Three tenets for Obama in dealing with terror
–When feasible, try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts.
–When necessary, try those who violate the rules of war through Military Commissions.
–When possible, transfer to third countries those detainees who can be safely transferred.
The first is an arduous argument that I lack the will to wage currently. Suffice it to say, Obama and AG Holder almost certainly believe they are the only men around that can determine the feasibility of extending the rights of common criminals to men who seek to the destroy our lives just to do it. Call it the audacity of arrogance.
The second is much more palatable, but there’s another flaw in ethics here. The flaw is that Obama damns the Bushies for their practices, but again retains the right to enact them whenever he wants. Its like banning gambling, but playing poker in the den that night with your buds. Its okay though, trite notions like consistency and logic are for the little people.
The third will be interesting. Currently, we have no third countries willing to take the most dangerous criminals in the world, and we’ve been rebuffed a few times. Cuba, as it were, was willing/had to, but we’re closing that prison, BECAUSE KEEPING TERRORISTS AT THAT PLACE HURT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, according to the President.
So what now? Keep them in a different country and this all goes away? Is it just the soil in Cuba? What kind of thinking is that? This is the momentous programme he had for us? Sorry, not worth turning away from Cheney tearing you limb from limb.
Chris said,
May 21, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“Suffice it to say, Obama and AG Holder almost certainly believe they are the only men around that can determine the feasibility of extending the rights of common criminals to men who seek to the destroy our lives just to do it. Call it the audacity of arrogance.”
Men don’t need to do it; the Constitution will.
“–When necessary, try those who violate the rules of war through Military Commissions.”
In order to appease those such as yourself, who will cry foul if they aren’t allowed to break the rules to satisfy their own paranoid delusions.
“Cuba, as it were, was willing/had to, but we’re closing that prison, BECAUSE KEEPING TERRORISTS AT THAT PLACE HURT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, according to the President.”
Yes, it did. I’m glad you’ve seen the light.
“Sorry, not worth turning away from Cheney tearing you limb from limb.”
When has that happened? If all that’s needed to tear someone limb from limb is to lie through your teeth, I guess you’ve been tearing me up for a while now.
regulusred said,
May 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm
““Cuba, as it were, was willing/had to, but we’re closing that prison, BECAUSE KEEPING TERRORISTS AT THAT PLACE HURT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, according to the President.”
Yes, it did. I’m glad you’ve seen the light.”
This was written mockingly, and I think you may have missed it. To be more clear, Obama said keeping prisoners at Gitmo undermined our security.
He then stated that sending the worst terrorists overseas is his goal. Seeing as Gitmo is an overseas detention agency, there is a disconnect. Surely moving them to a new facility in Europe isn’t going to sate the terrorists so outraged by a prison in Cuba?
You have stated that you think Obama is scoring cheap political points on the terror photos recently on this blog. I fear his machinations on Gitmo are a similar cheap trick, but you’re the goat this time.
Just kidding, I don’t fear that at all. Your boy is pulling one over on you.
Chris said,
May 22, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I speak English, Red. I’m well aware of the meaning of “according to the President.” Unfortunately, you are failing to understand the facts of the matter:
• Obama wants to send some detainees overseas – specifically to countries which agree to take them, and under strict surveillance by international agencies. The fact that they are held overseas is not the issue, Red; the problem is international support. It may be a play for public image, but it is needed just the same. If you agree that releasing torture photos will harm our troops in the long run, surely you see the benefits of a more open international framework as opposed to the prison in Cuba where America tortures people.
• Our national security was harmed by creating a common cause for our enemies to rally around – namely, the fact that there exists the prison in Cuba where America tortures people.
• Moving detainees to the United States has no negative implications; they will be afforded constitutional rights like everyone else on American soil, and thus be subject to the same system of justice laid down by the founding fathers. They will be housed in federal supermax prisons – prisons from which there has never been an escape in American history. As a result, we will no longer have the problem of the prison in Cuba where America tortures people.
• Just as with the issue of the torture photos, it remains to be scene whether Obama is pulling one over on me, you, or both of us. I will say this, though: Obama is well aware of the results the Bush Administration had when trying to block the Abu Ghraib photos. There would be little reason for him to use the same excuse unless he was shooting for deniability. However, no one has tried to close Gitmo before; this is new territory. I’m much more inclined to cry sincerity for that than the previous administration’s leftovers.