By Kristina Wong

May 14, 2009 8:26pm

President Obama to Reinstate Revamped Military Tribunals

White House sources tell ABC News that President Obama will reinstate military commission trials for detainees, with more rights for defendants than the previous administration’s commissions afforded.

Another option for the prosecution of detainees will be trials in the US justice system under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as seen with the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who on April 30 pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.

The administration will formally announce the plan for prosecutions Friday. Other detainees could be placed in the custody of other countries.

The Obama administration will seek series of administrative changes tomorrow, which are subject to 60 days of congressional review  The White House will also seek additional reforms through Congress — though what those will be are not entirely clear yet. A Detention Policy Task Force – co-chaired by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder – was set up by executive order in January 2009 to review policy options on detention for future, and that task force will work on details, consulting with Congress.

As a senator, Mr. Obama supported military commissions, though he voted against the version pushed by the Bush administration, which ultimately passed the Senate and was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

In 2006, then-Sen. Obama voted for a military tribunal bill originally drafted by former Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, and GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

That bill had passed out of the Senate Armed Services Committee but was changed significantly in negotiations with the Bush White House and GOP-led Congress.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., offered the original Warner/McCain/Graham bill as a substitute to the bill being supported by President Bush and the Senate Majority Leader. Levin’s effort, supported by Obama, failed.

A White House source says the original bill drafted by Sens. Warner, McCain, and Graham will be "a good starting point for the congressional effort."

The greater protections afforded detainees in the Obama administration’s military tribunals will include banning evidence obtained through "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" interrogation techniques; adding additional restrictions on the admissibility of hearsay evidence; allowing defendants greater leeway in choosing military counsel; protecting detainees from "adverse inference" if they do not testify at trial; and eliminating the effect of the combatant status review tribunal for purposes of jurisdiction under the Military Commissions Act.

On September 28, 2006, then-Sen. Obama expressed support for military commissions in general — not to mention the version of the bill he supported, originally written by Warner, McCain, and Graham, and offered by Levin — and discussed why he was voting against the United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, supported by President Bush.

"The problem with this bill is not that it’s too tough on terrorists," he said in 2006. "The problem with this bill is that it’s sloppy. And the reason it’s sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right."

Then-Sen. Obama said military courts should make decisions on these detainees.

"The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through," he said. "Indeed, the regulations that are supposed to be governing administrative hearings for these detainees, which should have been issued months ago, still haven’t been issued. Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court. This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism."

Just hours after he took the oath of office, President Obama ordered Secretary Gates to direct the chief prosecutor of the Office of Military Commissions to seek a continuance of 120 days for any case that has been referred to the office of military commissions and to cease referring any new cases for prosecution.

He had told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on January 11 that "part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication."

The then-president-elect said "some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up. …we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution."

- jpt

User Comments

Also, Our President will close Gitmo, physically move it to Bagram, and re-open it as “Camp Snugglebunnies. Everybody will be happy.

Posted by: mesquito | May 14, 2009, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm

Hope and change?

Posted by: Justin | May 14, 2009, 8:53 pm 8:53 pm

So, does this mean that much remains the same but the courtrooms will be painted a pastel yellow for a more cheerful tribunal.

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm

George Bush was right once again and Obama was wrong.
Come on, Barry, let me hear you admit it!

Posted by: drjohn | May 14, 2009, 8:58 pm 8:58 pm

Gitmo detainees held hostage, Day 114.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 14, 2009, 9:01 pm 9:01 pm

“eliminating the effect of the combatant status review tribunal for purposes of jurisdiction under the Military Commissions Act.”
What is the effect of this? Does it mean that detainees will no longer be classified as combatants if they are captured on the battlefield? If not, what are they called? Illegal immigrants?

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 9:10 pm 9:10 pm

Well, he’s flip-flopped on wiretapping, on renditions and now on military commissions, and he’s no doubt wishing to God he hadn’t said anything about Guantanamo.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 14, 2009, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm

Does anybody know if we have recently captured any new terrorists, I mean combatants, uh, I mean tourists? I think the odds that Guantanamo will remain open are better than even.

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm

Oh my, it just keeps getting worse.

Posted by: GrandmaJones | May 14, 2009, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm

“Does it mean that detainees will no longer be classified as combatants if they are captured on the battlefield? If not, what are they called? Illegal immigrants?”
They are called Prisoners of War. Bush called them “enemy combatants” so they could get around the legalities and requirements of the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment. The Supreme Court rejected the premise as did the rest of the world.

Posted by: Ranger | May 14, 2009, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm

Obama is Bush-Lite!

Posted by: Ben | May 14, 2009, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm

If this isn’t a flip flop, it a one and a half with a twist.

Posted by: woody | May 14, 2009, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm

“Well, he’s flip-flopped on wiretapping, on renditions and now on military commissions, ”
Did you bother to even read the post? No flip-flop at all. Obama ordered a continuance of 120 days to review the commissions. He is for them AS THE ARTICLE STATES, but done in accordance with our constitution and International law.

Posted by: Ranger | May 14, 2009, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm

Obama will change the name of GITMO. Like he changed “the war on terror” “the war on drugs” Obama is nothing but talk. Blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: CW | May 14, 2009, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm

Unbelievable, these people are just now getting a trial.
As for the poster who said “Gitmo detainees held hostage, Day 114.” More like Day 2,555.

Posted by: keredte | May 14, 2009, 9:44 pm 9:44 pm

keredte…….you said ‘ GITMO detainees held hostage”..What?? Their own countries WON’T take them back. These people are not model citizens.

Posted by: CW | May 14, 2009, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm

“Unbelievable, these people are just now getting a trial. ”
When you are captured as an enemy in war, you can be kept until the end of the war. The war has not ended, has it. How long, for instance, was John McCain held a POW?

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm

“Bush called them “enemy combatants” so they could get around the legalities and requirements of the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment.”
The captives were not in compliance with Geneva for a number of reasons.
Tell me, how long can a POW be held under Geneva? Thanks

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 9:54 pm 9:54 pm

you cannot trust a thing Barry says, he changes with the wind, if it suits his agenda

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi, accomplice to torture | May 14, 2009, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm

They`d be tried under the Geneva convention.
They will not be tortures like Cheney did.
They will not be held without trial like Bush did.
After all these have been done, Gitmo will be closed.

Posted by: keith | May 14, 2009, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm

The hypocrisy of Obama the administration is astounding. Prosecute the founders of the very war he insists on still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should pull out of both places on June 30, 2009! Why has it taken so long? Why do we need to be in Afghanistan? You can say Pakistan but even if it fell it would just be a new military regime to deal with. The current regime wont even tell Obama where the nukes are either! I hate to mention the opium poppy fields but they are still standing and supplying 90% of the world’s heroin. Those people were trying to find Osama Bin Laden but the Bush administration couldnt even do that with abuses and waterboarding. How do you stop the terrorists but still be nice to them? How do you defeat the Taliban if you dont destroy the source of their income (heroin from opium poppies). How else are they being armed?

Posted by: lookforananswer | May 14, 2009, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm

“Unbelievable, these people are just now getting a trial.”
When you are captured as an enemy in war, you can be kept until the end of the war. The war has not ended, has it. How long, for instance, was John McCain held a POW?
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 9:49:53 PM
—————-
EXACTLY. AMERICA DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT CAPTURE AND HOLD POWS! RUMSFELD WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO CONVINCE THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT POWS. BUT SHOULD BE CALLED “ENEMY COMBATANTS”. AND YOU SAY
“until the end of the war. The war has not ended, has it.” ACTUALLY IT HAS. UNLESS YOU WANT TO REMAIN IN THE BUSH/CHENEY MENTALITY THAT WE ARE STILL IN THE “WAR ON TERROR” WHICH WILL GO ON FOR EVER INDEFINATELY.

Posted by: keredte | May 14, 2009, 10:08 pm 10:08 pm

They will be tried under civilized laws. Not like the Kangaroo courts under Bush. There is a big difference here. Same bady will try them but under different laws. Thats a big difference.

Posted by: keith | May 14, 2009, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm

Lookforananswer,
Obama will start the troop withdrawals after the Iraq elections in June. What planet do you live on?

Posted by: keith | May 14, 2009, 10:13 pm 10:13 pm

keith…..If you think that we are no longer “interrogating” terrorists you are fooling yourself. It is now being done in a foreign friendly country under the “observation” of the CIA. It gives Obama “plausible deniability”

Posted by: Boxcar | May 14, 2009, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm

“AMERICA DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT CAPTURE AND HOLD POWS! ”
Really? What about all those prisoners we captured in WW2 and Nam? Do you think war is a game of tag? Capture and release?
What is your experience with military service or war?

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 10:21 pm 10:21 pm

“The war has not ended, has it.” ACTUALLY IT HAS.”
Really? Then why are we sending soldiers to fight in Afghanistan? Has Obama declared the war over?

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm

Change you need a magnifying glass to see.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 14, 2009, 10:25 pm 10:25 pm

Gee if obama wasn’t president he’d be protesting his own policies. He told so many lies to get elected it’s ridiculous

Posted by: Peter | May 14, 2009, 10:29 pm 10:29 pm

He’s so full of BS. And he’s still campaigning. Promise the moon and then blame Bush when he can’t deliver.

Posted by: dogdays | May 14, 2009, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm

It’s not so easy now is it Mr. obama once you’re in that big chair it gets REAL pretty quickly. We’re going to be witnessing “obama grows up” over the next 4 years.

Posted by: jimbo | May 14, 2009, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm

“”The problem with this bill is not that it’s too tough on terrorists,” he said in 2006. “The problem with this bill is that it’s sloppy.”"
Pretty much sums up the opinion of a lot of Obama supporters. I have no problems with terrorists being thrown in a hole for the rest of their lives or going to the electric chair, just don’t shred our Constitution to do it.
With his knowledge of Constitutional law, I’d expect Obama to know how to get out of the hole Bush dug with his Guantanamo Bay shortcut that turned into an expensive dead end.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 14, 2009, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm

“Has Obama declared the war over?”
Nancy Pelosi declared it over in 2005. And who could ever doubt anything Nancy said?

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 14, 2009, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm

seeeeee bush was right all along,cheney was right even cheneys daughter was right ,now obamas right wow did i just say that cant believe i agree with the president guess there is hope and change after all

Posted by: i_dream_of_a_jeannie | May 14, 2009, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm

“seeeeee bush was right all along”
Uh, no.
“…the version pushed by the Bush administration, which ultimately passed the Senate and was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”
That would be the big ‘ol Wrong stamp there. Bush was sloppy and inept in this arena. The guilty at Guantanamo should already be 3 years into their 999 year sentence or 6 feet under by now, but instead they were just shoved under the carpet for the next administration to deal with. At least he quietly released the 350 or so obviously innocent.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 14, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm

“With his knowledge of Constitutional law, I’d expect Obama to know how to get out of the hole Bush dug with his Guantanamo Bay shortcut that turned into an expensive dead end.”
His knowledge of constitutional law is acrually quite limited. His experience as a lecturer was limited the due process and equal protecton clauses. I have seen nothing from him indicating any special knowledge of, among other things, the separation of powers or presidential war powers.
As we have seen quite conclusively, the Guantanamo solution devised by Bush worked just fine, and indeed has been working so well for Obama that he has continued with it, and has exported it to Bagram to some extent. The problem he faces is entirely of his own making, viz., a wholly unnecessary grandstanding campaign promise that reality has now intruded upon. Let this fool stew with it.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 14, 2009, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm

“seeeeee bush was right all along”
“Uh, no.”
Uh, yes. Bush, Liz Cheney, and Obama (after flipping) all agree that the detainee photos would be detrimental to our soldiers and country if publicly released.

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm

“With his knowledge of Constitutional law, I’d expect Obama to know how to get out of the hole Bush dug with his Guantanamo Bay shortcut that turned into an expensive dead end. ”
So you think he will empathize with the terrorists.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 14, 2009, 11:09 pm 11:09 pm

“As we have seen quite conclusively, the Guantanamo solution devised by Bush worked just fine…”
I can’t understand how anyone can see the prison camp at Gitmo as being a viable solution, or that anything has been concluded. It’s still an ongoing problem.

Posted by: Skip | May 14, 2009, 11:13 pm 11:13 pm

“I can’t understand how anyone can see the prison camp at Gitmo as being a viable solution,”
Suppose the Guantanamo camp in it’s entirety was packed up and moved to Florida and reassembled. What would be different? It’s ridiculous that we are closing the facility.

Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm

Make each of them live with an ACLU member for the next year. Could solve two problems. Think about it, Just need to make sure hand guns ammo and knives are available to both sides as they hold hands and rejoice in each of their hard fought battles to be fair and just.

Posted by: Bob Anderson | May 14, 2009, 11:32 pm 11:32 pm

“By more than 3-to-1 Americans think it is time for the Obama administration to start taking responsibility (64 percent) instead of continuing to blame the Bush administration for mistakes (21 percent).”
Gitmo is working just fine, and poses no problem for anybody except the terrorists who are there and they guy who made the unnecessary promise to close it.
He’s still going to keep many of them indefinitely without trial; he’s still going to try some of them in military courts. Why does it matter if this happens in Gitmo instead of, say, Bagram?

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 14, 2009, 11:36 pm 11:36 pm

“It’s ridiculous that we are closing the facility.”
I just can’t argue about this stuff with you guys forever. At some point, like George Will says when he gets frustrated, we just have to decide at the polls. Many of the choices people make are based on comfort levels. Most Americans for whatever reasons are not comfortable with torture or holding people in this manner regardless of the perceived danger in not doing so. You are perfectly justified in making your case but if you don’t come up with anything new after a certain point people are going to stop listening.

Posted by: Skip | May 14, 2009, 11:40 pm 11:40 pm

Jake, did knee-cap shooter Gibbs threaten to take your phone, too? I give you more credit than this article which is based on nothing more than semantics.

Posted by: sybilll | May 14, 2009, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm

Skip it seems to me that the onus is on you to present an alternative.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 14, 2009, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm

re: “will reinstate military commission trials for detainees, with more rights for defendants”
Given this, is it possible the defendants will also be describing the circumstances which led to the pleas which were entered on their behalf (i.e., abuses)?
When Senator McCain was released, what happened to his detainers?

Posted by: WISDOM | May 14, 2009, 11:50 pm 11:50 pm

According to the WSJ….
The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil — indefinitely and without trial — as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 14, 2009, 11:52 pm 11:52 pm

Fascist Hyena
Cheney & Co.
about to fall….
Obama still president…
nothing you can do but gripe after 4 months..

Posted by: Oh Yeah | May 15, 2009, 12:12 am 12:12 am

Uh, yes. Bush, Liz Cheney, and Obama (after flipping) all agree that the detainee photos would be detrimental to our soldiers and country if publicly released—uh no. Maybe he caved to the right wing. Not exactly amirable, but it is different than saying torture under bush would make anyone torture while Obama is president. I dont think there is a person alive in the world older than 5 who doesn’t know Barak Obama is president of the United States.

Posted by: frank | May 15, 2009, 12:13 am 12:13 am

Keep Gitmo operating? Start the military tribunals? It seems Mr. Obama’s campaign rhetoric has run smack into the Audacity of Reality. It’s easy to criticize the administration when responsibility to protect the country doesn’t fall on your head. If Obama had lost the election, you would never have heard him advocate the very policies he is now. He would still be a dove cooing over these “republican” policies.

Posted by: JohnnyD | May 15, 2009, 12:18 am 12:18 am

Boxcar,
Nobody will be tortured under Obama`s presidency.
And Obama never said he was going to end the war in Afghanistan. Rather he said he will end the war in Iraq that was waged based on lies. Withdrawal will start after the election in June.

Posted by: keith | May 15, 2009, 12:21 am 12:21 am

JohnnyD,
Obama has said he wi;; close Gitmo in a year. He never said he will close it immediately. Where do you get your news from? Fox?
Obama will try the prisoners under international law which Bush refused to. Thats the difference.

Posted by: keith | May 15, 2009, 12:24 am 12:24 am

Frank,
Photos or no photos we know Bush and Cheney conducted torture which republicans seem to fully support.
Under Obama, there`d be no torture. Plain and simple.

Posted by: keith | May 15, 2009, 12:27 am 12:27 am

Oh, Yeah: Obama’s presidency may still survive four years, with some luck. But all the lies he told you to get the job will have been discarded by then. Obama is starting to look more like Cheney and less like Gandhi, by necessity.

Posted by: JohnnyD | May 15, 2009, 12:27 am 12:27 am

Fascist Hyena: So, how many of the poor, snuggly hostages from Gitmo will you take to live in YOUR OWN HOUSE? I’ll sign you up for 10. Now, don’t go all NIMBY on me….

Posted by: JohnnyD | May 15, 2009, 12:39 am 12:39 am

It seems these are read in real time. Thank you.

Posted by: WISDOM | May 15, 2009, 12:43 am 12:43 am

Please remember that when you accept your very own cuddly Gitmo “hostage”, please don’t torture them in any way. That includes making them look at or listen to Wanda Sykes, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi

Posted by: JohnnyD | May 15, 2009, 1:00 am 1:00 am

“Frank,
Photos or no photos we know Bush and Cheney conducted torture which republicans seem to fully support.
Under Obama, there`d be no torture. Plain and simple.” ———–You know it’s a hard sell to say that Obama is different from Bush and Cheney when Obama is actively protecting Bush and Cheney. All that matters is how do we win these wars and disarm AQ recruitment? if new photos come out of abuses under Bush, is there a human being in the world older than 5 who doens’t know Bush is not longer president and Barak Obama is? what difference would any photos make now? In fact, if he releases them, I still say it DIFFUSES anger. Just like when you’re ready to scream at your spouce, or someone for doing some pinhead move and they turn and look at you unexpectedly and say ‘you know, i was wrong about that..” and you’re just left there stuck, silent, what do you say? You’re disarmed. To put it out there, say this was THEN, this is now, would be far more effective of showing good faith that for whatever corrupt selfserving reason Bush went into Iraq, we have Obama as president now, he wants to do the right thing, he recognizes what the wrong this is, and we ARE a country you can trust. The radicals are gone, we’ll never get them back, but there is a plethora of folks on the fence, is the US evil? Has it changed? should I join or should i just not get involved? and when they hear “Oh Obama is the same as bush” that may be the push that gets them off the fence to join up – the evil empire is still evil. The new guy is protecting the old evil one. Instead of – hey, look at what they did to our people, and while the guy on the fence says, well, that’s what Bush did. Bush is gone. So why do I join now? What has Obama done? …well, now we know. Obama is protecting bush. bad move. bad bad bad move. I am not behind Obama on this one.

Posted by: frank | May 15, 2009, 1:01 am 1:01 am

Please remember that when you accept your very own cuddly Gitmo “hostage”, please don’t torture them in any way—–again, bottom line – torture doesn’t work. Period. We went into iraq based on two pieces of ‘inteligence”. one was Chalaby. The liar cheat felon who wanted the united states to make him the puppet president. that lasted for about 10 minutes. The second pieces of ‘intelligence” was from a tortured prisoner in a lybian jail. European countries looked at this ‘proof’ and said “one is a criminal, and the other will say he’s the toothfairy under those conditions. we dont believe you”. And they were…….CORRECT!!! the prisoner being tortured made it all up. What do you want me to tell you? Saddam has WMD? Ok. Saddam has them. Tons. Where? uhh.. where do yo uwant them to be. yup. They’re there. the testimony from a CIA agent who was a spy for us infiltrated into AQ said the techniques do NOT WORK. They are counter productive, they only shut down prisoners they may have been able to manipulate with other methods, and totally ignored the end game. He said the torture was introduced by contractors who had zero experience with interrogation. he said any progress they made getting information shut down completely when these techniques were used. someone who was formerly giving info shut down with torture. He was water boardered over 80 times, never said another word. It doesn’t work.

Posted by: frank | May 15, 2009, 1:08 am 1:08 am

I would want to move out asap if I was free. But Gitmo is a safe place if you are alone in this world/

Posted by: Leigh | May 15, 2009, 1:24 am 1:24 am

Dang and I thought I was the problem.

Posted by: LongT | May 15, 2009, 1:43 am 1:43 am

Well Frank, get used to it. Everything Obama told you to get elected was a lie. Everything Bush told you was a lie. Everything Clinton, Nixon, Carter, LBJ, Reagan, etc, etc. They are Politicians. They don’t give a damn about you. Only getting elected to fulfill their own self aggrandizement. Obama parroted the hope & change shtick because he knew the voters would fall for it, not because he himself believed it. Obama is not protecting Bush; he’s protecting his own backside. You are no longer a child, time for you to grow up and be an adult. The belief that a politician, vested in the success of the system that feeds and clothes them, will ever destroy the goose laying the golden eggs is utterly naïve. It will always be this way.

Posted by: JohnnyD | May 15, 2009, 1:57 am 1:57 am

Everything Obama told you to get elected was a lie. Everything Bush told you was a lie. —well, I have faith in Obama. I do not agree with him on this, but I am impress with how he saved the banks. he acted very quickly, he’s on top of hte financial melt down. bush let Lehman Bros fail. bush allowed derviatves to go 100% unregulated. Those subprimes that went bellyup that were bet on with derivatives that killed our econonmy were NOT made by fannie and freddie, per Business Week Magazine and WSJ, they were made in teh unregulated private sector. All things are NOT equal. REpublican economic policy is wrong in just about every conceivable way. They spent trillions on crap. At least I see Obama spending them on stimulus, on updating the grid, on alternative fuels. At least his spending is pointed, and like radiations, it is not something you’d ever ever do, it’s unhealthy, well, unless you have cancer and you’re dying, and we are. Wallstreet journal said our unemployment would peak at 9% WITH Obama’s stimulus and budget. what would it peak at without????? over 11%. What’s 4% of 300,000,000 people???? The only ones who could ahve handled this mess was Obama or Romney, but I would worry Romney would not have spent enough to get us out. yes, spent! When folks say WWII got us out of the depression, why???? who bought all that stuff we made? who bought the tanks, the guns, the bullets, the planes??? WHO??? The government. Goverment spending for WWII got us out of the depression. When you’re in a bad recession or depression you MUST spend. Nobody likes it, but it is time for Radation. We’ll ahve to deal wit hthe poison from it later. For a patient that lives who would have died, we should feel a privaledge that we will be alive to do so. –and yes, I watched the dog thing. yes, it’s not what I expected either. It is gross.

Posted by: frank | May 15, 2009, 2:17 am 2:17 am

Are U kidding me: ABC, like most of the Media is now following example of the Weekly World News and National Inquirer. Edward R. Murrow is dead and gone. The “News” is now empty infotainment. Sensationalization, not education is what pays the bills. The “News” is now 100:1 about Brittany and Madonna vs. the real politics of power. You-Tube the Kinks “Give the People what they Want”. We are descending into a constant barrage of worthless trash masquerading as “News” while the government strips of our liberty.
Most Americans are quite happy with that, until it’s gone. The sheep are asleep.

Posted by: JohnnyD | May 15, 2009, 2:20 am 2:20 am

I hate to say, but in the big scheme of things…who cares about this? nobody cares. Seriously. I know it’s in the news everyday, they’re telling us to care. nobody cares. They have opinions, but nobody really CARES about it. It’s all about the economy. This will have zero effect on anyone’s opinion of Obama. Folks who are conservative will hate him no matter if Jesus came down from heaven and blessed him. Liberals will follow him and the rest of us in the middle, ya know, whatever. Free them, let them go, who cares? if you free them, guess you just got the wrong guy in the first place, if you keep them, guess they were bad. Whatever. Thie pictures, I dont care, that was Bush. Who cares. I’m bored of this. So are the folks are work. We dont care. Partisans do. The rest of us. Whatever. Just another bush mess. Like all the others, is there any good solutions to anything Bush screwed up?? so take your pick of bad options. What else is new? Surely there must be something else to talk about.

Posted by: another day in the sun | May 15, 2009, 2:24 am 2:24 am

Children see the world as morally black and white. Adults understand the sometime circumstances force you the do the wrong things for the right reasons and that morality is mostly shades of gray. During WW2, FDR imprisoned American citizens in concentration camps who had committed no crime other than being of Japanese parents. We allied our country with the Soviet Union, a country with, as they say now, a terrible human rights record. Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was cruel, but it did save over 1 million causalities that US Army, Navy and Marines would have suffered in an invasion of Japan. Did this make FDR a war criminal? Evil? Stupid? Or was it an unpleasant necessity to preserve the country against those who’s moral standards were far worse than ours and would have exterminated our entire population?

Posted by: JohnnyD | May 15, 2009, 3:11 am 3:11 am

What I am afraid of is that the next time American solders are captured by the enemy they will be grossly tortured, humiliated and abused. How will the United States then have any moral or humanitarian authority to protest the treatment of our service men and women? Is torture only good, legel and okay when America does it? I think not.

Posted by: V. Brame | May 15, 2009, 6:14 am 6:14 am

V.BRAME – where have you been? Even as far back to WWII, US soldiers have been subject to torture, beatings and mistreatment. did you never notice what China and North Korea did? how about the Vietnamese? How about torture in Iraq? The rest of the world just doesn’t care what we do or don’t do and never has. It is only a controversy in the mind of the American Liberals.

Posted by: brian | May 15, 2009, 7:33 am 7:33 am

So i turns out that Bush/Cheney were right in how they treated terrorists. It seems that reality is setting in at the white house regarding terrorists.

Posted by: brian | May 15, 2009, 7:37 am 7:37 am

Obama will change the name of “tribunals” to something else. Like he did with “the war on terror” or “the war on drugs”
or “the swine flu”, “bailouts”. He will probably leave Gitmo the way it is and call it something else. LOL

Posted by: CW | May 15, 2009, 7:37 am 7:37 am

I am completely convinced this Obama character is an absolute madman that belongs in a cage with that nut case Pelosi. These two screwballs are in-charge and doing things they know nothing about. Neither have run a business, neither have ever punched a clock and worked for a living, neither have any experience or training in economics. Folks, these two must be stopped before the damage is so deep, recovery may be impossible. Soon, Obama will announce his next attack on America. He will declare that Social Security and Medicare is too costly and needs to be fixed. Watch out her it comes. The US Federal Government is no longer controlled by the US citizen tax payers and voters. It’s controlled by a bunch of crackpots called Congress & the President. When Obama announces closing down Social Security and/or Medicare, we the American people/taxpayers should immediately respond with a nationwide tax revolt. Our government spends hundreds of million every year feeding, clothing, providing free medical care, free transportation, free education, free housing to over 20 million illegal immigrants, and they can’t afford to fix Social Security & Medicare. The US Government pays large corporations and farmers hundreds of millions every year to NOT GROW FOOD, yet they can’t afford to fix Social Security & Medicare. Our US Government gives out hundreds of billions every year in FOREIGN Aide every year, ye they can’t afford to fix Social Security & Medicare. The list goes on & on. We have had enough. It’s our to to strike back at this miserable cesspool of people in Washington called the US Government.

Posted by: Bob Retired | May 15, 2009, 8:27 am 8:27 am

What would Winston Churchill do?

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 15, 2009, 8:33 am 8:33 am

V.Brame – “next time american soldiers are captured by the enemey they will be grossly tortured, humiliated and tortured” – take a history class — although it is probably unconstituional to teach the truth of history – this has always been the case.

Posted by: jamescbuilder | May 15, 2009, 8:36 am 8:36 am

another day in the sun..Who cares about this??? Anyone who has a loved one in the military services..Anyone who believes in this Country and what she stands for whether liberal or conservative or moderate..Giving up your right to free expression would just make us another country under Doctorial leadership..Thankfully your opinion is in the minority by evidence the various opinions written here…

Posted by: Parallax View | May 15, 2009, 9:00 am 9:00 am

Builder, what do you mean the next time? Our guys are almost always tortured when captured, WWII, Korea, Vietman, take your pick. That is a history lesson!!!

Posted by: hkdakota | May 15, 2009, 9:04 am 9:04 am

Posted by: Parallax View | May 15, 2009 9:00:04 AM
Who cares about this? I do.
I care that this pathetic liar of a President campaigned on and maligned Bush over it. It exonerates Bush. It’d be nice to see pressure on Obama to admit he was wrong and Bush was right.

Posted by: drjohn | May 15, 2009, 9:14 am 9:14 am

Revamp.. v. relating to actions associated with speaker dot gov.’s plastic surgeon and botox purveyor
usage:
..’Princess’ was completey re-vamped during her previous term…

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 15, 2009, 9:33 am 9:33 am

Apparantly right-wing Limbaugh-Lovers like drjohn missed the key points that distinguish this approach from that of the Bush administration. But then again drjohn has so much blind hatred of absolutely everything that President Obama does, it is not surprising. Apparently he also missed the points in the story that Sen. Obama back as far as 2006 supported military tribunals, however not the original Bush approach which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. Maybe drjohn can go back and re-read the article, focusing on comprehension this time.

Posted by: EdDoc80 | May 15, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am

parallax view: “doctorial” leadership?
What, we are going to require our leaders to all have Doctorates now?

Posted by: EdDoc80 | May 15, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am

Guess this cowboy P Obama does not know how to shoot from the hip. What a hipo crite (on purpose) His advisor must be John Kerry. You know, vote for before you vote not for. You all know what I mean.

Posted by: Jim Rod | May 15, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am

brian brian brian…. we are supposed to be better than those fellow torturer nations. We can not hold them accountable for torturing our people if we are doing the same. And we DO and HAVE held them accountable.
Torture is wrong and bush was wrong and Obama was supposed to be better according to the Obots, however he is just Dubya two, the black version.

Posted by: teresa | May 15, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm

being against torture does not equate to being against America

Posted by: pops | May 15, 2009, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm

drjohn
I don’t know if it will be proved conclusively, but there are storm clouds gathering over Cheney and Bush with regard to why certain people were ‘tortured’/EiT’d, who were not Al Queda, and had already given up information….
If the controversy about ‘EiT’ to force a link to an alleged 9/11-Iraq connection, is proven even partially, Republicans will never recover from that….
while there are certainly things to look into with the Dems as to who knew what, when,.. the Dems were not making policy..
all of this is terrible for America, and, it’s unfortunate that the 1 person who needs to be caught and brought to justice, Bin Laden, has not.

Posted by: pops | May 15, 2009, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm

The US Federal Government is no longer controlled by the US citizen tax payers and voters.: Bob Retired
pretty funny, your just realizing this?

Posted by: Saky | May 15, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm

Honestly.. I don’t think that the rest of the world is on pins and needles .. looking to the arrogant U.S. to serve as an international role model.. but, who knows..

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 15, 2009, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm

Some people don’t seem to make the connection on is this so I’ll break it down. Many of these detainees are dangerous and probably will end up recruited back into Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations if released. But if you just hand them over to the federal court system there’s a very good chance they’ll get off because of how long they’ve been in Gitmo without trial, because such shoddy records were kept of who they are and why they were being held AND the worst few were TORTURED.
Why is this so hard to understand? The previous administration’s treatment of certain detainees made it near impossible for the DOJ to get a conviction in federal court. Obama knows this, and is retooling the tribunals to give the detainees some rights but also try them where the military actually has a chance to get convictions.

Posted by: Joe G. | May 17, 2009, 10:17 am 10:17 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.