http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp
Hmm, wasn't this an issue that was going to come with change?
Sounds like the Obama admin is finding out the reality behind terrorism and how much different this war is than any other we've faced.
And he says he's going to go ahead and close Gitmo even though that's been voted down by Congress. Who made this guy king?
Politics and policy are two different things.
Unicorns and leprechauns.
They typically don't travel on the same roads.
Preventative? Is that the same as preventive? Ha!
All the O has to do is release the Gitmo prisoners beyond the fence onto Cuban soil, and then we can invade Cuba because it is harboring terrorists!
Quote from: Conan71 on May 21, 2009, 01:35:58 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp
Hmm, wasn't this an issue that was going to come with change?
Sounds like the Obama admin is finding out the reality behind terrorism and how much different this war is than any other we've faced.
And he says he's going to go ahead and close Gitmo even though that's been voted down by Congress. Who made this guy king?
You'll be loving him if this keeps up, Connie.
Wasn't Lincoln a Republican? Isn't Lincoln POTUS Obamas' political gawd?
He's reaching out to form a new coalition of mediocre middle of the muddy road change....and wants to retain the fear card. Rightfully so after those turds were caught today in NY ready to blow up a Synagouge.
Coming out of my Hopenosis.....
Quote from: FOTD on May 21, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
You'll be loving him if this keeps up, Connie.
Wasn't Lincoln a Republican? Isn't Lincoln POTUS Obamas' political gawd?
He's reaching out to form a new coalition of mediocre middle of the muddy road change....and wants to retain the fear card. Rightfully so after those turds were caught today in NY ready to blow up a Synagouge.
Coming out of my Hopenosis.....
;)
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/z/8/2/hopenosis.gif)
(http://pageslap.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/obama-hope-poster-taupe.jpg)
(http://www.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/04/pope.jpg)
(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w66/darthdilbert/Obama/illusionist.png)
Quote from: FOTD on May 21, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
He's reaching out to form a new coalition of mediocre middle of the muddy road change....and wants to retain the fear card. Rightfully so after those turds were caught today in NY ready to blow up a Synagouge.
Gee. What I read in the NYT last night was that they had been encouraged by the police. I was reading it on my phone, so maybe I got the wrong impression.
Indefinite detention in store for some at Gitmo. Gee, didn't Obama excoriate Bush over this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_detainees
Quote from: guido911 on June 27, 2009, 09:56:04 AM
Indefinite detention in store for some at Gitmo. Gee, didn't Obama excoriate Bush over this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_detainees
Well, it ain't a done deal yet, so let's not get our panties entirely twisted in knots.
Two thoughts:
1) The Bush administration has limited Obama's ability to try the HVTs in Guantanamo and elsewhere with the enhanced interrogation techniques they used. Torture or not, in open court it would almost certainly amount to coercion, and there's an excellent chance that whatever evidence was collected would be inadmissable. So if a trial will probably result in acquittal, you're limited to indefinite detention or . . . what? Exile, like the Uighurs? Handing the HVTs back to their home countries? Trial regardless of the risk? Point here is, the Bush admin has really limited O's options.
That said:
2) Obama is wrong to do this. I understand the reasoning but I think it is flawed, and shameful. We should try every detainee and abide by the verdicts produced. We free the innocent, incarcerate the guilty, and not so subtly use our intelligence services to verify the continued innocence of those released. Not doing this runs completely counter to our ideals, ideals which we seem to want the President to more solidly sell to the Iranian protesters.
I didn't like this when Bush did it and I like it even less when Obama wants to do it. It's flat wrong.
Quote from: we vs us on June 27, 2009, 04:44:31 PM
Well, it ain't a done deal yet, so let's not get our panties entirely twisted in knots.
Two thoughts:
1) The Bush administration has limited Obama's ability to try the HVTs in Guantanamo and elsewhere with the enhanced interrogation techniques they used. Torture or not, in open court it would almost certainly amount to coercion, and there's an excellent chance that whatever evidence was collected would be inadmissable. So if a trial will probably result in acquittal, you're limited to indefinite detention or . . . what? Exile, like the Uighurs? Handing the HVTs back to their home countries? Trial regardless of the risk? Point here is, the Bush admin has really limited O's options.
That said:
2) Obama is wrong to do this. I understand the reasoning but I think it is flawed, and shameful. We should try every detainee and abide by the verdicts produced. We free the innocent, incarcerate the guilty, and not so subtly use our intelligence services to verify the continued innocence of those released. Not doing this runs completely counter to our ideals, ideals which we seem to want the President to more solidly sell to the Iranian protesters.
I didn't like this when Bush did it and I like it even less when Obama wants to do it. It's flat wrong.
Got it. Bush's fault. Nothing more to see here.
Quote from: guido911 on June 27, 2009, 05:47:35 PM
Got it. Bush's fault. Nothing more to see here.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Quote from: guido911 on June 27, 2009, 05:47:35 PM
Got it. Bush's fault. Nothing more to see here.
You don't agree? I'd think you'd be able to see, as an attorney, how difficult mounting a prosecution of one of these people would be. And it didn't have to be.
But you're being disingenuous. The other half of my post was about how Obama is also culpable if he chooses to go forward with indefinite detention. It would make two cowardly administrations in a row, and that's where the real shame lies.
Quote from: guido911 on June 27, 2009, 09:56:04 AM
Indefinite detention in store for some at Gitmo. Gee, didn't Obama excoriate Bush over this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_detainees
Gwee Doe Doe is your typical rigid pre-judgemental neo con.
White House denies 'indefinite' detention reporthttp://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/27/white-house-denies-indefinite-detention-report/
"An administration official told AFP that no such draft order existed, though internal deliberations were taking place on how to deal with those inmates who could not be released or tried in civilian courts."
Disinformation? Could Obama insiders be sending a trial balloon or attempting to shoot down a possible policy change? Inquiring minds want to know.
Quote from: we vs us on June 28, 2009, 10:28:02 AM
You don't agree? I'd think you'd be able to see, as an attorney, how difficult mounting a prosecution of one of these people would be. And it didn't have to be.
But you're being disingenuous. The other half of my post was about how Obama is also culpable if he chooses to go forward with indefinite detention. It would make two cowardly administrations in a row, and that's where the real shame lies.
(http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/3791/bushsfaultaa5.gif)
Quote from: we vs us on June 28, 2009, 10:28:02 AM
You don't agree? I'd think you'd be able to see, as an attorney, how difficult mounting a prosecution of one of these people would be. And it didn't have to be.
But you're being disingenuous. The other half of my post was about how Obama is also culpable if he chooses to go forward with indefinite detention. It would make two cowardly administrations in a row, and that's where the real shame lies.
Slight problem to these prosecutions: this isn't like a murder trial in district court. The process is nowhere near as simple and I'm not going to to second guess either administration on this. There's apparently good reason for these people to be detained or President Obama would not have continued the policies of The Bush administration. The idealism and the reality of national security are two entirely different things.
What "mulling" over preventive detention looks like:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/6gm03n.jpg)
Or is that arrogance or pomposity.
Quote from: guido911 on July 03, 2009, 05:32:56 PM
What "mulling" over preventive detention looks like:
Or is that arrogance or pomposity.
Now that is some real ODS you got going on there. A person clears their mind and it's arrogance or pomposity. I guess you've never closed your eyes, either. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on July 03, 2009, 08:51:14 PM
I guess you've never closed your eyes, either. ;D
I just try to keep the boss from catching me. (With my eyes closed.)
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2009, 02:08:31 PM
(http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/3791/bushsfaultaa5.gif)
Looking at images like that is so much fun. It's endlessly entertaining to switch your perception of the hands from wig wagging to circling the head clockwise to circling the head counterclockwise. Such a brain challenge.
Quote from: nathanm on July 03, 2009, 08:51:14 PM
Now that is some real ODS you got going on there. A person clears their mind and it's arrogance or pomposity. I guess you've never closed your eyes, either. ;D
Now that is some real OSS (Obama Spooning Syndrome: characterized by endless fawning and adoration by one man to another) you and others in this thread to a harmless comment about Obama.
Quote from: guido911 on July 04, 2009, 12:12:04 PM
Now that is some real OSS (Obama Spooning Syndrome: characterized by endless fawning and adoration by one man to another) you and others in this thread to a harmless comment about Obama.
Whatever. I criticize him regularly. His so-called health care "reform" is a giveaway to the insurance companies. Not quite as big a giveaway as Medicare Part D, but saying "Bush did it worse!" is no defense.
Quote from: nathanm on July 04, 2009, 03:31:26 PM
Whatever. I criticize him regularly. His so-called health care "reform" is a giveaway to the insurance companies. Not quite as big a giveaway as Medicare Part D, but saying "Bush did it worse!" is no defense.
Are you more public option or single payer or "leave it the frak alone"?
Quote from: guido911 on July 04, 2009, 04:01:25 PM
Are you more public option or single payer or "leave it the frak alone"?
I'd be fine with a public option, but I think single payer would, at least temporarily, be the best way to get things under control while we solve the underlying issues. As it stands, at least half of the country supports single payer in polls, and over 75% support a public option. The main resistance is coming from those financed by the health care lobbies; that is to say, mainly our elected representatives.
I think "leave it alone" is preferable to the giveaway without a public option. That said, I think a forced buy-in is to some degree criminalizing being poor. Nobody should have to choose between food on the table or clothes to wear and paying the insurance bill to keep the government off their back. At the same time, it is to some degree a person's own fault they are too proud or whatever to take advantage of the help that is available to them, as I've seen so many fail to do. (Although that's largely because of the Reaganite demonization of those who accept government help as 'welfare queens')
My hope with the public option is that it will at least help keep the insurance companies honest. It's sad, but I trust credit card companies to not screw me over more than I do insurance companies. At least the credit card thugs follow the rules they write and make it reasonably obvious what you have to do to avoid getting an donkey reaming from them. With health insurance companies regularly exercising the recission clause over immaterial misstatements on the application and not making it obvious they even have that right, I have much less sympathy for their so-called plight.
In short, I think the President's plan is by far the worst of single payer, mandatory buy-in, and what we have now. The public option just makes it not quite an unmitigated disaster.
Part of Obama's problem is that he (like the Congressional dems) is trying to be bipartisan when the other side isn't at all interested in playing ball. He won't get the Republican votes in Congress no matter what he does.
Right now I think both parties are in the toilet, especially on this issue.