RubySoho
Winston
Even If He Does Nothing Else For The Next Four Years...
January 22nd 2009 12:25
...he would still have eclipsed his predecessor in terms of respecting human rights and championing accountability.
Not only will President Obama today sign an executive order which will shut down Guantanamo Bay within a year (sooner rather than later please Mr Prez), but he will also order the closure of the network of secret prisons built throughout the world by the CIA. It will mean the end of secret custody and torture and the reinstatement of habeas corpus (remember that old chestnut?)
Pack those waterboards away boys, change has come to Washington. WOOT!
newyorktimes
| 109 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
and then Michelle runs . . .
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
They deserve their day in court, but this is not as simple as "shut it down". Even Obama has begrudgingly admitted as much.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Haha Morgan, you've just described every conservative's nightmare. If they gave Hilary hell, it's nothing compared to the scorn and fury they will unleash on Michelle if she ever gets into politics. I could see it happening though. I really could.
Hi PopCon, since when is simply "fighting on the battle field" an offence in itself? Were some of those men in Guantanamo simply soldiers who believed they were defending their country against an invading and occupying power? How do you make the distinction between a prisoner of war and a terrorist supporter in these circumstances? Then there is the fact that the whole "unlawful combatant" malarky is a retroactive crime anyway. When the Aussie David Hicks got caught in Afghanistan he supposedly was "providing material support for terrorists". Problem is that wasn't exactly a crime at the time. Not that I even know what that means. Does anyone?
The problem is with the legality of the place. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. No evidence means you have to let them go. When the lives of innocent men get destroyed then something is not working. You can't just throw away a legal system that has taken us thousands of years to develop because you think someone may be a terrorist.
As for the ones who remain being the "worst of the worst", does that include that teenage Canadian who I saw crying out for his mother when he was being interrogated at the age of 15? Worst of the worst. Really?
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I'm quite sure he's no longer there. So, yes, the ones that are there are the worst of the worst or the ones who are so nasty that their own countries won't take them back.
You just remember your cries about human rights when one of those animals gets released and kills on a massive scale. What about the human rights of those who these animals have harmed and will harm upon release? Will you be just as vociferous in your support of their rights?
I have no problem with Guatanamo being closed. And, again, I have no problem with them facing trial. They should be presented the body of evidence and tried. However, it's asinine to dump them into the US civilian court system. Those courts aren't prepared or able to handle cases like this (terrorist combatants caught in the midst of war). Even your hero Obama seems to realize that is a problem.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
You seem to have already decided that they are all guilty. Don't you think you should at least examine the evidence first? Don't you fear that there are innocent men and boys caught up in this web?
And the Canadian is still there. His is one of the trials which has been suspended.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I haven't decided that they are all guilty, but you seem to have decided that they're all innocent. I said that we should give them a trial (three times now). You're too thick to acknowledge that, I guess. If they go to trial and we can't produce enough evidence to convict them, then they should go free. However, you CAN'T dump these people in a civilian court. That's laughable. We'll have to have some type of military court or tribunal -- even if it involves countries outside of the US.
And just because someone is 15 and Canadian and cries for their mommy doesn't make them pitiable and innocent. For all I (or you) know, KSM cried for his mommy. I guess you'd be ready to cut him loose, too. Well, let's put him in your neighborhood, then. I'm sure you'd have no problem with that.
Comment by Carolyn Cordon
Light Within
How do You Express Your Creativity?
Food Leaf
I think it's about time the whole world started thinking about what they're actually achieving by locking people up.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Being an uber-pacifist is a bad thing when you start asking for terrorists and mass murderers to be set free in the name of human rights.
Well, some of the folks in G-Bay have said that they would go right back to planning massive attacks on the infidels in the US and around the world if they're released. Keeping them from doing that is one thing that's being accomplished. I'm just crazy enough to think that's a good thing.
Comment by sam sall
Health and Fitness
Speech Starter
Health Matters
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
They're too risky. When a body is given permission to operate 'above teh law', then that power can be corrupted very easily. It is at teh discretion of a select elite group whom to 'investigate futher' and whom to let go. Not enough people are involved in this decision-making process. It may be that *all* of these people are guilty of something. It may also be that *none* of them are. Whatever the case, you cannot beat crime with a shadowy, clandestine system - when you let the enemy have such control over you that you violate your own laws to get at them, that's when you become your own worst enemy.
Comment by Linh
Celluloid Fun
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Really Long Link
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I don't recall asking for any mass murderers or terrorists to be set free. Once again you are presuming guilt. Just because they are in Guantanamo does not mean they are guilty. Give then a trial sure. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Give them a trial and if the evidence is not there, then you have to let them go. . Innocent until proven guilty. Proven guilty. That is the entire basis of our legal system. And I'm not too thick to acknowledge that.
Oh and if anybody is interested Amnesty International is asking for signatures for a petition to Obama calling for the Bush administration to be investigated for abuses of power in their handling of the "war on terror". I'll give a link very shortly.
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Morgan, I enjoyed the article too.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Hi Linh. Me too. I really think he will. Maybe its next on his list of wrongs to set right?
Hi Sam. I think it'll close. Its just a question of when and what to do with the inmates who are still housed there.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Popcon, the first mistake you make is to say we are at war. This is no more a war than the "war on drugs" call it a police action, an occupation etc, but not war. Overwhelming force directed at largely incapable of mounting serious opposition isn't war. And yes, it can border on genocide. That's not to say extremists or terrorists don't need to be captured or killed. No method would be perfect, but invading Iraq wasn't anything close to the right thing to do.
On Gitmo, yes, it needs closed. And yes, it needs to be done right. Obama seems to get it on both.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Regarding Obama's changes, you should note the following before your next Obama-is-the-savior-of-mankind rally:
and this...
However, such a move would frustrate Senate Democrats and human rights, retired military and religious groups that have pressed for a government-wide prohibition on methods they describe as torture.
In other words, when push comes to shove, Obama will reserve the right to do things as bad as or worse than waterboarding.
And regarding those that have already been released, this was all over the news last week:
The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.
He's not exactly a 15-year-old Canadian crying for mommy, is he? And he was a detainee that we have already released. The ones still there are allegedly worse than him. They still should be tried, but this is just a cautionary note.
And Jeff, you think we're not at war? Perhaps you should tell that to the troops who are in Iraq and Afghanistan now. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear your comparisons of what they're doing to the "war" on drugs. Tell it to the families of the two troops who were killed last week. The Senate has to authorize a war. They did and we are in one (on two fronts). Just because we aren't doing the equivalent of storming the beaches of Normandy every day doesn't mean that the war has ended. It looks like Obama is planning on pulling our troops out of Iraq, but until he does, we're still in a war over there. And even after that, we'll still be in a war in Afghanistan.
Or did you think the war ended when Bush said, "Mission Accomplished"?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk