited concerns about the state of public opinion, but let me look again and see what I can see.

“Again, if we don’t have the strength of leadership in our ranks to rise up on the civilian side time and again to pronounce the immminent danger of the TRUE threat to our liberty, but we DO have the leadership to rise up again and again to pronounce the need to give away money, that is a weak republic with weak leadership.”
=============
What “TRUE” threat to our liberty do you mean Mark?
Not weak necessarily, both are seen as possible threats to the well-being of the country. Possible terrorist attack that could happen anywhere at anytime by anyone and the spending of trillions of dollars in ways that the public isn’t sure will work, possibly causing future generations to have a lower quality of life than their ancestors.
In the eyes of the public, both are seen as possible threats to the futures of their loved ones. Maybe not on the same scale, but you get my point.

By TRUE threat to our liberty, I mean the sustained power to imprison without trial and evidence.

“The first result of that is that soldiers will go out, round up suspects, bring them through some process of justice, and then have to let them go, or they will be let go. The soldiers will suffer for that burden. The released suspects might then become involved in some terrible act of terror, with the result that the public outcry will be so outrageous that mass executions will replace the detentions. That is basically the scenario with all the negatives, which we can prioritize, more or less, and see what are the limits and possibilities of each part, seeing as there is no alternative.”
============
There’s also a flip side to that scenario. While soldiers are off fighting these enemies in distant lands, the planned execution of a terrorist plot masterminded by one of the individuals set free by the justice system results in one or more of their own family members getting killed along with thousands of others. The public AND military outcry will be so outrageous that the national guard is ordered to begin enforcing martial law and we have the “soldiers in the streets” scenario you mentioned earlier becoming a nightmarish reality where multiple detention centers are built and anyone of Muslim or mid-eastern descent is catalogued and warehoused indefinitely.

That’s not a flip, side, just more of the same. Obviously, the breakdown of the constitution could happen either before or after such a scenario, but we are in the before now, and must examine the problem as previously stated, unless I left something out?

“The first result of that is that soldiers will go out, round up suspects, bring them through some process of justice, and then have to let them go, or they will be let go. The soldiers will suffer for that burden. The released suspects might then become involved in some terrible act of terror, with the result that the public outcry will be so outrageous that mass executions will replace the detentions. That is basically the scenario with all the negatives, which we can prioritize, more or less, and see what are the limits and possibilities of each part, seeing as there is no alternative.”
=============
I don’t see any other alternative either unfortunately. Either we detain them indefinitely, which we are currently doing or what I said could happen here and what you said could conceivably happen over there. The only debate I see here would be is it worth even the possibility of all this happening in order to stay true to the purest sense of the constitution?
America as a whole is going to have to answer that question for herself (yes she’s a woman) and soon because time is slowly but surely running out.

But I will say this, if we are at a point where mass executions and detaining the entire Muslim-American population is our only recourse, the terrorists really will have won because America will officially become a fascist country by any meaning of the word.
On a side note, I wouldn’t trade places with Obama for anything in the world right now. There are no good solutions here…

Here’s a question for you Mark. Would you still insist on the absolute rule of law when concerning these detainees knowing the hell (from your scenario and mine) it could ultimately bring about in the world?
Are your convictions waivered at all? Or do you still believe they should be brought to due justice for every last one of them?

Openning up this scenario that we have layed out, to get creative about what we can and cannot do, keeping in mind that we need only adhere to the truth to preserve our liberty, this is our portion, our civilian portion in this war that nature has put on us.

“Openning up this scenario that we have layed out, to get creative about what we can and cannot do, keeping in mind that we need only adhere to the truth to preserve our liberty, this is our portion, our civilian portion in this war that nature has put on us.”
==============
Come on now Mark. Just like you said, the President can’t walk the middle ground and neither can you. You have to make a decision. Stand with the constitution or a possible nightmare scenario that could result in the deaths of untold numbers of people and the possibility of the US almost instantly turning to fascism.
Like you said previously, there really is only 2 choices….detention or justice. Knowing what you know could happen and whatever results from it will ultimately be your responsibility, just like Obama you must choose. Congress isn’t going to give you one red cent of that money to close Gitmo without your plan and you are going to need that money sooner rather then later to begin the process to close it by Jan. 22, 2010. I wanna see your choice if you were Obama.

The laws are written by our legislature. They have, and must use, the ability to write them to meet the needs of this current threat.

There is no middle. We cannot maintain a power to imprison without trial and evidence. We must keep records of our convictions. The middle ground might be thought of as framing the courts for this new kind of case, defining the reasons for there being no precedence, the creation of jurisdiciton in such and such cases, the admission of evidence gathered in foreign lands, though it adhere to the truth but was gethered with what would be a violation of our civil rights, etc.

Let me boil this down. It seems to me where you disagree with Obama is that he is not willing to put the public safety at risk in order to defend the constitution in its purest form and you are willing to defend the constitution and overall liberty at all costs no matter what the short term consequences would be for the population.
IS that about right?
These differences could arise because basically this discussion on another terrorist attack is a little academic until there really is one and the fact that you are not president and the blame won’t really fall on your shoulders for whatever happens because of these decisions but I contend that if it did and you were in his shoes your attitudes and ultimately your final decision would mirror Obama’s exactly.
I wonder if you will admit that though.

“No one is ever completely safe in any society. Threat of disease, various injustices and powers, a meteor strike or earthquake, etc.”
=============
That’s sounds like a cop-out to me and I think you know it. There’s a difference between inherent dangers and heightened risks directly brought on by choices you might make and ultimately will be held responsible for.
Think what you want. You asked a question, you got an answer.
“No. That is not necessary.”
=============
I just litigated that it IS necessary and cited historical examples and a quote. Just saying “no” doesn’t make it true.
IBID- Also, who are you to say that the shedding of blood is necessary to maintain the constitution, that you claim to know the future?
“If we maintain this detention without trial as a sustained power, then the liberty of our nation, you might say is put ‘at risk’, but I would say it is more certainly doomed with each passing day.”
=============
You are basically substituting one affirmed connotation (at risk) for a darker one (doomed), but making relatively the same statement. What some might call, “grasping at straws” or “nitpicking”.
Your right that risk is a measure of what is more or what is less certain as an outcome, but to say I am “grasping at straws” or “nitpicking” is an error on your part.

It looks like my previous answers didn’t go up. Anyway, I have some other things to get to. I’ll check back after some time, most likely.

Well, the judicial branch could also initiate legislation. It looks like what should be proposed is something for these, ‘wild’ people, or people that no civilized nation will claim as responsible citizens, that when these do harm to us, or are a threat to us, that we need a system as part of the judiciary, for hearing their cases and affording them some kind of justice.

We simply must adhere to the truth, that if one such person is aprehended who is not a threat to us, then they should be released. That we should strive for in earnest and in truth. The needs to protect wider civil liberties, etc, are non-existent in cases for persons who are claimed by no nation. That such a system should be seperate with seperate systems for detention, is clear.

The drafters of the legislation should need to consult with field colonels, by either permission of the president or order of the congress, to be sure that the rules of evidence match the realities on the ground, and vice verse.

“The drafters of the legislation should need to consult with field colonels, by either permission of the president or order of the congress, to be sure that the rules of evidence match the realities on the ground, and vice verse.”
==============
I think you are right on this. The 2 branches need to work together with commanders on the ground to come up with a legal framework to make the capture of terrorists/suspected terrorists on the battlefield a process going forward because the one we’re currently borrowing from the Bush years like Obama said, is unsustainable. There has to be a way to reconcile the important issues of national security and justice in more ways that compliment each other instead of conflict.

When it comes down to it, in the future we have to be able to in either a military court or the civilian judicial system here in the states, argue a just, sound, legal case to the judge and be able at least have a chance of getting convictions on these prisoners.
That’ll be the real test going forward. We can’t afford to leave any legal loopholes open where these guys can get off, go free either in the states or abroad and simply return to terrorism. We just can’t.
1st off it’ll be highly demoralizing to the public and especially our troops to see that play out where you capture suspected terrorists on the battlefield one day, throw them into the legal jungle back home, then a year or so later see these same faces shooting at you and your fellow soldiers from a cave or something.
Secondly, it might incite like you said, a small group of cynical soldiers that question why they should bother with the risk of capturing them and simply exact their own brand of justice in that moment away from the prying eyes of their top commanders. Then you have your mass executions. If stuff like that happening were to get out, it’ll be a huge scandal, the American military will take a sizable hit to it’s image in the world and it could leave a lasting black eye to the efforts by the Obama administration to persuade more allies to engage with us, both monetarily and with personnel in the Afghanistan war.

And you say ‘legal’ with ‘just’, as if ‘legal’ is some kind of natural law. ‘Legal’ is whatever rules the congress sets, with their interpretation by the judiciary. ‘Justice’ is natural.

It should be noted that at about the time the constitution was framed, the fact that there was no punishment for ‘excusable murder’ was made explicit in some colonies.

“You underestimate the caliber of the character of the soldiers out there on the field. One of the things that makes the transition from military to civilian life so difficult is that people who do not have close experience with the military have all these scenarios that they imagine which are very very rare, and impossible to carry out in any extended way.”
No I didn’t mean to insinuate that mass executions would happen on some grand scale and would involve the military conspiring with itself to operate outside of our laws.
What I was saying was, it just takes ONE instance where a few, 2 or 3 soldiers choose to make a hasty decision on some remote battlefield and if or when it gets out the world press blows it all out of proportion and paints the American military as a whole with this brush. You know this scenario is entirely possible.
My statement is not meant in any way to reflect upon the vast majority of our brave men and women in incredibly tough combat situations around the world.
I was just trying to offer up a possible worst case and the ripple effect that COULD, not WOULD ensue if it happened.
No one here should mistake anything I’ve said on this site to mean I’m anti-military or trying to disparage their honor in any way. I want that to be clear to you an anyone else who happens to read these posts today or in the future.

Personally, I believe we should offer them the choice and let them martre themselves if they want to. That would be the noble thing to do.

I mean, if you look at that scenario, it’s pretty easy to install and the justice will take care of itself. If I’m wrong about that, then changes can be made. But if you look at it, it wouldn’t take long for everyone on earth to know that the soldier on the ground, instead of the restrictions on using his own weapon, could decide, could apprehend and send a suspect through the chain of command where, if the recommendation reached and was forwarded by the president to the court, and also held up by the congressional appointed judiciary, that should be enough to warrent a sentence while securing the future of our liberty. The suspect chosing his sentence, life imprison or death. Too many marters, and we might start questioning ourselves. Too many lifers, and the enemy will start questioning themselves.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to, or something, but to sentence a man to either death, or life imprisonment, neither of those should be taken lightly. That is one reason, also, to give them their choice, because most of congress is weak, and afraid to bear that burden.
If it’d be really that simple, why is it you think Obama hasn’t implemented it yet? IT is that simple, and the president will not, cannot stand up and propose legislation to transfer the power of detention and sentencing from himself to congress and the judiciary when they, so far, have made little objection to him keeping it. It is not in human nature to do that.
“That was 3 lifetimes ago, end-to-end.”
The colonial times were not that long ago.

Not every other conflict, if we are ever at war with a civilized nation, then the geneva convention is more reasonable to apply.

“That is one reason, also, to give them their choice, because most of congress is weak, and afraid to bear that burden.”
============
I’m not sure I agree with your insinuation that a “weak” congress is, in itself a bad thing. Weakness as you put it, basically means not going against the will of the people and doing what it THINKS is right on the pure basis of that virtue alone.
If you will agree that Congress is all about politics, and politics is perception. Where is the perception coming from that congress is so intent on playing to? That of the people.
That’s the way congress is set up. It answers to the perceptions and will of the people. That keeps the congress basically AFRAID of the people, most if not all of the time. You might perceive that as weakness but from the public’s point of view, that’s the relationship you want with your government. It can only move at the speed that the people allow it to go. IF the people as a whole aren’t ready for congress to act, usually, it won’t act.
As a member of the public, I’d much rather have a congress or a government that’s afraid of it’s people, than the other way around.

Yet they are afraid to go with the will of the people and take over the tough prosecution of these prisoners.

“But congress has already shown that they are more than happy to go against the will of the people, and only to throw money into a pit.”
Nope, the people as a whole, may not understand it, they may not even like it, but they give congress permission to do it because mostly they don’t want to go through a depression and also government is really the only national hiring center right now outside of health care and a few others.
People want government to spend right now, to create jobs, to offer services, to police the bad guys and to fix the economy. In other words, people don’t mind spending right now if it is seen as benefiting them.
That’s also why Obama can’t get any more money from congress to bail out the banks. It’s why he took the unprecedented step of firing the CEO of GM. It’s why he’s giving the car industry as a whole a deadline for restructuring before they are forced into bankruptcy.
1) The people were pissed about AIG, so it’s politically impossible to get any more money to bailout the fiancial sector.
2) The people see GM and Chrysler as basically welfare babies or “wards of the state” so the President has drastically shrink ‘em to the point the can survive without gov’t assistance.
3) The people DO want roads, bridges, and levies rebuilt so stimulus passed.
4) The people don’t want to be slaves to foreign oil so the country is accelerating the push to “go green”
It’s all about the will of the people in this country and whatever gov’t has to do to enact their will it will do, but conversely, if the people don’t want it done, but it’s something that SHOULD be done, it won’t happen and that’s the trade off.
Government serves as a direct reflection to the will of the people. It’s genius in it’s design if you think about it. That’s why democracy is and will continue to be the envy of the world. It beat communism, fascism, feudalism, basically all the ‘isms.

“Nope, the people as a whole, may not understand it, they may not even like it, but they give congress permission to do it because mostly they don’t want to go through a depression”
===============
Actually I misspoke. The people didn’t give permission for congress to pass TARP. That was one of the exceptions to the rule. This is one of the few times you will see Congress act outside of people’s will because even though people are inclined to let bankrupt institutions fail, congress quickly and hastily decided that if the worst case scenario told to it by the president happened, it would be far worse for it then disobeying what the people wanted.
Basically congress pulled the old “better to ask forgiveness, than seek permission” play.

It’s a lot like the derivatives situation, only power is much harder to stop than paper, once it’s ignited.

It would be sad if congress, who issues the license to kill, should prove unable to use it.

But it must be acknowledged, if such a system is to be pursued, that these people will not dissappear by it alone, and we should forsee, that if a congress, too weak to administer the punishment under reflection of it’s benefit, but too eager to distribute that power to the inexperience of the soldier on the field who must be called on to use it in the most severe and immeidate conditions, that if they rely on a life sentence alone, that justice will be served, when our costs become too weighty to sustain the continuous influx.

So there can be no other solution to my mind, but that the prisoners found to pose an enduring threat through strength of their own convinctions against us, or else through their rank in the leadership of these wild regimes, that they must be put to the test, and given the choice to live or to die.

But if they hold to their convictions, that death is more noble than self-sacrifice, and through the strength of their convictions alone they pursue the promise of Our Creator’s mercy, then, by all means, we should be all the more willing to help them on their way.

OK, Joe. Thanks for the discussion.