AP Sources: Pres. Obama to Allow New Military Terror Trials at Guantanamo

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

AP source: After a 2-year ban, Obama to allow new military terror trials at Guantanamo
By: Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press
7/03/2011 1:32 PM |

WASHINGTON - The Associated Press has learned that President Barack Obama is approving the resumption of military trials for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ending a two-year ban.

A senior military official says Obama will issue an executive order Monday. Defence Secretary Robert Gates will rescind his January 2009 ban against bringing new cases against the terror suspects at the detention facility.

Obama vowed when he took office to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, but officials have recently acknowledged that closure is not likely because of questions about where terror suspects would be held.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been made public.

Read more: http://www.brandonsun.com/world/breaking-news/ap-source-after-a-2-year-ban-obama-to-allow-new-military-terror-trials-at-guantanamo-117535118.html?thx=y

[mike_c]

1. if true, it's another nail in the coffin of democracy (not to mention Obama's 2012 candidacy)....

Rule of law? Only for the rich, and mostly white!

[24601]

8. It wasn't a coffin nail when FDR allowed tribunals of the Germans

in WWII. The USSC upheld it as constitutional - so where is the outrage over that?

[No Elephants]

108. SCOTUS then also upheld the constitutionality of mass internment of Americans

of Japanese descent (mostly) and German descent.

In 1988, we finally apologized for internment and paid reparations for the war crime against our own citizens whose constitutionality the SCOTUS upheld--and we were at war with Japan and Germany whereas, in theory, we are not at war with any nation now.

So what's your point? That FDR and the SCOTUS were imperfect? (No argument there.) Or that no one should express outrage in 2011 unless they also simultaneously express outrage over ever constitutional violation since 1789?

[coalition_unwilling]

114. Hunh? We were 'at war' with Germany, meaning Congress had

passed a Declaration of War. So you're promoting false equivalency (we are not at war now), so as to distract from the erosion of civil liberties, specifically habeas corpus.

[24601]

120. None of the SCOTUS rulings have turned on the difference

between a declaration of war and the authorized use of military force. Aside from Congress abrogating its responsibility, the effect is the same. But if you want to call Obama for saying we are at war, have at it. The Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen and deployed civilians all understanding that they are are at war with ot without a declaration.

[coalition_unwilling]

123. I'm going to have to go back and review the history of those

military tribunals for the Germans during World War II. I am pretty certain that a state of 'war' means a lot in this context, but I'm no expert by any means.

From my layperson's understanding, however, the problem with Obama's administration continuing the policies and processes of Bush goes way beyond Congress abrogating its responsibility to declare war (which is pretty grievous by itself) to wholesale violations of the principles and processes laid out in the Geneva Conventions, to which we are a signatory. To wit, anyone captured on a field of battle (whether during a declared state of war or not) is entitled to a swift review of their status by a competent panel. That has NEVER taken place for any of the Gitmo detainees. Building some sort of kangaroo court now in the form of these military tribunals cannot undo the original sin of the wholesale contravention of Geneva. A sort of fruit of the poisoned tree, I would say. (Gitmo detainees never had their status adjudicated expeditiously, many may have been tortured while in captivity and now they go before a kangaroo court . . .)

[24601]

125. If they are in essence POWs, the usual practice has been to

hold them when the war is over. The Quirin case did not wait fdor the end of the war because they acted as illegal combatants. In the curren cases, some detainees/"POWS" also are facing war crimes murder trials for, among other acts, intentionally targeting non-combatants. Hess was held by the Brits until WWII ended - then he had his Nuremberg Trial - where the tribunal had the power to act not only as judge & jury, but also to decide what constituted a crime within their jurisdiction. But there is no compelling reason to hold off on the trials until the "war" is over. If he's convicted, I have no any qualms about executing 9-11 planner KSM - and would even apologize in person for delaying his trial and not executing him sooner rather than later.

[Demeter]

2. If there is a point to this

(other than contempt for the law and the People), I can't see it.

[Zax2me]

5. Me either

I wish the admin would explain itself further.

[aquart]

3. He chose his advisors. This is on him.

Sometimes I think he's just tone deaf.

[blackspade]

4. He ownes the GWB policies more and more each day.

I had no idea when I voted for him that he was actually a corporate republican.
Sad.

[Organic Machine]

6. Very disappointing...

[ladjf]

7. What in the Hell does the President stand to gain by continuing

to torment those prisoners at Guantanamo? nt

[Ian David]

9. AP source: Obama to restart Guantanamo trials

Source: The Washington Post

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
Monday, March 7, 2011; 2:23 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Associated Press has learned that President Barack Obama is approving the resumption of military trials for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ending a two-year ban.

A senior military official says Obama will issue an executive order Monday. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will rescind his January 2009 ban against bringing new cases against the terror suspects at the detention facility.

Obama vowed when he took office to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, but officials have recently acknowledged that closure is not likely because of questions about where terror suspects would be held.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been made public.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030702669.html

---

Hat-tip to:
http://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/44843407629221888

[Demeter]

10. Are We Going to Have to Walker All Over Him, Too?

[hughee99]

11. This story must be mistaken...

Obama closed the detention camp at Guantanamo. I heard him say so.

"One last point I will make. In dealing with terrorism, we can't lose sight of our values and who we are.

That's why I closed Guantanamo.

That's why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don't believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure. When we saw what happened in Abu Ghraib, that wasn't good for our security -- that was a recruitment tool for terrorism. Humiliating people is never a good strategy to battle terrorism."

- Barack Obama 4/3/09 - at Strasbourg Town Hall in Strasbourg, France.

[wuushew]

12. Obama fails again

n/t

[laconicsax]

13. Bloody Hell!

[bemildred]

14. "Change you can believe in." nt

[stockholmer]

15. he is simply war-machine, big bankster sock puppet,as will be anyone allowed to be the US president

Between the entire military budget ($1.2 trillion a year at least http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/real-us-national-security-budget-1-trillion ) and over $600 billion in interest debt service paid yearly on the national debt (soon to go well over $1 trillion year as interest rates have to rise due to bond market pressures), that is almost a $2 trillion a year reason why they they will keep the debt slavery system not only going, but increase all full spectrum dominance measures against the US populace (media, surveillance society, databasing of all info/activity, etc).

Both the Democrat and Republican parties are completely owned entities of the oligarchs, with a few small token members allowed to act as steam-escape valves and/or controlled opposition.

[salinen]

18. sounds like Bush

only you can't say that on du.

[Nihil]

22. Sad but true. (n/t)

:-(

[underpants]

16. Bad

Bad Obama

[mwrguy]

17. I thought we had closed this fascist chapter of our history

I am mortified.

[CHIMO]

19. Obama lifts suspension on military terror trials at Guantánamo Bay

Barack Obama has given the green light to resume military trials of terror suspects detained at Guantánamo Bay, making a sharp departure from his election promises to close the camp and bring America's fight against terrorism back into the remit of civilian law.

The US president lifted a suspension on so-called "military commissions" which he had imposed on his first full day in the White House. By so doing, he permitted the revival of trials conducted by military officers, with a military judge presiding.

Obama also signed an executive order that moved to set into law the already existing practice on Guantánamo of holding detainees indefinitely without charge.

The president sought to sweeten the pill among civil rights and liberal groups of the resumption of two of the most widely criticised aspects of George Bush's war on terror by emphasising that he still wished to see Guantánamo close. When he came into office in January 2009, he repeatedly promised to have the campclosed within one year. It was set up in the wake of 9/11 in 2001 and thereafter the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/guantanamo-military-terrorism-trials-resume

Solution: Increase $ to VOA and defund NPR.

[Poll_Blind]

20. You can always count on Obama!

PB

[ClarkUSA]

21. Pres. Obama's hand was forced by Congress, who refuses to allow detainees to be tried on US soil.

"Obama made the change with clear reluctance, bowing to the reality that Congress' vehement opposition to trying detainees on U.S. soil leaves them nowhere else to go. The president emphasized his preference for trials in federal civilian courts, and his administration blamed congressional meddling for closing off that avenue... Congress hardened its objections to trying detainees on U.S. soil by including language in legislation signed by Obama in January that would block the Defense Department from spending money to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for trial. The legislation also set up new rules for moving detainees elsewhere, and as a result Gates has told lawmakers that it has become very difficult for the government to release detainees to other countries because he now has to certify they will pose no danger. Officials have said that about one-quarter of those released so far have returned to battle.

The White House said Monday that it would continue to work to overturn those congressional prohibitions."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110307/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_guantanamo

[Capitalocracy]

110. If he'd acted within his first year in office like he said he would

Congress wouldn't have been able to do anything. The law in question was passed well after that.

Edit to add: And Obama signed it.

[Purveyor]

23. Obama Creates Indefinite Detention System For Prisoners At Guantanamo Bay

Source: WP

President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there.

The announcements, coming more than two years after Obama vowed in another executive order to close the detention center, all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy.

Administration officials said the president is still committed to closing the prison, although he made no mention of that goal in a short statement Monday. The administration's original plans to create a detention center in the United States and prosecute some detainees in federal court have all but collapsed in the face of bipartisan congressional opposition.

The executive order recognizes the reality that some Guantanamo Bay detainees will remain in U.S. custody for many years, if not for life. The new system allows them the prospect of successfully arguing in the future that they should be released because they do not pose a threat.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html?hpid=topnews

[laconicsax]

24. The news keeps getting better!

:banghead:

[emilyg]

31. Hope and change. Blah

[EFerrari]

25. Our justice system isn't supposed to be a weapon.

This is disgusting.

[TalkingDog]

26. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! BOOOOO!!! BOOOOO FUCKING, FUCKING

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

[azul]

27. Time for this executive to order bi-partisan opponents of closing

Guantanamo to be held there, as they pose significant threats to national security.

Guantanamo itself is the outrage and recruiting tool to create extremists that threaten the US. Thus people that support this tool are helping and creating terrorists, and that is a significant threat to national security.

[No Elephants]

85. Indefinite detention regardless of where, is a different issue.

[Blacksheep214]

28. Everybody sing!

I'm proud to be an American.........

Yeah right!

[Shining Jack]

51. Oh shit!

I hate that song. It stared during Gulf War I.

[chill_wind]

29. A effing *Executive Order* no less. Hot damn. And isn't it nice that

" they're released AG fraudclosure settlement on same day we institutionalized indefinite detention. 3/7: LawLess Day."

http://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/44915450773127170

[blackspade]

30. Oh, for fucks sake!

Obama doubles down on stupid again!

[libmom74]

32. I can't say

what I want to say because it will get me banned. :argh:

[slay]

45. Yeah

it's getting to the point where we HAVE to have a Dem challenger in 2012 - or draft Bernie Sanders or something. How are we supposed to support this shit (I can't) and where is there any other option? ARGH! :mad:

[sasquuatch55]

79. All by design from disaster capitalists...The Corporate States of America...

Homeland security, wars that never end...the tech and financial bubbles replaced by the war on terror bubble. A deep well of Government money funneled into war profiteering, privatized security, indefinite detention, judicial corruption, data mining.. all financed by the taxpayers, all sold on lies , exaggerated fear, greed and power. We are beginning to wake up and it's going to get messy I believe.

[coalition_unwilling]

93. At this point, with the rah-rah crowd of Obama cheerleaders and

apologists rationalizing torture and violation of Geneva accords -- provided it's done by 'our' guy -- what point is there to sticking around on this site?

Someone needs to explain that to me very succintly.

[DemocratAholic]

33. I am going to try and understand this.

This is one of those highly charged political issues. The kind of issue Republicans jump on. Obama is now in full-on re-election mode.

If Obama had done what he promised to do, close Guantanamo, move the prisoners onto US soil, provide them with trials through the standard legal system, this would have been a subject all over the news. And it wouldn't really be a debate. You would have people from the Republican side saying very provocative things. Trying to instill fear in people.

In this day and age, the age of news providers who seek only ratings, comments under every story, misinformation everywhere...it is really impossible to have a rational, logical discussion about anything having to do with politics, and this issue in particular.

If Obama had done what he promised to do, I think it would be tantamount to political suicide. He is already dealing with the birthers and the people who claim he is a Muslim.

This decision flies in the face of everything I believe. But I really don't know what a good answer is for this. Should we expect Obama to throw away his chances for re-election by doing the right thing?

The problem is not exactly Obama and this particular decision. The problem is the USA, and the way we publicly conduct debates about political issues. The huge amount of ignorance in our society. The fact that every candidate has to appeal to morons to get elected.

I think Obama is basically dealing with the hand he was dealt. In his heart (I hope) he knows it's not right. But what choice does he have? This is just another very sad statement about the state of the country we are living in.

[sudopod]

36. If a man isn't willing to sacrifice his political career for what is right

then he doesn't deserve to have a political career.

[DemocratAholic]

39. i so want to agree with you

but consider the alternatives...the consequences.

there is no doubt in my mind that a highly provocative issue such as this could single handily swing the election in favor of the other side. then what would we be left with? a Republican president? then where would we be?

this is not just about Obama and his re-election. this is about which party controls the executive branch. the possibility of having a President Romney, Palin, Huckabee...

also, consider this...if Obama decided to close Guantanamo, how long do you think it would be before that decision would be reversed by Congress? He would never succeed at such a thing. Even Democrats can not agree on this issue. I think it would take less than 24 hours before that decision would be reversed by Congress.

So...in the long run..
1. He would never succeed.
2. It would cost him the election.

So he would have risked everything for something that he could not even accomplish. And hurt all of us in the process. And we would be stuck with a Republican in the White House for 4 years (at least)...and we would all be saying to ourselves...why didn't we foresee the consequences of this?

Without public support, Guantanamo is not going to be able to be closed...no matter what we want or Obama wants, or what is right. This is not about what is the right thing to do, it is about what is possible. It's simply not possible. Public opinion is opposed to it.

[Skittles]

50. WTF

his job is to make the American people understand WHY IT IS WRONG

[DemocratAholic]

54. i wish that were possible

we live in a country with people who don't even think people have a right to access basic health care.
51% of Republican primary voters believe Obama was born in another country.
20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, on top of 43% who "don't know" what religion he is.

we live in a country with millions of people don't even know that Spain is located in Europe. who can't locate the Pacific Ocean on a map.

We are a country filled with idiots! And they vote! You expect Obama to overcome that massive ignorance...not to mention prejudice, bigotry, etc...and make people understand that closing Guantanamo is the right thing to do?

i admire your faith in Obama to educate or persuade the American public on this issue.

[tblue]

57. It would be nice if he TRIED.

[Capitalocracy]

58. That's not even true.

"we live in a country with people who don't even think people have a right to access basic health care."

This statement is false. Polls have shown a very strong majority DO favor universal access to health care. Those people were ignored, and the Republican/MSM propaganda machine cut deeply into those numbers, but the majority is still in favor in most polls. The problem is that the government doesn't actually represent us.

[DemocratAholic]

63. my point was...

that we are a country that can not even agree on the most basic moral principles...i.e., the right to access health care. i didn't give a percentage, and i don't know what percent of people believe what. the point was simply that is has been a struggle in this country even to do away with something as simple as denying people the right to see a doctor. yes, i would hope most people believe we have a right to access health care...even out of their own selfishness needs. but clearly it has been a struggle and now Republicans have campaigned and won on doing away with health care reform. that is an example of what we have to contend with...the American electorate.

[No Elephants]

90. You are conflating a "right" with "desirable in my personal world view."

If something is a "right," you can sue if you do not receive it.

And add Obama and Democrats in Congress to those who don't believe health care is a right, or it would have been Medicare for all that passed by reconiliation, instead of the health insurance, bug PHRMA and big health providers bail out bill.

"now Republicans have campaigned and won on doing away with health care reform. that is an example of what we have to contend with...the American electorate."

Given the bill Dems passed, small wonder. Who says the same would have happened if Dems had gone for Medicare for all, or even the promised strong public option? Or ended our involvemet in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or otherwise acted like Dems??

nAnd guess who stayed away from polls in Mass. in January, 2010 and November, 2010. And why. More than one way to lose an election.


Btw, ever ask yourself why, with hcr still pending, the DNC did not give Coakley support and Obama did not ome to Mass. until the Sunday nite just before the Tuesday of the election? By then, Brown had a 20+ point lead and hardly any time was left. Almost until he flew up here, the WH was saying, "President Obama has no plans to go to Massachusetts.

The offiial story was she did not ask the DNC for help and assured everyone she was okay. Even if true....Seriously? The DNC and WH never checked a poll in this pivotal race?

[No Elephants]

89. So, Republicons are smart enough to get lies across, but Dems are not smart enough to get truth

across?

And please don't tell me how Rethugs own all media. Dems could have required breakup of those monopolies when they controlled Congress. Or Dems could have done some acquiring of their own.

Dems make endless excuses for Dems doing the same things for which we so soundly and unhesitatingly condemned Republicons. Meanwhile, our Constitution suffers.

[Doctor_J]

126. So why pander to them?

you think that if he resumes torture the Fox Lies viewers will suddenly come around?

[No Elephants]

88. But how could a sitting President ever manage to get his voice heard?

[JonLP24]

70. Think of the consequences

of a Republican in charge with this kind of power. You may think Obama will do the right thing, denying detainees the right to challenge their detention, but he isn't going to be in charge forever.

[Heywood J]

71. Public support is almost never naturally behind a war, either.

But that doesn't stop them from going off every five years or so.

[alp227]

44. well then enjoy having Mike Huckabee as president in 2012?

while i disapprove of this decision unfortunately this is what obama has to do to avoid non-stop "Obama is soft on terrorism" ads in 2012 a la "Dukakis is soft on crime" ads in 1988.

Addressing the issue of terrorism/fed courts, how many terrorists have been successfully tried in the military system? THREE! One (Ali Hamza al-Bahlul) of whom is serving life, the other (David Hicks) served only 9 months and released by the end of 2007 for material support. Salim Hamdan (Osama's driver) also left by Dec. 2008 for material support and got credit for time served from his undefined detention from five years earlier. Meanwhile, charges were dropped for Benyam Mohammed and Mohamed Jawad.

Here's some terrorists successfully convicted in federal court:
- Timothy McVeigh
- Eric Rudolph
- Zacarias Moussaoui (planner of 9/11)
- Richard C. Reid (shoe bomber)

Sadly, the American voting electorate votes more emotionally rather than on the facts. And yet the New Hampshire Speaker of the House associates that only with LIBERALS when discussing the attempt to restrict college students from voting?

[MannyGoldstein]

73. So we need to be Republicans

To prevent Republicans from gaining power.

OK, we've tried that for 30 years, I don't think it's working out. Time for a new plan.

[No Elephants]

98. +1. Very well said!

[No Elephants]

91. Indefinite detention eliminates the need for pesky trials. Annd what Manny Goldstein said. Besides

Obama is not the only Dem in America.

[alp227]

106. i should've said Ahmed Ghailani too n/t

[tavalon]

48. Those with deep scruples rarely get as far as fast or ever as Obama did

Had I had a braincell left in my brain when I was walking precincts, I might not be so shocked now. With few exceptions, politicians lie. I used to say that if a Republican had his mouth open, he was lying or fellating a big money donor. I still say it, I'm just less likely to limit it to the Rethugs.

Politics = poli (many) tics (blood sucking creatures).

I hate, hate, hate that I believed in this man. It was easier to deal with the lies and the malfeasance when it came from the BFEE. They would walk right up and say, I'm a fucker and you are the fuckee and I don't give a hoot whether you care or not. We're all still getting fucked here, albeit maybe with a little lube and a smooth demeanor.

[sudopod]

52. I feel you.

It would only take a few minutes with Google to prove how badly we were smitten with the man.

If the best the President's ardent supporters comes up with is "But Palin/Huckabee/etc", then maybe the people of this country do not deserve democracy any more. "A Republic, if you can keep it" Ben Franklin once said.

What people can remain free if they are willing to sacrifice their fellows on the altar of expediency? We are not most of us foreign or Muslim, but many of us hold unpopular opinions, and all of us will be old one day. You can't tell by its color whose blood it is that stains that evil altar. There is no god or power that has ordained that we will be spared. If we stand idly by for these travesties, then our appointed day will come too.

The question is whether or not the ballot box can save us now.

[Capitalocracy]

65. Name me a government that committed human rights abuses

against a certain group of people (like Muslims, in our case) that didn't do exactly the same to dissidents and scholars.

We need to fight not just for our fellow man, but for ourselves.

[Enthusiast]

78. What you say is true. nt

[No Elephants]

97. Don't blame the victims.

"The question is whether or not the ballot box can save us now."

Well, if Diebold doesn't,the Supremes will. Oh, wait....

[sudopod]

100. If we can't win an election in the US because our ideas are unpopular

with a platform of halting the spread of preventable disease, keeping old people from starving and not torturing people, then do we really have a chance?

I don't care how much the bad guys advertise. If the US accepts hunger, poverty, and cruelty as American values, if we can do nothing to stop our friends and neighbors from doing so, then our time as a free country is at an end...presuming, of course, that our propaganda ever matched reality.

[No Elephants]

111. iWho lost on that platform?

[sudopod]

117. :3 nt

[tavalon]

102. You speak of black box voting?

No, that won't save us, even if it weren't as corrupt as those it selects. A bloody revolution? Nope, that won't either. The whole damn country going on strike and hitting the streets and then, only then, we'll get our Republic back, probably in less than 30 days. That or they take down curtains and we see what we really have and what we really have is looking pretty damn Orwellian. It pretty much hinges on whether every worker, whether out of work or not, whether taught to believe that they are white collar when they damn well aren't, stand together against the oligarchy. It will happen but I wonder if we will get to have much say in how it happens.

[tavalon]

118. I know I was smitten and taken for a ride

I am not pleased but neither am I an amnesiac.

[pecwae]

80. Yes, but getting

fucked by our own is somehow supposed to make us feel better about it.

[tavalon]

103. You'de think it, huh?

At least I don't cringe when I hear him speak or when I see his face or the faces of his family. Such a small plus. I'm still getting screwed and I don't know about you, but I'm getting a bit raw.

[tblue]

56. AMEN! Not one incidence of torture or death is worth his effing political career!

I don't give a damn about that man's career. Not anymore!!! Mr. Expedience has no decent principles and, really, if you don't, what else matters?

[sudopod]

59. +1 nt

[Capitalocracy]

55. When he made that promise to close Gitmo,

he won an election.

Didn't stop him in 2008, why would it stop him now? It was a winning strategy then, why change it now?

We KNOW Obama can win an election being against torture and indefinite detention. What we do NOT know is whether he can win an election being in favor of them.

Which one do you think is more likely?

[Enthusiast]

76. I understand your argument.

If the opposition didn't so thoroughly control the media maybe Obama could act as a reasonable man. But, faced with the realities of Reich Wing media he has to behave like he's another G H W Bush son.

[No Elephants]

86. Please see Reply 62,

"Should we expect Obama to throw away his chances for re-election by doing the right thing?"

You are are assuming that institutionalizing indefinite detention is necesary to his re-election. Oh, and, yes, his re-election should not be his primary concern anyway. And certainly not ours. What's the point of electing someone willing to do the wrong thing for his own advancement once, let alone twice? Is he the only Dem?

"You would have people from the Republican side saying very provocative things. Trying to instill fear in people."

So? They always do that, regardless of what Dems do or don't do. If Dems fold--and should--whenever Republicons MAY say something bad about them, we will really have a one-party system--which we've been headed toward since the Nixon and Reagan landslide elections anyway.

[primavera]

92. He's got the bully pulpit

He could try using it to counter the disinformation.

[FedUpWithIt All]

34. What a complete disappointment he is.

He could have done so much. It all makes so little sense, i often feel left with no other conclusion than the sinking feeling that we've been played. x(

[NuclearDem]

35. FFFFFUUUUUUUUU

[PatrynXX]

37. So much for a whole ton of jobs for one town in IL

bye bye jobs. look at repukes for stopping it. and obama for not putting his foot down..

[taught_me_patience]

38. FTS

Fuck this Shit. That is all.

[madrchsod]

40. oh well...who else can we vote for?

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. No-one who could win a national election, I fear

As people say, Obama could have made this his 'last stand' against Congress - attack the Republicans and some Democrats who have refused to allow normal trials on the mainland United States for the people held in Guantanamo. But it looks as though they think their seats are safe (the mid-term elections point to right wing positions having become more, not less, electable since 2008), and so they probably would have refused to cave.

So I doubt Obama would have changed anything by fighting more. He would, however, have given opponents a "he's weak - he can't even get Democrats to do what he wants" talking point. He had the choice of drawing attention to that by making it a big fight, or keeping it quieter, like this.

[No Elephants]

99. Good grief.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. Yeah, but what can you do against a 90-6 vote in the Senate?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/close-guantanamo-funding-senate-obama

And then they made it even more difficult to shut down Guantanamo:

Accomplishing that goal would be more difficult under the defense authorization bill. One of its provisions bans using its funds to transfer into the United States any Guantánamo detainee this fiscal year — even for the purpose of prosecution.

A second provision bans the purchase or construction of any facility inside the United States for housing detainees now being held at Guantánamo. The administration has proposed acquiring a prison in Thomson, Ill., for the purpose of holding several dozen detainees it says are too dangerous to release but too difficult to prosecute.

A third provision forbids the transfer of any detainee to another country unless Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates signs off on the safety of doing so. That ban would not apply to any detainees who are ordered released by federal judges.

The administration had urged lawmakers not to pass the restrictions, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. argued that they would be a “dangerous” intrusion on the executive branch’s constitutional powers to make prosecutorial decisions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/us/politics/23gitmo.html?_r=2

[No Elephants]

112. I stand by my prior post. Read the thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. You made about 10 'prior posts'. Which one, apart from 'good grief'?

[TheeHazelnut]

41. Obama might as well kill two birds with one stone...

Use the Guantanamo prisoners as free Teach For America volunteers to put unionized teachers out of work...

[realisticphish]

64. Plus, that way he can go ahead and cut TFA without losing the positions...

[Capitalocracy]

66. If we used our schools as prisons

then the Republicans would never cut their funding.

[plumbob]

42. There goes pretty much the chance for the USA to not be a rogue nation.

Unjust impractical decision driven by political fear that actually makes us weaker in every way.

[Bluebear]

43. Disgrace. nt

[crim son]

46. Well, how to defend this?

And please, let us hear no more about the pressures Obama endures. The shrub faced greater and rolled through it.

Time to face reality.

[tavalon]

47. Thanks Obama,

you've been quite the bit of fun.

[trusty elf]

49. ........

[Solly Mack]

60. Yep

[Solly Mack]

53. K&R

[Ter]

61. And some still say there is no Shadow Government

Bullshit. Obama bows to them like the presidents before him. Oh the last 50 years, only Poppy Bush and perhaps Nixon didn't have to bow.

[Nihil]

81. +1 (n/t)

:-(

[area51]

62. Nice going,

DINO Obama.

[MrMickeysMom]

67. I at least have respect for Jimmy Carter...

... His ahead-of-the-time understanding in peak oil, renewable alternatives for moving us away from Oil addiction and all things related on the terror front COST HIM THE ELECTION in large part.

But, he's lived to prove himself right another day, while deciding to walk the walk.

The question is, if it's too hard to be a black president in the USA and you have to allow torture to continue to save Democracy, then it's time you quit pretending Lincoln was your mentor.

[No Elephants]

104. I would substitute "Dem" for "black," unless you have very hard evidence

that a white Dem DLC/New Dem/Third Way type President would have behaved much differently.

And, remember, he also tried to associate himself with FDR and JFK--and Reagan.

[MrMickeysMom]

122. I purposely used "black" due to my own perception...

... I don't have evidence other than my own to see how fast people were to label Barack Obama as someone who wasn't like them. This has been a race-baiting bunch of Republicans all along and their knuckle dragging social conservatives are falling for all the myths. Instead of a "slick Willy" DLC named Clinton who dealt with a constant uphill battle, Obama's insults and innuendos are laced with code words in the attempt to every day add more injury. I just about vomit daily listening to all the liars talking about Kenya, birthers, people insulting his wife and talking about gorillas.

I also see a very racist electorate. I admired Obama's initial reaction in the face of it. After a very short while, I sensed someone who cannot possibly follow through with what he promised. I feel it's mostly due to race.

While filled with disgust for all I just acknowledged, I can now see why some may have said this nation was not ready for a black president. The conventional wisdom in this thread seems to be that we have an inexhaustible supply of tolerance for what Obama CANNOT do, because of his race.

I say, he must do something wildly different to be a great president, not just a surviving president who happened to be the first black one. We have run out of options because the earth isn't going to forgive what we've done to her and a lot of others living on her are pretty pissed off at us.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DallasNE]

72. Obama Is Left Between A Rock And A Hard Place

These detainees cannot be successfully prosecuted in federal court because all of the evidence was previously contaminated by torture and other extra-legal measures. In other words a Federal Judge would block usage of most evidence due to this contamination. The two choices then would be to keep them where they are or send them back to their country of citizenship. It is amazing that no court challenges the indefinite detention of these prisoners without prospect of trial in any court of law but that has been the case so far. One of those that Bush released was radicalized by the process and is now a wanted terrorist in the Middle-East. That is not a pleasant prospect so the default is what we are seeing played out before our eyes.

[Capitalocracy]

77. Honestly, I'd rather see a terrorist set loose

than witness the death of our democracy.

The rule of law is much more important than the damage the few people who might slip through on technicalities can do. We're not talking about an army here, we're talking about a subset of guilty but unprosecutable individuals among a subset of guilty individuals among a set of largely wrongly imprisoned individuals. And by the way, if we want to prosecute terrorists and have all the evidence be admissible, maybe we shouldn't torture them. And if we want people not to torture them in the future, maybe we should prosecute the ones who do.

[DemocratAholic]

82. i agree 100 percent but...

i totally understand and agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying.

here is the problem. this situation should have been resolved in the courts, not in the political arena. the courts failed to do their job. the laws are clear, and the courts have failed to uphold them.

these detentions are (in my opinion) a violation of international law which the USA is bound by. we have judges and justices who basically do not believe in international law.

so instead of upholding the law, they have sent a very provocative and contentious issue back into the political arena.

there is no winning on this issue. Obama can not say...these detentions are in violation of law, because the courts have already ruled on this issue. it is now settled law...the detentions are considered legal by the US Supreme Court!

for the past month, Obama has been trying to come up with a way to close Guantanamo that would not be reversed on Capitol Hill. He couldn't do it. It was very clear...if he issued an order to close Guantanamo, and moved the detainees onto US soil for trial, the Congress would immediately pass a law to reverse his order.

Listen, I am the first one to criticize Obama when I think he is wrong, and I don't like this situation any more than anyone else. But I am telling you...he TRIED his best to close this hell hole, and he was met with massive resistance on Capitol Hill, not just from Republicans but from Democrats as well.

Obama is not the all-powerful person a lot of people are making him out to be. He is very limited in what he is able to accomplish here. Yes, he could execute an order closing Guantanamo, which would be reversed hours after he issued it, and then make a huge political issue for Republicans in the campaign.

You all are blaming the wrong person here, Obama does not have the power to do this! He is one branch of government, while the other two are lined up against him. He is outnumbered. This executive order, I am very sorry to say, is the best he could do.

I know this is not anything to be proud of, but AT LEAST, there is going to be some kind of trial for these detainees, and I hope and pray some kind of justice will come of it. As I said, it's very unfortunate but at this point in time, it was the best Obama could do.

[theaocp]

83. Let them try and then name names

"for the past month, Obama has been trying to come up with a way to close Guantanamo that would not be reversed on Capitol Hill. He couldn't do it. It was very clear...if he issued an order to close Guantanamo, and moved the detainees onto US soil for trial, the Congress would immediately pass a law to reverse his order."

But that would take political courage and Obama has proven again and again that he goes where (he thinks) the wind is blowing. There's a reelection to be thought of.

[DallasNE]

94. Well Written Response And I Agree

While I agree with the sentiment about the rule of law the law broke down in this instance so Obama was forced to go with the least ugly option. And make no mistake, this is an ugly option.

[lfairban]

105. Yes, there is a way.

He could flat out release all the prisoners, or threaten to do so. I don't think there would be anything congress could do about it.

[Capitalocracy]

109. You're saying Congress would overturn it on their own

overriding a presidential veto? Or are we just so used to Obama rolling over that we assume he would sign such a law?

As someone else already pointed out, if that's what Obama wanted to do, he should've done it, and if Congress was going to pass a law (by overriding a veto) then force them to do it. I wouldn't be surprised if enough Dems turncoated to pass such a law, but I would be a little bit surprised if enough Dems voted to override a veto. And if they do, let it be on their heads. In this case, Obama made this decision unilaterally. And don't put words in his mouth blaming Congress. I'm sure if you asked him, he'd tell you he's doing what he's doing because it's what he thinks he should do.

[No Elephants]

113. You say you agree with the post. If that is true, the rest of your reply makes no sense.

It is Obama who has the authority to free prisoners.

"Obama is not the all-powerful person a lot of people are making him out to be. He is very limited in what he is able to accomplish here. Yes, he could execute an order closing Guantanamo, which would be reversed hours after he issued it, and then make a huge political issue for Republicans in the campaign"]

There is a huge difference between not having the power to do something and choosing not to do something because you fear, rightly or wrongly, that it might hurt your political career. And, if the Commander in Chief ordered Guantanamo closed, who could "reverse" him?

does not have the power to do this! He is one branch of government," Yes, he does have Obama does not have the power. He is the only branch of government that is Chief Executive, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and in exclusive charge of our relations with other nations.

the other two are lined up against him." Are you sure? You know what goes on between him, Reid and Pelosi behind the stenes ?

Besides, courts have not lined up against him. They have ruled as his D of J asked them to rule, namely, the identical way Bushco asked them to rule. If you were a federal judge, impervious to being thrown out of office for your mistakes and not involved in high level briefings, how arrogant would you have to be to ignore what two Presidents have said is necessary in order for them to be able to keep Americans safe? Besides, I am not recalling any court's holding that Gitmo has to stay open.

"This executive order, I am very sorry to say, is the best he could do." Nope.

[coalition_unwilling]

96. Actually, at worst, they would be only 'alleged terrorists' and the

allegations were provided by bounty hunters and, for God's sake, I thought letters of marque went out of style back in, oh, the 18th century.

What-the-fuck-ever. Not mad at you, just disgusted at Obama's two-facedness and mealy-mouthedness.

[No Elephants]

115. Oh, please.

If the POTUS were truly as helpless/choiceless as those making excuses for Obama claim, why did Bush do so well with his agenda, even after 2006--and why does Obama use the might of the U.S. to defend Dummya from a Spanish judge?

And why has Obama taken the same position as Bushco in the court cases? (Which may help explain why courts continue to defer to the Executives in matters of perceived national security. See Reply 113 on the court issue.)

"One of those that Bush released was radicalized by the process and is now a wanted terrorist in the Middle-East."

GREAT argument for ending Bush practices, instead of trying to legitimize and validate them via an EO signed by a Dem President and taking Bush's position in court cases.

Whenever Dems criticized the Iraq invasion and the WOT before 2008, Republicons pointed out Dems had voted for them. Now, Cheney points out a Dem administration is doing the same things Bushco did. And Al Qaeeda can point out the same thing when it recruits.

"These detainees cannot be successfully prosecuted in fedo eral court because all of the evidence was previously contaminated by torture and other extra-legal measures."

If the only so-called evidence against them was obtained by torture, maybe they're innocent?

We've let dangerous, guilty people go bc no one read them Mirandas. Why?

To deter government from behaving illegally the next time, knowing it cannot gain anything, even a conviction from behaving illegally.

Why? Because we once thought preserving our constitutional rights was worth something.

I recall Republicons making excuses for what Dummya did or did not do. However, I don't remember any of them claiming he had no power or choice but to take the course in question. IMo, all these "he has no power" excuses make Obama seem a lot lamer than he actually is.

[Loki]

74. I thought I was electing a leader

but, we have no leaders anymore.

[Frank Cannon]

75. WHY? Why is he doing this?

Is this supposed to help out his friends on Wall Street? Is this supposed to help endear him to our Republican and Teabagger friends? It. Will. Never. Happen.

Or is this another one of those twelfth-dimensional chess moves that I'm just not smart enough to understand?

[No Elephants]

84. "to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened" LOLOLOL.

[LeFleur1]

87. Is There Anything At All This Guy Would Fight For?

There has been nothing so far. He caved on the public option before it was even brought up.
I can't think of anything he valued enough to stand against those opposing it.

It isn't that he loses on every issue that matters, it's that he slides away from it, gives up. He is the wrong person for this time in our history. A good future for the USA depended on a strong leader after the Bush debacle. Maybe even someone who would bulldoze ahead on the right issues. Obama may be a nice man. He may bring people together in the community, he may be valuable to society...but not as President. His personality isn't suited for what is needed now.

I won't vote for him again. People say he's better than Palin or Huckabee or Romney, but is he? If a person says they want one thing but they aren't willing to fight for it, it doesn't matter which party backs away. This country is in trouble. Someone besides those in Wisconsin and their supporters has to stand up.

Are there no leaders in America who are interested in moving the country toward the goals of our forefathers? Is everyone just after the government job? That's the impression our representatives, senators and presidents have been giving.

[Shining Jack]

124. "Is There Anything at All This Guy Would Fight For?"

He's fighting a lot to widen the income gap between rich and poor.

[SOS]

95. Life in prison without trial is now "our values"?

If that's the case, this country is in deep trouble.

[sudopod]

101. damn straight. nt

[Turborama]

119. Why was/is this being ignored? "Montana town offers to take Gitmo prisoners"

Montana town offers to take Gitmo prisoners

Hardin is scrambling to find inmates after building the $27 million facility

updated 5/29/2009 5:51:29 PM ET

HARDIN, Mont. — On Capitol Hill, politicians are dead-set against transferring some of the world's most feared terrorists from Guantanamo to prisons on U.S. soil. But at City Hall in this impoverished town on the Northern Plains, the attitude is: Bring 'em on.

Hardin, a dusty town of 3,400 people so desperate that it built a $27 million jail a couple of years ago in the vain hope it would be a moneymaker, is offering to house hundreds of Gitmo detainees at the empty, never-used institution.

The medium-security jail was conceived as a holding facility for drunks and other scofflaws, but town leaders said it could be fortified with a couple of guard towers and some more concertina wire. Apart from that, it is a turnkey operation, fully outfitted with everything from cafeteria trays and sweatsocks to 88 surveillance cameras.

"Holy smokes — the amount of soldiers and attorneys it would bring here would be unbelievable," Clint Carleton said as he surveyed his mostly empty restaurant, Three Brothers Pizza. "I'm a lot more worried about some sex offender walking my streets than a guy that's a world-class terrorist. He's not going to escape, pop into the IGA (supermarket), grab a six-pack and go sit in the park."

Full article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003984/ns/us_news-life/

Even Faux reported on it at the time: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/23/montana-town-wants-jail-new-guantanamo-bay">Montana Town Wants Its Empty Jail to Be the New Guantanamo Bay

[24601]

121. That would be President Barak Walker Obama, n/t