Gone-tanamo Bay

[Belegon]

Obama has signed an executive order directing the facility be closed within a year.

This in itself will be seen by many around the world as representative of a change in direction from US leadership.

Guantanamo was an international embarrassment of epic proportions.

Hmmmmm.... seems like the man is already making difficult and potentially unpopular choices (47% of Americans believe Gitmo should remain open.)

But of course, the opposition line will be that Obama has no guts and is giving in to terrorists.

*sigh*

 

[TheEarl]

And the British government will be showing their cross-party support by demonstrating that, no matter who's in the Oval Office, they're still prepared to act like lapdogs. Newspaper reports that a deal's been struck for a few of the (non-UK related) prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to become our problem and be rehoused in the UK.

We have enough terrorism suspects in this country without importing.

The Earl

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We'll send the ragheads to BELEGON's house in the future.

 

[rgraham666]

Other good things he did yesterday, in my opinion.

Froze the salaries of White House staff who make more than $100,000 a year.

Limited lobbying.

Prevented White House staff from leaving to join lobbying firms.

Phoned every one involved in the Middle East kerfuffle to get some diplomacy started.

Good for him.

 

[cloudy]

Other good things he did yesterday, in my opinion.

Froze the salaries of White House staff who make more than $100,000 a year.

Limited lobbying.

Prevented White House staff from leaving to join lobbying firms.

Phoned every one involved in the Middle East kerfuffle to get some diplomacy started.

Good for him.

But it's all just a cult, didn't you know that?



With some here, no matter what good things he does, we're all just sheep.

 

[starrkers]

And the British government will be showing their cross-party support by demonstrating that, no matter who's in the Oval Office, they're still prepared to act like lapdogs. Newspaper reports that a deal's been struck for a few of the (non-UK related) prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to become our problem and be rehoused in the UK.

We have enough terrorism suspects in this country without importing.

The Earl

The Rudd government rejected an appeal from George W to take any Gitmo detainees. Little Johnnie Howard would've falled over himself offering places.

I wonder it Rudd will change his mind if Obama asks nicely?

 

[sadangel]

Other good things he did yesterday, in my opinion.

Froze the salaries of White House staff who make more than $100,000 a year.

Limited lobbying.

Prevented White House staff from leaving to join lobbying firms.

Phoned every one involved in the Middle East kerfuffle to get some diplomacy started.

Good for him.

I had only heard about the first one and Gitmo Bay being closed down.

Good for him. It's steps in the right direction. I say give the man a chance. Not everyone is going to agree with every decision. Some will not agree with any decision. I know he will make some I strongly disagree with. He's HUMAN!

But he's only been in office 2 full days. Let him at least do something. At least he's trying!

 

[off2bed]

He should freeze Congress's salary too.

 

[sadangel]

He should freeze Congress's salary too.

Can I get a WITNESS!

I agree!

 

[TheEarl]

The Rudd government rejected an appeal from George W to take any Gitmo detainees. Little Johnnie Howard would've falled over himself offering places.

I wonder it Rudd will change his mind if Obama asks nicely?

Lucky bastards. Closing down Guantanamo is a laudable plan and all, but the detainees have to go somewhere. You can bet your bottom dollar that they won't be allowed to run loose in the USA, so it's up to us 'allies' to clean up the mess.

Can we borrow your government for a few weeks?

The Earl

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Lucky bastards. Closing down Guantanamo is a laudable plan and all, but the detainees have to go somewhere. You can bet your bottom dollar that they won't be allowed to run loose in the USA, so it's up to us 'allies' to clean up the mess.

Can we borrow your government for a few weeks?

The Earl

They'll go into the regular US justice system, where they should have gone in the first place, either military or civil. If there's evidence to convict, they'll be convicted. If not, they'll be deported.

That's the way we've handled these problems before. I don't see why this should be any different.

 

[sadangel]

They'll go into the regular US justice system, where they should have gone in the first place, either military or civil. If there's evidence to convict, they'll be convicted. If not, they'll be deported.

That's the way we've handled these problems before. I don't see why this should be any different.

This is what I've wondered about. WHY weren't they put through the US Justice system. I understand holding them somewhere out of reach, so to speak, but why has it taken so DAMN long to finally have it start going through the proper channels. If ANY gov't did this to OUR people, we'd be so up in arms and already done something about it.

Guess I just don't get it.

*dons flame suit---I know at least one person is going to start a flame*

 

[cloudy]

This is what I've wondered about. WHY weren't they put through the US Justice system. I understand holding them somewhere out of reach, so to speak, but why has it taken so DAMN long to finally have it start going through the proper channels. If ANY gov't did this to OUR people, we'd be so up in arms and already done something about it.

Guess I just don't get it.

*dons flame suit---I know at least one person is going to start a flame*

It was deemed acceptable because the people there are part of "them" instead of part of "us."

(I know, it's beyond stupid, but that's the way a lot of people have been thinking lately)

 

[TheEarl]

They'll go into the regular US justice system, where they should have gone in the first place, either military or civil. If there's evidence to convict, they'll be convicted. If not, they'll be deported.

That's the way we've handled these problems before. I don't see why this should be any different.

Deported to where? Back to countries where they may face human rights abuses? A lot of the prisoners in Guantanamo were there because the US government knew they didn't have evidence enough to convict, but didn't want to set them loose. A lot of the evidence against these people was obtained unlawfully as well.

I've found where I read the reports originally, in the Times. Apparently, 100 countries were contacted and asked for help in closing the jail. I'm sympathetic that Guantanamo is a crappy situation for a new President to walk into, and I'm aware that it may sound exceedingly selfish, but when does the UK have the responsibility to help clear up the mistakes of the US?

The Earl

 

[sadangel]

It was deemed acceptable because the people there are part of "them" instead of part of "us."

(I know, it's beyond stupid, but that's the way a lot of people have been thinking lately)

*shakes head*

That's the problem. It's unacceptable either way. That's just me!

 

[glynndah]

I hear there's a little ranch in Crawford, Texas, that has lots of security now. Perhaps they can be moved there?

 

[TheEarl]

This is what I've wondered about. WHY weren't they put through the US Justice system. I understand holding them somewhere out of reach, so to speak, but why has it taken so DAMN long to finally have it start going through the proper channels. If ANY gov't did this to OUR people, we'd be so up in arms and already done something about it.

Guess I just don't get it.

*dons flame suit---I know at least one person is going to start a flame*

Mr Obama’s plan is for the most dangerous detainees – between 30 and 80 men – to be taken to the US for formal trials. This presents problems, however, as evidence against inmates such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, was obtained through duress.

That's pretty much why. The US government believed that they needed to torture these people to get strategic information and, as soon as that's done, it's put them outside the normal judicial system. And, despite many fuckups, a significant proportion of these people are considered too dangerous to let go.

It's horribly wrong, but the decision was made that the government didn't want to take the risk that the judicial system would find these people either innocent or not guilty, when the government was of the opinion that they were and were dangerous. It's understandable on one hand, but it's one step away from doing away with juries altogether because they don't reach the results that the government likes.

The Earl

 

[cloudy]

It's horribly wrong, but the decision was made that the government didn't want to take the risk that the judicial system would find these people either innocent or not guilty, when the government was of the opinion that they were and were dangerous. It's understandable on one hand, but it's one step away from doing away with juries altogether because they don't reach the results that the government likes.

The Earl

Yes, and it violates the constitution and the Geneva Convention. Last night they were saying on the news that the chief investigator of the UN may decide to charge Bush et al with war crimes, and he does not have to wait for the government here to do their own investigation. He can go after them whether or not Obama decides it's the prudent thing to do.

I hope it happens.

 

[sadangel]

I hear there's a little ranch in Crawford, Texas, that has lots of security now. Perhaps they can be moved there?

Had to laugh!!

That's pretty much why. The US government believed that they needed to torture these people to get strategic information and, as soon as that's done, it's put them outside the normal judicial system. And, despite many fuckups, a significant proportion of these people are considered too dangerous to let go.

It's horribly wrong, but the decision was made that the government didn't want to take the risk that the judicial system would find these people either innocent or not guilty, when the government was of the opinion that they were and were dangerous. It's understandable on one hand, but it's one step away from doing away with juries altogether because they don't reach the results that the government likes.

The Earl

They didn't want to take the risk! Then they must not trust our judicial system enough and the people or those who would have made those decisions to have made the right one's...with information based on facts. The facts alone should have been what would prove their guilt. Or, perhaps; rarely in this case, their innocence. *I doubt the innocence, but I don't have enough facts to claim it isn't so at all*

Yes, and it violates the constitution and the Geneva Convention. Last night they were saying on the news that the chief investigator of the UN may decide to charge Bush et al with war crimes, and he does not have to wait for the government here to do their own investigation. He can go after them whether or not Obama decides it's the prudent thing to do.

I hope it happens.

That's what I thought. It violates some of the very "rules" that we expect everyone else to abide by. Why do we feel that the US should get a "free pass" on this? *shakes head* I know there isn't a good answer. I just don't get it. Personally, I'd like to see Bush brought up on War Crimes. I belive he violated a number of things that had any other Head of Gov't elsewhere done, he'd have been the first one to be all over them.

 

[TheEarl]

Yes, and it violates the constitution and the Geneva Convention. Last night they were saying on the news that the chief investigator of the UN may decide to charge Bush et al with war crimes, and he does not have to wait for the government here to do their own investigation. He can go after them whether or not Obama decides it's the prudent thing to do.

I hope it happens.

While I'm not defending them, nor their decisions, they were tasked with keeping America safe. While it was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and verging on downright evil, it was pragmatic.

If you had evidence enough to convince you that someone was directly responsible for planning September 11th and, if freed, would not only rejoice in the loss of life, but use their experience and knowledge to plan more attacks, but didn't have evidence enough to convince a jury, would you not even have the slightest flicker of doubt about releasing them?

I'm not claiming that as the situation of any of the detainees, just pointing out that sometimes a leader may make choices on his own conscience that jar with other peoples'. Being in charge must be a very lonely place.

NB. I'm not supporting Bush, Guantanamo, nor any other policies. Just attempting to inject a little grey into what seems a black and white situation.

The Earl

 

[cloudy]

While I'm not defending them, nor their decisions, they were tasked with keeping America safe. While it was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and verging on downright evil, it was pragmatic.

If you had evidence enough to convince you that someone was directly responsible for planning September 11th and, if freed, would not only rejoice in the loss of life, but use their experience and knowledge to plan more attacks, but didn't have evidence enough to convince a jury, would you not even have the slightest flicker of doubt about releasing them?

I'm not claiming that as the situation of any of the detainees, just pointing out that sometimes a leader may make choices on his own conscience that jar with other peoples'. Being in charge must be a very lonely place.

NB. I'm not supporting Bush, Guantanamo, nor any other policies. Just attempting to inject a little grey into what seems a black and white situation.

The Earl

Oh, I get that it was a hard call to make, however, it doesn't excuse the route that was taken. As sadangel said above, had any other government done it, they'd have been crucified. I just don't think that Bush & Co. should be above the law.

eta: as a side note, the UN is also considering charging Israel with war crimes, as well.

 

[3113]

Other good things he did yesterday, in my opinion.

Froze the salaries of White House staff who make more than $100,000 a year.

Limited lobbying.

Prevented White House staff from leaving to join lobbying firms.

Phoned every one involved in the Middle East kerfuffle to get some diplomacy started.

But it's all just a cult, didn't you know that?

Cloudy's right, Rob. You mustn't approve or think that anything Obama does is rational and smart and, maybe signals that he might be an okay president. Anyone who does that is just giving into the hype, following the crowd that worships our new president as a Messiah, and, maybe as soon as day three when he might finally make a wrong decision, will be so crushingly disappointed that they will all weep and bemoan the fact that they ever voted him into office.

This is because none of us who currently support him are capable of any critical, rational thinking. So you'd better back off before you find yourself wearing an Obama teeshirt and buying memorial coins.

Oh, and Cloudy, will be joining me and Sarah for some cool-aid?

 

[cloudy]

This is because none of us who currently support him are capable of any critical, rational thinking. So you'd better back off before you find yourself wearing an Obama teeshirt and buying memorial coins.

Oh, and Cloudy, will be joining me and Sarah for some cool-aid?

Will there be snacks?

 

[3113]

Will there be snacks?

Most certainly. Cookies stamped with Obama's face and a cake with "Go Obama" written in frosting.

 

[sadangel]

While I'm not defending them, nor their decisions, they were tasked with keeping America safe. While it was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and verging on downright evil, it was pragmatic.

If you had evidence enough to convince you that someone was directly responsible for planning September 11th and, if freed, would not only rejoice in the loss of life, but use their experience and knowledge to plan more attacks, but didn't have evidence enough to convince a jury, would you not even have the slightest flicker of doubt about releasing them?

I'm not claiming that as the situation of any of the detainees, just pointing out that sometimes a leader may make choices on his own conscience that jar with other peoples'. Being in charge must be a very lonely place.

NB. I'm not supporting Bush, Guantanamo, nor any other policies. Just attempting to inject a little grey into what seems a black and white situation.

The Earl

unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and verging on downright evil, it was pragmatic.

So even though it's all the above, because it's pragmatic; they get a free pass to violate the very constiturion that we are supposed to hold so dear. If it is alright for the President and all his "men" (men and women) to violate, then why the hell should we the people bother to follow it either?! Two wrongs don't make a right. It just doesn't work that way.

If you had evidence enough to convince you that someone was directly responsible for planning September 11th and, if freed, would not only rejoice in the loss of life, but use their experience and knowledge to plan more attacks, but didn't have evidence enough to convince a jury, would you not even have the slightest flicker of doubt about releasing them?

Damn straight I'd have doubts. But we expect the judical system to work for all of us. Why should we not expect it to work in this case also. Yes, mistakes are made. Yes people have been released that should never have been.

I'm dreading the day that my ex-husband finally gets released from prison for murder. He got a plea bargin, because there was SO much evidence and the county we lived in didn't want to deal with a trial---so he got just 12-20 years for murder. (The D.A. said all that I had to say was the most damining against him) He could be released any day. I wish that it had gone to trial. I wouldn't have to watch my back every day waiting for him to find me. *He would have gotten life without parole if it had gone before a jury...no doubts about it*

BUT--This is how the judical system worked in this case. It took the easy way out. The victims/survivors such as myself have to figure out how to deal with it.

Oh, I get that it was a hard call to make, however, it doesn't excuse the route that was taken. As sadangel said above, had any other government done it, they'd have been crucified. I just don't think that Bush & Co. should be above the law.

No, Bush and CO. should NOT be above the law. They've been there for far too long. It's time to be accountable for their actions.