QuoteWASHINGTON — President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a "preventive detention" system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1
Hmm..this is more than Bush did no?
I do always find it interesting that once our peeps get into positions of power they tend to come to same conclusions about so many things. You almost think that they are coming to those conclusions because they are the logical ones with the information provided.
Either that or they have the exact same advisors.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2009, 09:36:18 AM
I do always find it interesting that once our peeps get into positions of power they tend to come to same conclusions about so many things. You almost think that they are coming to those conclusions because they are the logical ones with the information provided.
Either that or they have the exact same advisors.
Or the exact same institutions to deal with. I don't know if it's that these are the most logical policies or that there's a few Sir Humphreys around :p
I don't see how that could pass constitutional muster.
When Bush "beat" Gore, he ran with a pledge to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Never happened--in fact security was stepped up. The Secret Service put together a presentation to show how serious the terrorist threat was, and it convinced him.
some of a, some of b, some of c.
there's also some bargaining: "I will let your dept continue to do this (old policy), if you support me doing that (new policy)"
My disappointment in the loss of civil liberties in the U.S. is almost entirely offset by the anticipation of the reaction from the Huffington Post.
On the issue I don't actually object. I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.
Wow, talk about a rape the dog moment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2009, 09:49:31 AM
On the issue I don't actually object. I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.
And as long as Bush isn't in charge, of course. I can get behind it if it is Obamas idea, like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.
Interesting, and perhaps no surprise, that Pres Obama is having similar difficulties in deciding how to deal with some of the same security issues that the Bush admin had. Too bad that some of this became so politically partisan and angry, when instead solutions might have been worked out and acted on, so that we didn't get so far along and still without solutions.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 09:53:57 AM
And as long as Bush isn't in charge, of course. I can get behind it if it is Obamas idea, like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.
I supported this when the British government tried to do it, I think that it's fine. Though, as I say I think the 90 days or 42 days is ridiculous.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 09:53:57 AM
like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.
You have to admit that was pretty brilliant.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 09:53:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2009, 09:49:31 AM
On the issue I don't actually object. I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.
And as long as Bush isn't in charge, of course. I can get behind it if it is Obamas idea, like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.
I have to say the last several months have come far closer to making me believe in a liberal media than Hans ever did. I can only imagine the outrage if Bush had done this.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2009, 09:49:31 AM
On the issue I don't actually object. I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.
Maybe I'm just being overly skeptical, but I doubt greatly that the time frame will be anything limited or reasonable.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2009, 09:59:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 09:53:57 AM
like his clever plan to not withdraw from Iraq.
You have to admit that was pretty brilliant.
His plan is to agree with SOFA. I said before the election that I don't think there would be much difference between an Obama or a McCain policy on Iraq - after the SOFA was signed. I think it's wrong but there you are.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2009, 09:44:24 AM
When Bush "beat" Gore, he ran with a pledge to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Never happened--in fact security was stepped up. The Secret Service put together a presentation to show how serious the terrorist threat was, and it convinced him.
Speaking of pledges, wtf is up with Obama peeing all over his pledge to post bills online for 5 days before he signs them? That was one of the things I actually liked to hear during his campaign.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2009, 09:59:34 AM
You have to admit that was pretty brilliant.
Well, of course *you* think so, given your fetish for Arab linguists :P
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 10:06:31 AM
Well, of course *you* think so, given your fetish for Arab linguists :P
Staying in Iraq gives them job security!
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2009, 09:44:24 AM
When Bush "beat" Gore, he ran with a pledge to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Never happened--in fact security was stepped up. The Secret Service put together a presentation to show how serious the terrorist threat was, and it convinced him.
Speaking of pledges, wtf is up with Obama peeing all over his pledge to post bills online for 5 days before he signs them? That was one of the things I actually liked to hear during his campaign.
Probably the same thing that happened to his pledge to open up the reconciliation process to the public. Apparently it isn't even opened to republicans.
Not that there is much he could do to enact that promise anyway, as he isn't a congressional leader.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Speaking of pledges, wtf is up with Obama peeing all over his pledge to post bills online for 5 days before he signs them? That was one of the things I actually liked to hear during his campaign.
Aren't bills approved by Congress supposed to be public anyway? Or is this something else?
I have to say there is something comforting about Obama's hesitance to rock the boat.
It is just too bad it comes at a time when the boat appears to be headed off a waterfall...but what can you do?
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2009, 10:10:12 AM
Aren't bills approved by Congress supposed to be public anyway? Or is this something else?
I'm not sure Congress posts the entire bill online. The key thing IMO is the 5 day wait.
I would think a lack of transparency would trouble a Liberal like yourself, particularly when Obama pledged it over & over during the campaign.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 10:38:11 AM
I'm not sure Congress posts the entire bill online. The key thing IMO is the 5 day wait.
I would think a lack of transparency would trouble a Liberal like yourself, particularly when Obama pledged it over & over during the campaign.
I was not trying to justify anything I was trying to understand what you are getting at.
Of course I feel that everything the government does should be public so long as there is not a national security risk.
Olbermann's tiny heart just broke a little more. Good.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2009, 10:10:12 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Speaking of pledges, wtf is up with Obama peeing all over his pledge to post bills online for 5 days before he signs them? That was one of the things I actually liked to hear during his campaign.
Aren't bills approved by Congress supposed to be public anyway? Or is this something else?
Obama had promised to post them online for 5 days before signing them, so that the public had a chance to read it and respond before they become law. Good idea, but Obama lied about it just like everything else. The democrats don't even let Congress read the bills anymore before they get voted uon.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 21, 2009, 10:43:15 AM
Olbermann's tiny heart just broke a little more. Good.
His heart is tiny, but it dwarfs his brain. His ego, on the other hand, is so massive it dwarfs the sun.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2009, 09:49:31 AM
On the issue I don't actually object. I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.
Where are you getting this 42 or 90 day stuff from? The linked article doesn't mention that, and from other reports I've heard of this meeeting, my impression was that Obama was considering detaining some terrorist suspects for life without trial.
Quote from: dps on May 21, 2009, 09:15:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2009, 09:49:31 AM
On the issue I don't actually object. I think as long as there's a relatively low limit and reasonable oversight - ie. not the 42 days we have or the 90 days the government wants - then this can be okay.
Where are you getting this 42 or 90 day stuff from? The linked article doesn't mention that, and from other reports I've heard of this meeeting, my impression was that Obama was considering detaining some terrorist suspects for life without trial.
I think he's refering to the debate that the UK had on that issue a few years ago.
Has anyone heard anything about Democratic Senators passing a bill that would prevent the Gitmo prisoners from being moved to US soil? BBC is going on and on about this but I haven't seen anything in domestic media.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2009, 11:44:46 PM
Has anyone heard anything about Democratic Senators passing a bill that would prevent the Gitmo prisoners from being moved to US soil? BBC is going on and on about this but I haven't seen anything in domestic media.
T.H.E.Y. don't want you to know. Yet. :tinfoil:
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 10:06:31 AM
Well, of course *you* think so, given your fetish for Arab linguists :P
Staying in Iraq gives them job security!
Unless they are gay. In which case they will be discharged and then captured by the lovely people we have liberated, have their asses glued, given laxatives and die in agony.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2009, 11:44:46 PM
Has anyone heard anything about Democratic Senators passing a bill that would prevent the Gitmo prisoners from being moved to US soil? BBC is going on and on about this but I haven't seen anything in domestic media.
They refused to appropriate $80 million dollars to shut Gitmo down, but I haven't heard that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2009, 11:44:46 PM
Has anyone heard anything about Democratic Senators passing a bill that would prevent the Gitmo prisoners from being moved to US soil? BBC is going on and on about this but I haven't seen anything in domestic media.
I haven't heard of a bill, but I've heard a lot of Congress members, both parties, complaining that they won't allow Gitmo detainees on US soil, in US prisons. Harry Reid for one, who I'm sure was among the most rabid against the Bush admin over Gitmo issues. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and he has to make decisions. No longer does he have the option of just bashing the other political party.
As for the detainees in US prisons. We have max and super max prisons, which contain other terrorists and very dangerous criminals of all types. I wouldn't think it's a problem to house the detainees in those. I guess there would be the other issue of legal/court proceedings with them on US soil, debates over military tribunals or such, which are really the larger issue anyway.
President Obama has about come full circle on the Gitmo detainees. He still wants to close Gitmo, but he's been adopting more like Bush admin policies on dealing with the detainees. I give him credit for it, tough issue which he's trying to do the right thing on. And it seems maybe that some of the Bush policies weren't so bad after all, once you get past the partisan politics, which got nasty. Others of the Bush policies over Gitmo need to be reworked, like the manner of doing tribunals properly which Pres Obama is reinstating. However, this does still go against some human rights groups. But if the Obama admin uses similar policies, reworked to help ensure legitimacy, then maybe we can finally begin to have consensus politically with both parties, and start move past some of these issues which have caused so much trouble.
Quote from: KRonn on May 22, 2009, 07:59:40 AM
As for the detainees in US prisons. We have max and super max prisons, which contain other terrorists and very dangerous criminals of all types. I wouldn't think it's a problem to house the detainees in those. I guess there would be the other issue of legal/court proceedings with them on US soil, debates over military tribunals or such, which are really the larger issue anyway.
It is an odd discussion. America is very good at sticking large numbers of people away for years at a time. Why are terrorists supervillains who can't be placed on American soil?
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2009, 12:50:44 AM
Unless they are gay. In which case they will be discharged and then captured by the lovely people we have liberated, have their asses glued, given laxatives and die in agony.
....what?