And why should I believe this is gonna work out this time :hmm:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41957269/ns/politics/
QuoteObama restarts Guantanamo trials after 2 years
White House also reiterates that it remains committed to eventually closing the facility
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
updated 1 hour 24 minutes ago 2011-03-07T23:27:35
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama approved on Monday the resumption of military trials for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ending a two-year ban.
It was the latest acknowledgement that the detention facility Obama had vowed to shut down within a year of taking office would remain open for some time. Even while announcing a resumption of military commission trials, however, Obama reaffirmed his support for trying terror suspects in U.S. federal courts, which has met vehement resistance in Congress.
"I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system — including Article III courts — to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened," the president said in a statement.
The White House also reiterated that the administration remains committed eventually to close the prison in Cuba, although Monday's actions did not seem to bring that outcome closer.
Under Obama's order, Defense Secretary Robert Gates will rescind his January 2009 ban against bringing new cases against the terror suspects at the detention facility.
The first trial likely to begin under Obama's new order would involve Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Al-Nashiri, a Saudi of Yemeni descent, has been imprisoned at Guantanamo since 2006.
Closure of the facility has become untenable because of questions about where terror suspects would be held. Lawmakers object to their transfer to U.S. federal courts, and Gates recently told lawmakers that it has become very difficult to release detainees to other countries because Congress has made that process more complicated.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, a Republican, said he was pleased with Obama's decision to restart the military commissions. But he said the administration must work with Congress to create a trial system that will survive review by the U.S. court system.
A sweeping defense bill Obama signed in January blocked the use of Defense Department dollars to transfer Guantanamo suspects to U.S. soil for trial. The White House said Monday it would work to overturn that prohibition.
I really don't know why the Republicans hate Obama so much. He's the best president they've had in years.
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 08:07:20 PM
I really don't know why the Republicans hate Obama so much. He's the best president they've had in years.
:yes:
Bush Term #3.
Should've voted for Hillary. :(
Quote from: Habbaku on March 07, 2011, 08:12:35 PM
Should've voted for Hillary. :(
She'll have her time.
How many Hitlers can you have in a row?
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2011, 12:22:06 PM
How many Hitlers can you have in a row?
:huh: We haven't had any Hitlers in a row. We've had three worse than Hitlers, though. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2011, 07:01:24 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 07, 2011, 08:12:35 PM
Should've voted for Hillary. :(
She'll have her time.
Yeah, wait for her to start looking like Helen Thomas. She'll be really electable then :D
As long as she doesn't start acting like Helen Thomas, she'll be fine.
It would be total Kharma if President Hillary blows an intern.
Quote from: Josephus on March 08, 2011, 07:48:05 PM
It would be total Kharma if President Hillary blows an intern.
I'm not sure actively getting even is really karma. :D
Quote from: Habbaku on March 07, 2011, 08:12:35 PM
Should've voted for Hillary. :(
I've come to the same conclusion. At least she had balls.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2011, 08:00:17 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 07, 2011, 08:12:35 PM
Should've voted for Hillary. :(
I've come to the same conclusion. At least she had balls.
I always preferred Hillary over Obama. I felt she had experience and a toughness about her that would serve her well in politics.
I think it will be interesting to see how his supporters justify this.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 08, 2011, 09:15:21 PM
I think it will be interesting to see how his supporters justify this.
He still has any?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146522/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Retreats.aspx
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 08, 2011, 09:15:21 PM
I think it will be interesting to see how his supporters justify this.
They supported previous flip flops by doing the same, why would that change?
Kind of trivial at this point to note that Hillary would have been preferable to HopeandChange.
Funny that all the "big" items relating to security that Obama got elected on turned out to be exactly as difficult and problematic as those who didn't drink the "Bushitler" kool-aid said they were, and Obamas "solutions" have universally not been implemented at all.
Iraq - He pretty much just copied and implemented the Bush/McCain plan in whole.
Afghanistan - Nothing changed here at all - but he gets to own the mess now. Well done.
Gitmo - This is the biggy. The left rode the Gitmo==warcrimes schtick for 4+ years, and since they got in charge, have done exactly NOTHING different from Bush. Of course, the reality is that it really is a damn hard problem without obvious solution other than what was already being done.
Is there a single major foreign policy initiative that Obama has done anything substantially different from his predecessors policies? I mean, you know, other than pressing the reset button with Russia that has worked out so well?
I know that this is simplifying it but I always knew that Obama wouldn't change anything and the key reasoning is that the US President doesn't hold the real power when it comes to foreign affairs.
There's a group of people, not sure who they are, NSA or whatever who basically say, "Look Mr. President, we can't let you do that."
It's probably not as cut and dry as that, and I'm not pulling for an XFiles conspiracy; but I'm sure at the top secret level advisory meetings there are this group of people who have the power to convince the president on what course to follow.
Quote from: Josephus on March 09, 2011, 10:03:51 AM
I know that this is simplifying it but I always knew that Obama wouldn't change anything and the key reasoning is that the US President doesn't hold the real power when it comes to foreign affairs.
There's a group of people, not sure who they are, NSA or whatever who basically say, "Look Mr. President, we can't let you do that."
It's probably not as cut and dry as that, and I'm not pulling for an XFiles conspiracy; but I'm sure at the top secret level advisory meetings there are this group of people who have the power to convince the president on what course to follow.
Well, I think there is probably a group of professional who once they explain the reality to the President the president goes "Gee, I guess maybe the former president was not actually insane and bent on crippling America!"
See: Kennedy/Eisenhower missile gap.
FWIW, I doubt Obama personally bought into the "Bushitler" thing anyway, but of course that's the sort of nonsense he had to pander to in order to win his primary.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2011, 09:14:25 AM
Iraq - He pretty much just copied and implemented the Bush/McCain plan in whole.
Afghanistan - Nothing changed here at all - but he gets to own the mess now. Well done.
But I remember arguing during the election that Obama and McCain had next to no policy difference on these issues. You and others disagreed, but that's been there all along.
QuoteGitmo - This is the biggy. The left rode the Gitmo==warcrimes schtick for 4+ years, and since they got in charge, have done exactly NOTHING different from Bush. Of course, the reality is that it really is a damn hard problem without obvious solution other than what was already being done.
This is fair and I feel the civil libertarians are the one group who can genuinely claim to have been betrayed by Obama. The rest are moaners or didn't pay enough attention to what was actually being said.
QuoteIs there a single major foreign policy initiative that Obama has done anything substantially different from his predecessors policies? I mean, you know, other than pressing the reset button with Russia that has worked out so well?
To be fair Russia policy and anti-nuclear has been successful, but it's been more general. Eastern European-Russian relations have generally thawed for example which eases the tension more generally.
There's continuity but I'd say that's down to Bush moving to a position that's close to Obama and the centrist left rather than anything else. The difference between Bush in 2004 and Bush at the end of his term is, basically, Rumsfeld vs Gates. I've always said, and I think many on the left would agree, that Bush was a dreadful strong President with great poll ratings and a Republican congress but a rather good weak President when he'd lost those. Bush from 2006 was pretty decent - I think because he started calling his dad again.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2011, 09:14:25 AM
Gitmo - This is the biggy. The left rode the Gitmo==warcrimes schtick for 4+ years, and since they got in charge, have done exactly NOTHING different from Bush. Of course, the reality is that it really is a damn hard problem without obvious solution other than what was already being done.
That is sort of true, but incomplete. The Obama policy on Gitmo has substantial continuity with the Bush policy as it evolved towards the end of his second term. However, the Bush policy only got to that point after trying other more outrageous things and getting shot down a couple times by the Supreme Court. The policy was basically forced upon him, whereas Obama would have followed it from the start out of conviction.
I do concede the broader point that there is no real difference between what Obama has done and what McCain likely would have done.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2011, 05:39:56 PM
But I remember arguing during the election that Obama and McCain had next to no policy difference on these issues. You and others disagreed, but that's been there all along.
This is not quite true. Obama is on record as voting to withdraw US troops from Iraq *before* teh surge began.
Obama escaped having to make a truly unpleasant choice on Iraq thanks to the success of Bush's policies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:04:31 PM
Obama escaped having to make a truly unpleasant choice on Iraq thanks to the success of Bush's McCain's policies foisted on Bush after Rumsfeld was run out of town on a rail
Fixed.
I would also like to point out that part of the reset button with Russia appears to have been de facto recognition of the annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:04:31 PMThis is not quite true. Obama is on record as voting to withdraw US troops from Iraq *before* teh surge began.
But that's not really relevant to what you do after 2009.
QuoteObama escaped having to make a truly unpleasant choice on Iraq thanks to the success of Bush's policies.
McCain and Obama had the same policy because of the SOFA Bush signed with Iraq. The rest was window dressing.
On the Russian side of the reset they've signed up to a seemingly pretty successful and very strong sanctions regime on Iran. But how is that different from what Bush or McCain would have done? Were you going to 'liberate' them or issue strongly worded statements (which Bush didn't) on Georgian indpendence day?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2011, 05:39:56 PM
This is fair and I feel the civil libertarians are the one group who can genuinely claim to have been betrayed by Obama. The rest are moaners or didn't pay enough attention to what was actually being said.
You say that as if it's some small faction. I'd say a rather sizable chunk of Obama supporters wanted Gitmo shut down.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2011, 02:10:36 PM
On the Russian side of the reset they've signed up to a seemingly pretty successful and very strong sanctions regime on Iran. But how is that different from what Bush or McCain would have done? Were you going to 'liberate' them or issue strongly worded statements (which Bush didn't) on Georgian indpendence day?
McCain was talking during the campaign about booting them from the G-whatever.
I've heard nothing at all about this pretty successful and very strong sanctions regime. Got any details? When did it start?
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 12:52:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2011, 12:22:06 PM
How many Hitlers can you have in a row?
:huh: We haven't had any Hitlers in a row. We've had three worse than Hitlers, though. :(
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2011, 04:38:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2011, 05:39:56 PM
This is fair and I feel the civil libertarians are the one group who can genuinely claim to have been betrayed by Obama. The rest are moaners or didn't pay enough attention to what was actually being said.
You say that as if it's some small faction. I'd say a rather sizable chunk of Obama supporters wanted Gitmo shut down.
Is it greater or less then the number of Birthers in the GOP?
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2011, 04:38:46 PM
You say that as if it's some small faction. I'd say a rather sizable chunk of Obama supporters wanted Gitmo shut down.
He won over 50% of the vote. I think lots of people wanted him to shut it down, I think the number of people for whom that's their issue, that's their thing is far, far smaller. Civil libertarians are a small but noble bunch who will almost always be disappointed
QuoteI've heard nothing at all about this pretty successful and very strong sanctions regime. Got any details? When did it start?
June 2010. From what I've read they're far stronger than the regimes voted in in 2008. In fact I'd read that the combination of stuxnet and sanctions had caused real problems for the Iranian program and the regime.
There is nothing inherently bad about having a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay; it's not like there is some insurmountable problem with the feng shui there. The problem was always about the policy of how to handle the detainees there. That problem could have occurred whether the detainees were housed in Guam, the Colorado supermax, or if they re-opened Alcatraz.