Barack Obama restarts Guantánamo trials (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

US president lifts ban on filing new charges at detention facility he had promised to close within year of taking office

Barack Obama had promised to close Guantánamo within a year of taking office in January 2009 after describing the prison there as damaging to the US.

Barack Obama has approved the resumption of military trials for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ending a two-year ban.

The US president instructed the defence department to lift an order that had suspended the filing of new charges in the military tribunals at the camp.

It was the latest acknowledgement that the detention facility which Obama had vowed to shut down within a year of taking office will remain open for some time to come.

Obama said: "I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system – including Article III courts – to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened." Article III courts are civilian federal courts.

Under Obama's order, defence secretary Robert Gates will rescind his January 2009 ban against bringing new cases against the terror suspects at the detention facility.

Closure of the facility has become difficult because of questions about where terror suspects would be held.

Obama had suspended charges when he announced a review of the detainee policy in early 2009, shortly after he took office. The White House said that review was now complete.

Obama also issued an executive order on establishing a process to continue to hold some Guantánamo detainees who have been neither charged, convicted nor designated for transfer but who are deemed to pose a threat to US security.

However, the White House said Obama remained committed to eventually closing the prison at Guantánamo, at some point.

There are still 172 detainees at the Guantánamo prison and about three dozen were set for prosecution in either US criminal courts or military commissions. Republicans had demanded the trials be held at Guantánamo.

Guantánamo cases

Charges are expected to be filed soon against three prisoners the administration has already identified as eligible for trial. All three had previously been charged during the Bush administration but their cases were dropped in 2009 so the Obama administration could conduct a review of the Guantánamo detention policy. Here are details of the cases:

• Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri - Saudi Arabian national of Yemeni descent, accused mastermind of the attack on the warship USS Cole in 2000. The attack by a small, explosives-laden boat in the Yemeni port of Aden killed 17 US sailors and wounded 47. Nashiri is accused of being al-Qaida's operations chief for the Arabian Peninsula. The CIA has acknowledged using the simulated-drowning technique known as waterboarding on him and Polish prosecutors are investigating Nashiri's claims that he was tortured by interrogators at a secret CIA prison in Poland before he was moved to Guantánamo. He was captured in Dubai in 2002. The original charges under the Bush administration carried the death penalty.

• Ahmed al Darbi - Saudi Arabian accused of buying a boat and global positioning devices and shopping for crewmen as part of an unrealised plot to ram an explosives-laden boat into an unidentified ship in the Strait of Hormuz. A lawyer familiar with the case said Darbi was given $50,000 to further the plot but spent it on prostitutes and drugs. Darbi has said he used his boat only to ferry sheep across the strait. Darbi is also accused of teaching at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and meeting Osama bin Laden there. He was captured in Azerbaijan in 2002.

• Obaidullah - Afghan who uses only one name. He is accused of working with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, hiding mines and other explosives at his residence and having a notebook that included instructions on how to use them. Obaidullah has said the mines belonged to a commander who lived in the house during the Soviet occupation, and that he only had the notes because the Taliban forced him to attend a bomb detection class. He was captured in Afghanistan in 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/guantanamo-bay-trials-restartOh, well. The best laid plans . . .

 

[jon_mx]

Good thing all the major media outlets are all over this story holding Obama accountable. Obviously this story is leading all the broadcast news and top of the front page of the NYT. Oh wait, this was out of the Guardian......

 

[dharmapunk]

Good thing all the major media outlets are all over this story holding Obama accountable. Obviously this story is leading all the broadcast news and top of the front page of the NYT. Oh wait, this was out of the Guardian......

It made the front page at Huffington, with a lengthy article.ETA: It also made the front page of the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/americas/08guantanamo.html?_r=1&hp

It's just not the lead story. See, there's this event going in Libya right now...

 

[Chadstroma]

Good to see him not holding on to clueless politically opportunistic rhetoric and do the right thing. Our President is all growns up! He's growns up and growns up!

 

[jon_mx]

Yep, here is the coverage in the New York Times. Mostly one excuse after another with the Obama spin in full gear. A couple sentences containing some mild criticism from the left, but nothing hard hitting. Without even stating that Obama promised to close Gitmo within a year, they let statements such as 'Obama had not retreated from his pledge to close Guantánamo Bay' unchallenged. If this were a Republican, we would have more than half the story going on and on about what a horrendous violation of human rights Gitmo is. But since it is Obama, we all know he is doing the best he can and it is all the Republicans fault. And we wonder why there is such a demand for Fox News.

Obama Clears Way for Guantánamo Trials to Resume

By SCOTT SHANE and MARK LANDLER

Published: March 7, 2011

An executive order signed by the president on Monday sets out new rules requiring a review of all detainees' status within a year and every three years after that to determine whether they remain a threat to Americans. The order also requires compliance with theGeneva Conventions and the international treaty that bans torture and inhumane treatment.

WASHINGTON – President Obama reversed his two-year-old order halting new military charges against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, on Monday, permitting a resumption of military trials under rules he said provide adequate rights for defendants but implicitly admitting the failure for now of his pledge to close the prison camp.

Mr. Obama said in a statement he remains committed to closing Guantánamo some day and to charging some terrorist suspects in civilian criminal courts, as occurred throughout the administration ofGeorge W. Bush administration and has continued under Mr. Obama. But Congress has blocked the transfer of prisoners from Guantánamo to the United States for trial, undermining at least for the time being the administration's plan to hold civilian trials for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, and other accused terrorists.

Civil liberties advocates, who had been expecting the moves since they were forecast in an article in The New York Times in January, expressed deeply mixed feelings about the new policies. On the positive side, some said that the executive order may permit detainees imprisoned for years without trial to have their cases heard and potentially settled by plea agreement. In addition, the executive order avoids enshrining a system of indefinite detention in law and is restricted to the 172 prisoners currently held at Guantánamo.

But Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, said that despite those factors, the continuation of detention at Guantánamo and military commissions more than two years after Mr. Obama took office is a disappointment.

"This is a step down the road toward institutionalizing a preventive detention regime," Ms. Massimino said. "People in the Mideast are looking to establish new rules for their own societies, and this sends a mixed message at best."

Administration officials declined to discuss individual cases, but one senior official said he expected new charges to be brought against detainees within days or weeks. A second official said the administration was committed to bringing "9/11 plotters to justice," though he did not single out Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.

Administration officials insisted that Mr. Obama had not retreated from his pledge to close Guantánamo Bay, despite difficulties in transferring prisoners or trying them in federal courts. It has released detainees to their home countries and to other countries ranging from Germany to Palau, and a senior official said that process would continue.

"We've done a lot of leg work in the service of closing Guantánamo Bay," said a senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's internal deliberations.

The new procedures for military commissions guarantee detainees access to a legal representative as well as access to broader range of classified information, which the detainee's representative can use to argue his client's case before the review board.

The administration also said it would ask for Senate approval to sign on to two additional protocols of the Geneva Conventions governing humane treatment and fair trials for prisoners held in wartime. "We have raised the bar in terms of the kind of treatment we're committed to providing," said another administration official.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the Defense Department has transferred 67 detainees from Guantánamo Bay to 24 different destinations, including the transfer of 40 detainees to third countries, according to government figures. But the active status of Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen, the home of the largest remaining group of detainees, has dissuaded the administration from sending prisoners there. And most countries have agreed to accept only tiny numbers of Guantánamo detainees.

Today's total of 172 detainees is down from 242 when Mr. Obama entered office. About 500 detainees were released by the Bush administration.

 

[Chadstroma]

Yep, here is the coverage in the New York Times. Mostly one excuse after another with the Obama spin in full gear. A couple sentences containing some mild criticism from the left, but nothing hard hitting. Without even stating that Obama promised to close Gitmo within a year, they let statements such as 'Obama had not retreated from his pledge to close Guantánamo Bay' unchallenged. If this were a Republican, we would have more than half the story going on and on about what a horrendous violation of human rights Gitmo is. But since it is Obama, we all know he is doing the best he can and it is all the Republicans fault. And we wonder why there is such a demand for Fox News.

Obama Clears Way for Guantánamo Trials to Resume

By SCOTT SHANE and MARK LANDLER

Published: March 7, 2011

An executive order signed by the president on Monday sets out new rules requiring a review of all detainees' status within a year and every three years after that to determine whether they remain a threat to Americans. The order also requires compliance with theGeneva Conventions and the international treaty that bans torture and inhumane treatment.

WASHINGTON – President Obama reversed his two-year-old order halting new military charges against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, on Monday, permitting a resumption of military trials under rules he said provide adequate rights for defendants but implicitly admitting the failure for now of his pledge to close the prison camp.

Mr. Obama said in a statement he remains committed to closing Guantánamo some day and to charging some terrorist suspects in civilian criminal courts, as occurred throughout the administration ofGeorge W. Bush administration and has continued under Mr. Obama. But Congress has blocked the transfer of prisoners from Guantánamo to the United States for trial, undermining at least for the time being the administration's plan to hold civilian trials for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, and other accused terrorists.

Civil liberties advocates, who had been expecting the moves since they were forecast in an article in The New York Times in January, expressed deeply mixed feelings about the new policies. On the positive side, some said that the executive order may permit detainees imprisoned for years without trial to have their cases heard and potentially settled by plea agreement. In addition, the executive order avoids enshrining a system of indefinite detention in law and is restricted to the 172 prisoners currently held at Guantánamo.

But Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, said that despite those factors, the continuation of detention at Guantánamo and military commissions more than two years after Mr. Obama took office is a disappointment.

"This is a step down the road toward institutionalizing a preventive detention regime," Ms. Massimino said. "People in the Mideast are looking to establish new rules for their own societies, and this sends a mixed message at best."

Administration officials declined to discuss individual cases, but one senior official said he expected new charges to be brought against detainees within days or weeks. A second official said the administration was committed to bringing "9/11 plotters to justice," though he did not single out Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.

Administration officials insisted that Mr. Obama had not retreated from his pledge to close Guantánamo Bay, despite difficulties in transferring prisoners or trying them in federal courts. It has released detainees to their home countries and to other countries ranging from Germany to Palau, and a senior official said that process would continue.

"We've done a lot of leg work in the service of closing Guantánamo Bay," said a senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's internal deliberations.

The new procedures for military commissions guarantee detainees access to a legal representative as well as access to broader range of classified information, which the detainee's representative can use to argue his client's case before the review board.

The administration also said it would ask for Senate approval to sign on to two additional protocols of the Geneva Conventions governing humane treatment and fair trials for prisoners held in wartime. "We have raised the bar in terms of the kind of treatment we're committed to providing," said another administration official.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the Defense Department has transferred 67 detainees from Guantánamo Bay to 24 different destinations, including the transfer of 40 detainees to third countries, according to government figures. But the active status of Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen, the home of the largest remaining group of detainees, has dissuaded the administration from sending prisoners there. And most countries have agreed to accept only tiny numbers of Guantánamo detainees.

Today's total of 172 detainees is down from 242 when Mr. Obama entered office. About 500 detainees were released by the Bush administration.

Silly jon, only Fox News has bias or aka void of liberal spin.

 

[DrJ]

This thread didn't get as much interest as one might expect.

 

[Choke]

Good thing all the major media outlets are all over this story holding Obama accountable. Obviously this story is leading all the broadcast news and top of the front page of the NYT. Oh wait, this was out of the Guardian......

It made the front page at Huffington, with a lengthy article.ETA: It also made the front page of the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/americas/08guantanamo.html?_r=1&hp

It's just not the lead story. See, there's this event going in Libya right now...

Too funny.

 

[jon_mx]

Good thing all the major media outlets are all over this story holding Obama accountable. Obviously this story is leading all the broadcast news and top of the front page of the NYT. Oh wait, this was out of the Guardian......

It made the front page at Huffington, with a lengthy article.ETA: It also made the front page of the NYT. http://www.nytimes.c...mo.html?_r=1

It's just not the lead story. See, there's this event going in Libya right now...

Too funny.

Did you bother to read the NYT's coverage? It was a pathetic piece of Obama rah-rah. Closing Gitmo was one of the top 5 themes of Obama's campaign. Bush was beat up by the media on a daily basis. Now it is long forgotten and Obama's failed campaign promises are swept under the rug.

 

[Choke]

You dont have a righteous bone in your body. Not one.

You stated... and I quote... Good thing all the major media outlets are all over this story holding Obama accountable. Obviously this story is leading all the broadcast news and top of the front page of the NYT. Oh wait, this was out of the Guardian.

And yet when you are shown the error of your ways (almost everytime you post another hack job post here at FBG) do you recant your idiocy? Nope. You move the goalpost.

Dont pretend that you dont already have a preconceived notion about what the HuffPo or the NYT will write. That is not new, and that isnt the story and that wasnt your complaint.

Again you show zero integrity. You now want to complain about a left leaning site (that you complained wouldnt even adress the matter in a front page fashion... and were proven dead ### wrong) is now having articles that are left leaning. Oh the horror!

Quit trying so hard to make FBGs a worse forum.

 

[jon_mx]

NYT - "A version of this article appeared in print on March 8, 2011, on page A19 of the New York edition." Last time I checked, A19 does not equal A1, nor was the story in anyway 'holding Obama accountable' for his promises and his past criticisms which the NYT completely omitted.

 

[squidrope]

 

[Choke]

So you are saying what dharmapunk posted is actually incorrect... though it still is front page at HuffPo.

And front page MSNBC (#1 politics headline also).

And frontpage CNN (#1 politics headline also).

Front page at Washington Post also.

Front page of the WSJ too.

Front page at FoxNews too.

Front page at Al Jazeera, omg!

Front page at the Chicago Sun times.

Front page at the Los Angeles times.

But it isnt at NYT?

I dont think they would post the entirety of that article on the front page.

Though the conservative New York Post doesnt have it on the front page, for shame!

 

[jon_mx]

STATEMENT: Executive order stating, “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” January 22, 2009.

STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006

Barack Obama would consider charging Bush administration over Guantanamo

Obama: "Why don't we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that's how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values. It's time to show the world we're not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. We're not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they're there or what they're charged with. We're not a country which preaches compassion to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of major American cities. That's not who we are."

 

[jon_mx]

Front page of CNN? It is buried in the list of political stories in a grid of 200 stories. The featured stories are Libya (OK) and "Chalie Sheen Fired"!? Charlie Sheen >>>>>>>> Gitmo, according to the hard-hitting CNN website.

 

[jon_mx]

So you are saying what dharmapunk posted is actually incorrect...

I am not saying that, the NYT said that. HTH.

 

[Mello]

STATEMENT: Executive order stating, “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” January 22, 2009.

STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006

Barack Obama would consider charging Bush administration over Guantanamo

Obama: "Why don't we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that's how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values. It's time to show the world we're not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. We're not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they're there or what they're charged with. We're not a country which preaches compassion to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of major American cities. That's not who we are."

We get it. Obama didn't do what he said he would. He's just as bad as the Republicans here! I bet your proud. That's a surefire winning talking point.

 

[Choke]

Front page of CNN? It is buried in the list of political stories in a grid of 200 stories. The featured stories are Libya (OK) and "Chalie Sheen Fired"!? Charlie Sheen >>>>>>>> Gitmo, according to the hard-hitting CNN website.

Clicks and interest get prominence.Unjust? Maybe. But you shouldnt be gnashing your teeth over the front page crap... and then get further upset when it is indeed on the front pages.

 

[jon_mx]

We get it. Obama didn't do what he said he would. He's just as bad as the Republicans here! I bet your proud. That's a surefire winning talking point.

The point was more about the coverage. Instead of holding Obama's feet to the fire on reversing prominent campaign promises about Gitmo and military tribunals and issuing qualifying statements, they let it slide. Instead the story talked about how "Obama had not retreated from his pledge to close Guantánamo Bay" and it is only "for now". Obama was very specific and said numerous times Gitmo would be closed within the first year, was against military tribunals, and criticized Bush for issuing qualifying statements. In one swoop, Obama has completely contradicted three things from his campaign and if you read the NYT's article, you would have no clue.

 

[quickhands]

STATEMENT: Executive order stating, “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” January 22, 2009.

STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006

Barack Obama would consider charging Bush administration over Guantanamo

Obama: "Why don't we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that's how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values. It's time to show the world we're not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. We're not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they're there or what they're charged with. We're not a country which preaches compassion to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of major American cities. That's not who we are."

We get it. Obama didn't do what he said he would. He's just as bad as the Republicans here! I bet your proud. That's a surefire winning talking point.

So we should just move on?

 

[Choke]

So we should just move on?

Seriously? This is what you came up with?The story JUST hit the AP wire On March 7th. Today is early morning March 8th.

Its on the front page of nearly every news wesbite of any value.

Obama had stated during the campaign that he wanted to close Gitmo and pull people out... and his reversal was undone a couple years ago.

Then, it was pretty big news also. But now they are pushing to get trials done. Which while newsworthy (its on most front pages afterall), what exactly do you want? Confetti falling from the rafters and french horns being blown from the backs of elephants and camels?

Mello was directing his salient point about jon_mx's hackery, not the story.

 

[NCCommish]

How about we back off the bolded a bit? And as someone who hated Guantanamo under Bush this is just another reason I hope Obama gets a real primary challenge. This whole administration has become triangulation part 2 as I feared.

Edited to add so the bolding is a feature now? Not into it.

ETA 2 now not so much?

 

[Tiny Dancer]

We get it. Obama didn't do what he said he would. He's just as bad as the Republicans here! I bet your proud. That's a surefire winning talking point.

The point was more about the coverage. Instead of holding Obama's feet to the fire on reversing prominent campaign promises about Gitmo and military tribunals and issuing qualifying statements, they let it slide. Instead the story talked about how "Obama had not retreated from his pledge to close Guantánamo Bay" and it is only "for now". Obama was very specific and said numerous times Gitmo would be closed within the first year, was against military tribunals, and criticized Bush for issuing qualifying statements. In one swoop, Obama has completely contradicted three things from his campaign and if you read the NYT's article, you would have no clue.

You probably would like this piece by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post.I don't know why politicians don't say "look, we wanted to do this thing, but it turns out that it was politically impossible, so we're not going to do it and we're going to try to focus on stuff we actually can do instead of banging our heads against the wall." I guess focus groups say it makes them look weak or unprincipled or something. I would find it refreshing.

 

[Mello]

How about we back off the bolded a bit? And as someone who hated Guantanamo under Bush this is just another reason I hope Obama gets a real primary challenge. This whole administration has become triangulation part 2 as I feared.Edited to add so the bolding is a feature now? Not into it.ETA 2 now not so much?

Agreed. On Obama and the bold text.

 

[jon_mx]

So we should just move on?

Seriously? This is what you came up with?The story JUST hit the AP wire On March 7th. Today is early morning March 8th.

Its on the front page of nearly every news wesbite of any value.

Obama had stated during the campaign that he wanted to close Gitmo and pull people out... and his reversal was undone a couple years ago.

Then, it was pretty big news also. But now they are pushing to get trials done. Which while newsworthy (its on most front pages afterall), what exactly do you want? Confetti falling from the rafters and french horns being blown from the backs of elephants and camels?

Mello was directing his salient point about jon_mx's hackery, not the story.

Hackery???? All I did was quote Obama's past promises. Obama's quotes = Hackery. I get it. Those quotes did not make the "All The News That is Fit to Print" cut. But they did have numerous paragraphs to whitewash those promises. And can you make a post without making non relevant personal comments? TIA.

 

[Boston]

Everything seems so easy to do when you're sipping Chardonnay with your Ivy League pals...

 

[Choke]

So we should just move on?

Seriously? This is what you came up with?The story JUST hit the AP wire On March 7th. Today is early morning March 8th.

Its on the front page of nearly every news wesbite of any value.

Obama had stated during the campaign that he wanted to close Gitmo and pull people out... and his reversal was undone a couple years ago.

Then, it was pretty big news also. But now they are pushing to get trials done. Which while newsworthy (its on most front pages afterall), what exactly do you want? Confetti falling from the rafters and french horns being blown from the backs of elephants and camels?

Mello was directing his salient point about jon_mx's hackery, not the story.

Hackery???? All I did was quote Obama's past promises. Obama's quotes = Hackery. I get it. Those quotes did not make the "All The News That is Fit to Print" cut. But they did have numerous paragraphs to whitewash those promises. And can you make a post without making non relevant personal comments? TIA.

LIAR.

Good thing all the major media outlets are all over this story holding Obama accountable. Obviously this story is leading all the broadcast news and top of the front page of the NYT. Oh wait, this was out of the Guardian......

All you did was take a shot at the lack of media attention this got on the day it was released by AP.meanwhile;

though it still is front page at HuffPo.

And front page MSNBC (#1 politics headline also).

And frontpage CNN (#1 politics headline also).

Front page at Washington Post also.

Front page of the WSJ too.

Front page at FoxNews too.

Front page at Al Jazeera, omg!

Front page at the Chicago Sun times.

Front page at the Los Angeles times.

 

[Thunderlips]

As one who voted for Obama...I am a little disappointed that it hasn't been closed. That being said, it won't be much of a factor in my 2012 POTUS vote.

 

[jon_mx]

So we should just move on?

Seriously? This is what you came up with?The story JUST hit the AP wire On March 7th. Today is early morning March 8th.

Its on the front page of nearly every news wesbite of any value.

Obama had stated during the campaign that he wanted to close Gitmo and pull people out... and his reversal was undone a couple years ago.

Then, it was pretty big news also. But now they are pushing to get trials done. Which while newsworthy (its on most front pages afterall), what exactly do you want? Confetti falling from the rafters and french horns being blown from the backs of elephants and camels?

Mello was directing his salient point about jon_mx's hackery, not the story.

Hackery???? All I did was quote Obama's past promises. Obama's quotes = Hackery. I get it. Those quotes did not make the "All The News That is Fit to Print" cut. But they did have numerous paragraphs to whitewash those promises. And can you make a post without making non relevant personal comments? TIA.

LIAR.

Good thing all the major media outlets are all over this story holding Obama accountable. Obviously this story is leading all the broadcast news and top of the front page of the NYT. Oh wait, this was out of the Guardian......

All you did was take a shot at the lack of media attention this got on the day it was released by AP.meanwhile;

though it still is front page at HuffPo.

And front page MSNBC (#1 politics headline also).

And frontpage CNN (#1 politics headline also).

Front page at Washington Post also.

Front page of the WSJ too.

Front page at FoxNews too.

Front page at Al Jazeera, omg!

Front page at the Chicago Sun times.

Front page at the Los Angeles times.

Would you #### with the personal attacks. The statement was in response to your statement about Mello's response in which you referred to it as my hackery. In that statement, that is exactly what I did was quote Obama and you called it out as hackery. Enough is enough. You suck.

 

[Choke]

Would you #### with the personal attacks.

Absolutely I will stop... if you stop with the political hackery, I wont :curbstomp: you on it at all if you dont resort to it.

 

[Mello]

So we should just move on?

Seriously? This is what you came up with?The story JUST hit the AP wire On March 7th. Today is early morning March 8th.

Its on the front page of nearly every news wesbite of any value.

Obama had stated during the campaign that he wanted to close Gitmo and pull people out... and his reversal was undone a couple years ago.

Then, it was pretty big news also. But now they are pushing to get trials done. Which while newsworthy (its on most front pages afterall), what exactly do you want? Confetti falling from the rafters and french horns being blown from the backs of elephants and camels?

Mello was directing his salient point about jon_mx's hackery, not the story.

Hackery???? All I did was quote Obama's past promises. Obama's quotes = Hackery. I get it. Those quotes did not make the "All The News That is Fit to Print" cut. But they did have numerous paragraphs to whitewash those promises. And can you make a post without making non relevant personal comments? TIA.

Hackery was a decent choice of words. Bringing up Obama's quotes that he would do something you didn't want done anyway is hackery. You should have supported Obama for delaying the trials and be pushing him to have them stopped all together and lock the people in Gitmo for eternity.

 

[jon_mx]

Hackery was a decent choice of words. Bringing up Obama's quotes that he would do something you didn't want done anyway is hackery. You should have supported Obama for delaying the trials and be pushing him to have them stopped all together and lock the people in Gitmo for eternity.

My point was not to attack Obama, it was to point out the hypocrisy in the coverage. I did not call Obama a liar or anything. Yes, it was the right call by Obama, but the media (in this case, the NYT) should have made it clear that this flies in the face of what Obama campaigned on.

 

[jon_mx]

Would you #### with the personal attacks.

Absolutely I will stop... if you stop with the political hackery, I wont :curbstomp: you on it at all if you dont resort to it.

If you weren't one of the biggest politic hacks on this forum, I would accept that. As it is, you had to twists a lot of facts to call me a 'liar', which is inexcusable and has no place here.

 

[KCC]

To say I am VERY disappointed would be a huge understatement. I hope he gets hammered on this by the press.

 

[jon_mx]

To say I am VERY disappointed would be a huge understatement. I hope he gets hammered on this by the press.

Exactly. If the media doesn't hammer him, they are nothing but the biggest hypocrites of all-time. So far the news stories have mostly been pro-Obama spin, but we will see what the editorials and pundits say. I think MSNBC will rip him.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Obama has been a lot better than I expected on these sorts of issues. My only complaint was the half-baked idea to try these people in civilian courts, but that seems to have sensibly died a quiet death. Good for Obama.

 

[NCCommish]

Obama has been a lot better than I expected on these sorts of issues. My only complaint was the half-baked idea to try these people in civilian courts, but that seems to have sensibly died a quiet death. Good for Obama.

Yeah because we have never successfully tried a terrorist in US courts or been able to keep them in supermax without any incidents. Oh wait we have.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Obama has been a lot better than I expected on these sorts of issues. My only complaint was the half-baked idea to try these people in civilian courts, but that seems to have sensibly died a quiet death. Good for Obama.

Yeah because we have never successfully tried a terrorist in US courts or been able to keep them in supermax without any incidents. Oh wait we have.

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

How do we know if they were actually fighting for a non-state actor if we don't have some sort of proceeding?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

How do we know if they were actually fighting for a non-state actor if we don't have some sort of proceeding?

Proceeding <> Criminal Trial

 

[Choke]

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

How do we know if they were actually fighting for a non-state actor if we don't have some sort of proceeding?

Proceeding <> Criminal Trial

You are/were in favor of the Japanese internment camps? They helped keep us safe also.

 

[Sweet J]

Obama has been a lot better than I expected on these sorts of issues. My only complaint was the half-baked idea to try these people in civilian courts, but that seems to have sensibly died a quiet death. Good for Obama.

Yeah because we have never successfully tried a terrorist in US courts or been able to keep them in supermax without any incidents. Oh wait we have.

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

One of the few times I have to disagree with you here. One problem, among many, is that the Government appears to be indiscriminately picking people up (from other countries) and detaining them.

 

[NCCommish]

Obama has been a lot better than I expected on these sorts of issues. My only complaint was the half-baked idea to try these people in civilian courts, but that seems to have sensibly died a quiet death. Good for Obama.

Yeah because we have never successfully tried a terrorist in US courts or been able to keep them in supermax without any incidents. Oh wait we have.

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

Well I'll try not to rehash then and as much as I like you my friend your hating it is not that big a deal to me. That's how my America does things. In the open so everyone can see and with full rights accorded. That's what separates us from Egypt.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

How do we know if they were actually fighting for a non-state actor if we don't have some sort of proceeding?

Proceeding <> Criminal Trial

It seems to me the devil's in the details. If we're talking about detaining somebody for life, I'd want the proceeding to be somewhat thorough, not just a cursory look at the evidence by some military guy. I don't care that much if it's actually a criminal trial, but I think it needs to be something akin to a criminal trial. It doesn't seem like anything like that is happening.

 

[NCCommish]

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

How do we know if they were actually fighting for a non-state actor if we don't have some sort of proceeding?

Proceeding <> Criminal Trial

It seems to me the devil's in the details. If we're talking about detaining somebody for life, I'd want the proceeding to be somewhat thorough, not just a cursory look at the evidence by some military guy. I don't care that much if it's actually a criminal trial, but I think it needs to be something akin to a criminal trial. It doesn't seem like anything like that is happening.

Especially when you take into account the very sketchy evidence we have on some of these guys. And the whole shipped to us for cash issue.

 

[timschochet]

When he campaigned for president Ronald Reagan pledged to attack Roe vs. Wade and lead Congress in making abortion much stricter than it was. Once in office he never did a thing on this issue, which greatly displeased some on the social right, who threatened not to re-elect him or to challenge him in the primaries. Of course, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide.

I used to be on NCCommish's side on this issue, but some of the arguments made here in past threads, especially those by Yankee23fan, changed my mind. Either way though, is it really that big an issue in the overall scheme of things in terms of supporting a president? Not to me- there are issues out there that are much more vital.

jon-mx- perhaps the reason that Obama is not being attacked is because he really isn't worthy of attack. He wanted to do something, examined the consequences in more detail, and changed his mind. Big deal. Compared to the economy, the budget, and the Middle East, is this really so important a story?

 

[NCCommish]

When he campaigned for president Ronald Reagan pledged to attack Roe vs. Wade and lead Congress in making abortion much stricter than it was. Once in office he never did a thing on this issue, which greatly displeased some on the social right, who threatened not to re-elect him or to challenge him in the primaries. Of course, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide. I used to be on NCCommish's side on this issue, but some of the arguments made here in past threads, especially those by Yankee23fan, changed my mind. Either way though, is it really that big an issue in the overall scheme of things in terms of supporting a president? Not to me- there are issues out there that are much more vital. jon-mx- perhaps the reason that Obama is not being attacked is because he really isn't worthy of attack. He wanted to do something, examined the consequences in more detail, and changed his mind. Big deal. Compared to the economy, the budget, and the Middle East, is this really so important a story?

It's a big deal to me and it's a big deal in how the world changes it view of us. We will not profit from the change.

 

[jamny]

Are we obligated to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court? I thought when they were talking about bringing him to NY, charges were filed. Can they rescind them and go with a military tribunal?

 

[Fennis]

Are we obligated to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court? I thought when they were talking about bringing him to NY, charges were filed. Can they rescind them and go with a military tribunal?

The US wont do the right thing by trying him in a civilian court. I doubt we will try him in a military court. The best political outcome for any president and the military is keep him locked up wihtout a trial. Maybe in a another 5-10 years he will get some sort of a military trial.

 

[Fennis]

When he campaigned for president Ronald Reagan pledged to attack Roe vs. Wade and lead Congress in making abortion much stricter than it was. Once in office he never did a thing on this issue, which greatly displeased some on the social right, who threatened not to re-elect him or to challenge him in the primaries. Of course, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide. I used to be on NCCommish's side on this issue, but some of the arguments made here in past threads, especially those by Yankee23fan, changed my mind. Either way though, is it really that big an issue in the overall scheme of things in terms of supporting a president? Not to me- there are issues out there that are much more vital. jon-mx- perhaps the reason that Obama is not being attacked is because he really isn't worthy of attack. He wanted to do something, examined the consequences in more detail, and changed his mind. Big deal. Compared to the economy, the budget, and the Middle East, is this really so important a story?

I'm not trying to slam you, but I find you acting like changing your mind in a thread is noteworthy as very strange. You consistently flip around on topics.