Gitmo EO: Pete King Commends the Obama admin. "It affirms Bush Admin Policy."

[chill_wind]

Republican lawmakers praised the president’s order on Guantanamo, and claiming that the new executive order vindicated the much-maligned President George W. Bush. Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, stated,

"I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order," the Post reported. "The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities."

http://www.huliq.com/10473/obama-flip-flops-guantanamo-bay-trials-will-resume


Obama creates formal Gitmo detention rules
Military commission trials set to begin
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
By Peter Finn, The Washington Post

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11067/1130465-84.stm#ixzz1G245L2XF

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

2. The pukes are happy with him.

Many pukes at this site still are, too.

[Horse with no Name]

4. I wish DU had a "like" button! n/t

[Horse with no Name]

3. Yep. And that moral ground we stood on is now quicksand.

Disgusting that an evil racist bastard like King even recognizes it.

[RandomThoughts]

5. Without due process.

How do you know they are dangerous?

That is a claim to right of edict.

And if done in secret, how would people know the due process is not bias?

That is a claim for two tier justice.



So such a claim, regardless of suspect, becomes a claim to dictatorial state powers, against concepts of justice, and probably against compassion considering the usage, and actions during those times.


And so they join with 'no justice' and anarchy, and are being tapped out.

It is really easy to understand.

And if the corporate system supports that, they get tapped out also, if they offer something like PR or misinformation to try and defend that.

[Vincardog]

6. This can not stand. IT undermines every 'right'. How can this EO come from a "Democratic' President?

[ProSense]

7. Pete King is full of shit. Human Rights Watch:

US: Indefinite Detention Authorized but Restricted

Military Commission Trials to Resume

(Washington, DC) - A new Obama administration executive order pertaining to Guantanamo detainees held under purported "law-of-war" detention provides an additional layer of review not previously available. However, the order also continues the practice of indefinite detention without trial, a practice that violates international law, Human Rights Watch said today.

The executive order, issued on March 7, 2011, allows detainees the administration claims are too dangerous to release, but is unwilling to prosecute, the ability to challenge their detention before a new Periodic Review Board. Detainees covered by the order will be subject to an initial review within one year under a standard of whether they pose a threat to the security of the US.
Detainees will be able to submit documentary evidence every six months, but will only go before the full panel once every three years. They will be assigned a "representative" by the military but are able to be represented by counsel of their choice at no cost to the government.

While these new provisions are an improvement over the current system, which does not have such a review, the use by the US of indefinite detention without trial still fails to meet the most basic elements of due process under international law, Human Rights Watch said. Importantly however, the order only applies to detainees currently held at Guantanamo and not to anyone who might be captured in the future, a significant limitation given calls for sweeping detention authority by critics of the administration.

"Is added review an improvement? Yes. Does it make US detention policies lawful? No,"

more

Flawed policy doesn't make it Bush's policy.

[no limit]

8. Is added review an improvement? Yes. Does it make US detention policies lawful? No

well okay then. A small improvement makes everything just peachy.

[ProSense]

9. " A small improvement makes everything just peachy."

Here is what I said: Flawed policy doesn't make it Bush's policy.

How the fuck did "flawed" become "peachy"?

[no limit]

13. It's not just flawed, it's illegal

[ProSense]

15. Let me repeat:

How the fuck did "flawed" become "peachy"?

[no limit]

20. It didn't.

I guess I'm so used to you defending this administration at every corner that's what I assumed you were doing when you posted an article saying that things are better with this EO.

Now let me repeat: It's not just flawed, it's illegal. When someone does something illegal what name do we usually apply to them? I think it starts with a "c" and ends with a "l", you can fill in the blanks.

[ProSense]

29. "Now let me repeat: It's not just flawed, it's illegal."

And it's still not Bush's policy. But hey, go ahead and hang on to this racist asshole's words if it's comforting.

[no limit]

33. I'm in agreement with you. You are 100% correct. It is no longer Bush's policy, it's Obama's

and it is 100% illegal. What do we call people that do illegal things?

[ProSense]

36. It was never Bush's policy.

Stop thinking like Pete King. He has an ulterior motive.

[no limit]

38. Indefinite detention without trial wasn't a Bush policy?

That's not what I remember.

[sabrina 1]

34. So, for years and years they can now jump through

more useless hoops without any hope of ever succeeding.

Are you aware that the vile Military Commissions Act is still in force in this so-called Democracy? This was one major reason why many people actually voted for Democrats, to restore Habeas Corpus, and to return to some semblance of a law-abiding country.

Just what in that article addresses any of these concerns? It's typical, a crumb or two to make it look like there is some improvement on some of the most vile laws this country has ever passed and we are supposed to be thrilled with this?

You will need a lot more than that to convince any person who respects the U.S. Constitution that this is acceptable in any way.

In fact, it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who voted for this administration in the hope that the damage done to this country by the totalitarian Bush administration, might begin to be repaired.

[AKDavy]

10. I am ashamed nt

[FLPanhandle]

11. I have to believe Obama struggled with this one.

First off, I believed him when he said he wanted to close Guantanamo as a candidate.
Secondly, as president now he has access to information he didn't then (and info we don't have).

I suspect that information is what has swayed him from his desire to get rid of the Guantanamo prison.

Not that I agree with this decision, but just trying to understand the change in policy.

[no limit]

12. You don't think everything Bush ever did can be justified using the same bullshit excuse?

[FLPanhandle]

16. I don't think Bush ever even gave it a thought

Like I said, I don't agree with it, but something changed.

[no limit]

18. Yeah, something did change. Obama needed to start running for re-election

the idea that these people have super secret information that they can't share with us but it justifies them breaking laws simply doesn't pass the smell test.

[FLPanhandle]

22. The alternative is that he was lying and never intended to close it.

I'm as big a cynic as the next guy, but I think he believed he could close Guantanamo. Now he doesn't.

So, either he never intended to, or he learned something.

[no limit]

24. Or he was simply naive and didn't know what he was talking about

there is always that. Which I'm not sure is all that much better than he was lying.

[Bluebear]

19. Something changed the moment he was sworn in. nt

[Raksha]

25. More and more I believe that so-called urban legend about the Kennedy video.

That either just before or just after Obama's inauguration, he was shown a classified video of JFK's assassination (possibly from the grassy knoll?) and then asked, "Any questions?"

Re "Something changed the moment he was sworn in."

In over two years, I have never been able to shake the feeling that he's being threatened.

[sabrina 1]

35. I guess Bush was just 'protecting us' also. He too had access

information we did not have. That is why he pushed for Constitution destroying laws, laws now still in effect and likely to stay in effect, like the Habeas Corpus destroying law Obama is now USING to allow this travesty to go forward.

Since when is this country's Constitution not enough to protect this country? I'd like to ask this president, who is a Constitutional lawyer, so has even less excuse than his predecessor to continue to abuse it.

[FLPanhandle]

43. "Since when is this country's Constitution not enough to protect this country?"

Good Question. One I'd like to hear an answer to also.

[ProSense]

14. Radical Islamophobe Activist Advising Rep. Peter King Explains His ‘Muslim Messenger’ Strategy

Radical Islamophobe Activist Advising Rep. Peter King Explains His ‘Muslim Messenger’ Strategy

On Thursday, Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY) will open his investigation into the American Muslim community. The hearings, ostensibly about America’s terrorist threats, are narrowly targeted at Muslims. King has refused to broaden the investigation into other well-documented terrorist groups, like the “Sovereign Citizen” movement. In fact, King has promoted his hearings in the media with inflammatory rhetoric, declaring there are “too many mosques” in the country and that Muslims aren’t American when it comes to war.

<...>

UPDATE Reporting on a tip from a reader, Politico noted this morning that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) worked with Sen. Joe McCarthy's (R-WI) counsel when King was a young lawyer. McCarthy counsel Roy Cohn, who helped prepare for the senator for his witch hunt hearings, later worked at the firm Saxe, Bacon & Bolan with King.

King deserves the exposure.

[DaisyDeedles]

21. What does that have to do with the original subject of this thread? nt

[ProSense]

26. It has to do with

Peter King being full of shit. I'm not inclined to hype racists Republicans' bullshit opinions that seek to cover for the Bush administration and obscure their own hateful actions.

[DaisyDeedles]

37. Oh. Okay.

:crazy:

[ProSense]

39. Yes, hyping a comment that Bush was right will make your eyes spin.

Bush was right is not the message. I'd prefer to hype this:

Think Progress: Rand Paul And Mike Lee Blast Indefinite Detention: ‘Let’s Go Ahead And Have Trials And Have Justice’

Bush was wrong!

Republicans in 2009: Republicans Decry Guantanamo Detainee Transfer to US

Boehner: Moving Gitmo prisoners to U.S. 'makes no sense' (2010)

Division!

[DaisyDeedles]

42. Umm...

Okay. I'm just going to step away from you now.

(yikes)

[Jakes Progress]

31. Nothing. But it is a way to point somewhere else,

to divert the discussion from the topic, and generally avoid the subject.

[Bluebear]

17. I'm expect he's gratified for the validation.

[Raksha]

23. The most terrifying words I can think of: "It affirms Bush administration policy."

Proof that Obama is NOT on our side, not on the side of democracy or the rule of law or the Constitution.

[Jakes Progress]

28. How about: "Republican lawmakers praised the president’s order"

Doesn't that make you proud?

[Lucky 13]

27. Wow. You know you're doing the right thing when that asshole complements you.

Peter King aligned with Barack Obama.
Now that's something I never anticipated saying.
Ever.

[SOS]

30. Anything that makes King happy is de facto awful

"It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists
through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Barack Obama, November 2008

[Cali_Democrat]

32. He's right

The Obama tax cuts for the wealthy have also affirmed Bush Administration policy.

[chill_wind]

40. A vindication of Dick Cheney. In their own words, "a remarkable continuity."

As early as May, 2009, former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith wrote in The New Republic that Obama was not only continuing Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but was strengthening them -- both because he was causing them to be codified in law and, more important, converting those policies from right-wing dogma into harmonious bipartisan consensus. Obama's decision "to continue core Bush terrorism policies is like Nixon going to China," Goldsmith wrote. Last October, former Bush NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden -- one of the most ideological Bush officials, whose confirmation as CIA chief was opposed by then-Sen. Obama on the ground he had overseen the illegal NSA spying program -- gushed with praise for Obama: "there's been a powerful continuity between the 43rd and the 44th president." James Jay Carafano, a homeland-security expert at the Heritage Foundation, told The New York Times' Peter Baker last January: "I don’t think it's even fair to call it Bush Lite. It's Bush. It's really, really hard to find a difference that's meaningful and not atmospheric."

Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011 06:19 ET
The vindication of Dick Cheney
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/18/cheney

Greenwald enumerates the significant and enduring harms of appeasing these bastards.

[robdogbucky]

41. When are we going to stop thinking things with him will change?

Why do we continually bang our head against this wall and expect him to change and begin acting on his campaign promises? I'm afraid that particular train has left the station.

We are now 2+ years into this administration and after such a feeble showing and the recent defeat in the elections, it will only get worse and more obvious as the great triangulator tells us to chill because he has got this. The other side can smell weakness and are running to overcome the turnstiles that guard our democracy. The Neocons have ratcheted up their schedule (see the states a and the move to eliminate unions) and are being very aggresive. We need to do more than take a month off to allow the Baggers to coagulate on our national stage like the dems did with healthcare last year. True, there were still enough blue dogs last year to allow it to happen, but it didn't have to. We could have rammed PO through with the proper application of pressure and no August break to allow the insurance companies to organize the Baggers. Now that their work is done and many of the blue dogs were voted out, the Baggers are picking up the slack, no longer feeling they need such collusion.

Only one cheerleader showed up on this thread. Wonder why? I guess they are getting demoralized too as this goes on and on and on and on.

Jackpine Radical's memo on his feelings about the feedback Wisconsin voters gave him after working for the candidates last fall in Wisconsin tells a story, the truth of which is now becoming more and more obvious to me.

Go find it and check it out. The man is prescient.




Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!


rdb