Senior DOJ Reporter (Pete Williams): Obama NOT To Pursue Indefinite Detentions

[jefferson_dem]

Senior DOJ Reporter: Obama NOT To Pursue Indefinite Detentions
by ShadowSD

BREAKING - Senior DOJ Reporter: Obama NOT To Pursue Indefinite Detentions
Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 10:52:21 AM PDT

Big news on The Chris Matthews show today from NBC Justice correspondent Pete Williams:

Williams - "The Obama administration's review of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay has yet to find a single detainee who needs needs to be held indefinitely, and their feeling now is they may only have two categories: those to be released, and those to be put on trial. This third category of people that have to be held forever? That may simply not exist."

Matthews - "In otherwords, we can either prove a criminal case against somebody, or we let them go?"

Williams - "Yes."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/12/752666/-BREAKINGSenior-DOJ-Correspondent:-Obama-NOT-To-Pursue-Indefinite-Detentions

[babylonsister]

1. Well, well, well, so all that teeth gnashing was for nothing? nt

[jefferson_dem]

2. Provided this report is accurate...Yes.

Hopefully, all the knee-jerk reactionary teeth gnashers will be proven ... wrong.

[monmouth]

3. Again...n/t

[Kaleko]

9. Outrageoholics provide a valuable service to society.

1) They teach the rest of us how not to proceed.

2) In cases where outrage is justified, they can lead the screaming & gnashing brigades.

[MoJoWorkin]

10. Pete Williams is one of the better reporters on legal matters.

He is more cautious than most, and seems to get it right more often than not.

[grantcart]

17. well it substitutes for mandatory practice which was called for 7 pm

now they can all go out and get snowcones early!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. JD, you simply find the juiciest morsels to counteract all the fear & rumor mongering...

that happens at DU daily. You (and others) provide such a valuable service for rational progressives. Somehow, I knew that this president, being a constitutional scholar would come to a fair & equitable decision. I hope, for all our sakes, Pete has this one right.

[Fire1]

6. It doesn't matter if sources are credible and JD was

an eyewitness, trolls and jackoffs are lurking at every turn to piss on a poster's parade. It's what they do best.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. I couldn't agree more. For awhile, it was just depressing to login day after day...

and see the incessant barrage of attacks leveled at this administration. I think I finally have the worst offenders on Ignore, which makes my DU experience a little less vomit-inducing.

[DevonRex]

13. I left for 2 solid months and a wee bit more because of the incessant attacks.

At one point I decided that just because I couldn't see a post didn't mean it wasn't there. And when I emptied my ignore list and started reading all those disgusting posts again, I realized that I couldn't tell anybody to come to DU for information anymore.

And when I realized I couldn't do that, I wondered why I myself came here. I am back now because of the unrecommend feature. At least the unfounded attacks aren't on the first page anymore. I'm hoping that it will make people fact check a little more before posting inflammatory BS and that correct information will be more readily available to us all.

[Fire1]

16. I know what you mean, DevonRex and Tarheel Dem. n/t

[DevonRex]

42. I am much more positive after my break. It seems that a lot happened

while I was gone. I don't know the details but I can tell you that the board is more pleasant now than it was at the end of April/1st of May.

[firedupdem]

20. hey DevonRex...

missed you here. I've been laying low myself. It's sickening to read nothing but attacks day in and out. Glad you are back.

[DevonRex]

34. Thanks firedupdem. I think that maybe we'll have a better board now

with this unrec thingy. I don't hate the posters that attack all the time. I just hate it when dems swallow every attack piece as if they're true, since most of the time those pieces are debunked within a week or so.

Dems should know better, right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. I've been at DU for a lot of years, but I resisted using the Ignore feature..

until this last election cycle. When the primaries had ended, I thought it would be safe. Boy was I wrong. I have relegated the offenders to the Iggy Dungeon for good now, and it's much more pleasant. There are a couple I haven't placed on Ignore, but it's just because their hatred is just so amusing at this point.

And I'm with you, I wouldn't invite a friend or family member to visit here right now.

[Jennicut]

27. I have never used ignore before but I am getting very tempted to

for one particular poster

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. I think I can guess who it might be. And your blood pressure will love you for it.

;-)

[Jennicut]

29. LOL. I swore I would never do it because I like to see the board as it is

for good or for bad but I almost cannot take it anymore.

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. I know the feeling. I took it as long as I could, and determined that if I...

were gonna continue to use DU as a progressive resource, I'd have to do it without input from a number of posters. Sad, but true.

[DevonRex]

40. Can you imagine what a recent convert to our party would think

when they read this board? But I have to say that I now have hope that maybe the attacks will slow down. After all, how many times can a person post inflammatory BS, have it debunked, and then post more inflammatory BS that is quickly debunked? Surely they would learn from it eventually...

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. Nothing deters a couple of the worst haters. I honestly think it's their full time job...

"how many times can a person post inflammatory BS, have it debunked, and then post more inflammatory BS that is quickly debunked?"

I ask you to really think about that question, and I bet we come up with the same two names.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Responded to wrong post. Self-Delete.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Nice find. There's still more to do, to get fully back to rule-of-law, but this is good.

[Raine1967]

8. Thank you!

Once again, I decided to sit and wait a few days before commenting on this story-- and I see again that things might not be as bad as they were presented.

Provided this is true, and I tend to think this is -- I respect Pete Williams.

I just cannot abide by knee jerk reactions anymore. When Obama is wrong, according to how I feel, I will say so, But time and time again, I am learning that it is best to sit back and watch before forming an opinion. I will not dump here on DU, because quite honestly, I don't like being wrong :P

THANKS!

[DevonRex]

11. Wonderful post. Thank you. Wonder if any here will admit they were wrong?

Of course not. What was I thinking?

[HopeOverFear]

12. Thank you, Jesus

[jefferson_dem]

18. Shushh.... Call him President...

We only refer to him as "the J word" in the "disciples only" club. :hide:

[HopeOverFear]

19. ...

:rofl:

[vaberella]

39. bwaahahahahahaha!!!

:rofl: I need a Jesus/Obama emoticon.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. As I said before "keeping the option open" was their way of saying...

Look Congress is being a bunch of assholes and won't appropriate the money to shut down GITMO so we had to give them some kind of broad assurance.

[mvd]

15. This weekend HAS been good for the Constitution

K&R

[Cha]

21. Thank you, JeffersonDem.. the

statement that said they were going to hold them "indefinetly" didn't make any sense.

If it doesn't compute with what I know about the Obama admin then afaic it's false until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, otherwise.

[SpartanDem]

24. There's been rumbling about this for awhile

Holder said in a hearing some weeks agothat this was a possibility

[scheming daemons]

25. Hmmm... I know several posters that won't even come close to responding to this thread

[vaberella]

37. Ditto. n/t

[Jennicut]

26. Oh he will change his mind. He is a total liar, right?

:sarcasm:
He is Bush part two, at least that is the way if feels after reading 3 different posts by the same poster.

[Senator]

30. Sorry, But This Is "Obama Prevented From Pursuing Preventative Detention."

...due to a lack of available potential victims...

...at the moment.

This is no display of principle or a commitment to abide by, uphold, and enforce the laws and treaty obligations our greater generations fought and died to forge.

He failed that test when he refused to reject the option out of hand.

---

[chill_wind]

41. Sounds like you actually went to the link

and read the whole discussion.

[jefferson_dem]

44. As opposed to...

paying attention to the facts.

[chill_wind]

46. No. As opposed to blind faithfully accepting that all the facts are available, reliable, or even

vaguely final.

[Senator]

53. Actually, no. I didn't.

I just read the phrase "has yet to find" for what it actually means.

And have read (and remembered) what http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/21/obama/index.html">Obama has actually said.

--

[HamdenRice]

31. But, but, but that conflicts with my impregnable, counter-factual view that Obama is just like Bush!

Therefore the story cannot be right. We need to impeach Obama NOW on the basis of things that I know he will do in the future even though he only says he won't do them !!11!@!

:sarcasm:

[Laurab]

47. LOL!

:rofl:

[Peacetrain]

32. Excellent news..I never had a doubt

[Beetwasher]

33. How Many Times Doe This Have To Happen Before PEOPLE FINALLY FUCKING GET IT?

How many times do we have to see reports come out about some alleged Obama position on something that seems at first glance to be outrageous only to find out at some later point that it was bullshit?

How many times?

[vaberella]

36. Dunno...but I'm surprised we're not having a shortage of crows with so many eating it all the time.

nt

[Peacetrain]

38. If they happen to pass through, I have some salt for them to go with that crow

[vaberella]

35. You see this is the shit that pisses me off.

People spent so much time talking about how Obama will do this or that. And his Spokesman said specifically a few weeks ago that they have had not heard back from their council who is to give advice on what to do. Yet, so many on this board were going butt ass crazy and pulling up a WSJ article I believe that was basically an op-ed piece and using old information as though it were fact. I'm fed up with that. I'd sooner listen and wait for the Admin to come out with stuff than unnamed sources.

However in relation to this, I knew it would happen and I love my Pres. I support him fully and his endeavors and he has yet to fail me.

[chill_wind]

45. And yet, vaberella you would treat as gospel a Dkos poster citing a quote

from a TV reporter, citing anonymous sources in the Admin as some final set of facts-- while condemning that very thing on the part of others.

"I'd sooner listen and wait for the Admin to come out with stuff than unnamed sources. "

Really, then?

And for extra richness, for hours yesterday after this was posted and commented on, there wasn't even a single source or link in that kos poster's diary until someone there finally demanded at least a link to the reporter's clip.

Apparently, demanding and exacting journalistic standards and scrupulously sourced and directly named authorities are only elastic requirements-- when a few here see fit.

It's true that this story has been fraught with speculation and poorly sourced reporting at times for many weeks, but the reporting and interest and tremendous controversy among legal groups and experts, civil liberties and other human rights groups wasn't limited to just some "DU thing" touched off by the WSJ. And shame on all those here attempting to pretend it is.


edited for self-correction

[vaberella]

52. True enough. However, it's consistent with what the President's Spokesman said.

semi, considering the Spokesman also said they were waiting on the council to respond on what actions need to be taken. Next this was on public news which could be easily checked and rectified considering the role and position of the speaker on Tweety's show. The post is met with a video statement.

[Soylent Brice]

43. kick

[SeaLyons]

48. That's good news...

restores my faith.

K&R

[Adir Pykhtin]

49. We tend to believe the journalists who say the things we want to hear

If journalist X says, "Obama is considering this," then we ask for patience and we ask for corroboration from the White House.
If Journalist Y says "journalist X was wrong," then we do not ask for patience or corroboration from the White House.

[RememberWellstone]

50. Too bad

We need to prosecute criminals no matter who they are...especially Bush!!:mad:

[GOTV]

51. I don't see why Obama should have this choice...

... "The Obama administration's review of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay has yet to find a single detainee who needs needs to be held indefinitely"

It is immoral to hold someone indefinitely without a trial.

Not being able to find someone commit a human rights violation against is not the same as being against human rights violations.

Jelly headed Matthews didn't catch it though.

[Snazzy]

56. look, up in the sky, another trial balloon

Or I'll see your ping and raise you a pong.

When they actually do something, you suppose we will hear about it?

Meantime I also suppose it still sucks to be extrajudicial in gitmo, still. With less torture we hope.