TorilMUD Forums

Washington (CNN) - A recommendation by the Obama administration's Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force to continue holding nearly 50 detainees indefinitely without charges sparked fury among civil liberties groups Friday.

The recommendation, confirmed to CNN by two government sources not authorized to release the information, was completed by a task force under the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder and sent to President Barack Obama for final approval.

The confidential review recommending a disposition for each of the 196 remaining Guantanamo detainees was first reported by the Washington Post.

The review proposes that 47 detainees be held without charges or trial because they are considered too dangerous to release, and because trials could jeopardize intelligence and harm national security, government sources said.

"If you close Guantanamo but leave individuals detained without charge or trial you're just making a cosmetic change," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, told CNN.

Weird how the nay-sayers and ANTI-Bush, -republicans, -conservatives, etc are oddly silent when confronted with quoted material and fact....its almost as if there is some magic shield that protects them from the truth...as if it doesnt even exist at all.

The fact is that there is a standing order (as of Dec 15, 09) to close the camp and move all the detainees. This recommendation was made by a "task force" and is waiting for approval from Obama. In other words, nothing has changed. Maybe we can be outraged once there is a change in the policy?

Obama continuing to detain people without charges is a problem, and speaks nothing to the vapid black hole of idiocy that was GWB.

So you say, and yet, slowly, as time goes on, additional unnecessary 'studies' and 'commissions' are funded and completed, each one of the so-called reasons and fallacies used to criticize the previous administration gets peeled away.

Yea, I'm putting the cart before the horse here... but its lose lose for Obama.

He releases them despite the task force saying they aren't safe to release, he makes protecting america a little harder.

He holds them indefinitely without charge, he tramples all over yet another campaign promise. I have serious misgivings about the power to lock someone up for a long as you want without enough to prove they have actually commited a crime (or act of war). The price of freedom is the blood of the innocents. You can't pre-emptively lock people up and deny them the opportunity to choose to be a good person.

I guess GWB wasn't so stupid after all mr professor

Actually, GWB, and especially Dick, were pretty stupid.

The hard interigation methods such as sleep deprevation and waterboarding have not helped the security of america, and are partly the reason the prisoners are as they are.

I think there will be a trial, civilian or military. I don't see how Obama can avoid that.

At least I hope the prisoners are no longer beeing tortured.

Disoputlip wrote:The hard interigation methods such as sleep deprevation and waterboarding have not helped the security of america

Proof?

The vast majority of the intelligence obtained by torture was apparently made up. I don't know that any of us can really judge whether this is true since the whole issue was massively politicized (to win the elections in 2008). Bush and Cheney, who were in a position to know, ferverently believe torture saved American lives. There is probably some truth to that. Obama and Dems who ran against torture naturally believe it was 100% worthless in terms of intelligence and worse affected our standing in the world. Theres probably a lot more truth to that claim. When is anything ever 100% crap?

I think its perfectly fine to torture via sleep deprivation, stressful questioning, stress positions, slapping them around ect... I wouldn't even call that torture, but some would. I draw the distinction of torture at a moderate level. Pimp slapping someone is not torture, beating them daily or knocking their teeth out is taking it too far. I'm not a big fan of waterboarding or mock executions, but you have to understand the point. These people are not going to freely tell you information that they don't want to. Its your will vs our will and you can only get that information once you break their will. What do you want us to do, give them millions of dollars? Treat them with respect and wait for them to become our friend? Its not nice, its not ideal but its war.

I'd rather die for my country in a terrorist attack than allow them to torture in the manner most middle eastern regimes do. Let's not forget what torture means to them, paping them, their wives and children, killing their families, beating them half to death and starving them. Or lets recall middle ages torture, breaking their arms and legs and threading them through a wagon wheel for the birds to peck to death, drawn and quartered. Or the viet cong, shoving pieces of bamboo between up your finger nails and lighting them on fire. Thats torture, something the idealistic left perhaps in their misguided egalitarian idealism forgot in their incrementalist push to outlaw anything that hurts someone's feelings.

A civilian trial is absolutely ridiculous. People detained in a war are not civilians. What do you do if you have an Taliban soldier who is a good person by American standards and is fighting honorably on the Taliban side? Put him on trial for attempted murder? Sentence him to death at a cost of over 10 million (between the public defenders, all the appeals, housing them up throguh the actual execution). If the Al Qaeda wants to win... it needs to arrange for its operatives to be captured and tried in American civilian court. It'll bankrupt us in 2 or 3 years. Flat out stupid. WAR IS THE GRAVEST OF DECISIONS AND IS TRULY AN EXCEPTION, IT MUST BE TREATED AS SUCH.

kiryan wrote: When is anything ever 100% crap?

When Teflor opens his mouth?

Sarvis wrote:

kiryan wrote: When is anything ever 100% crap?

When Teflor opens his mouth?

It's so cute when you try to be funny by being dull.

I would like to point out that Special Forces of the Armed Services and Most Pilots have to endure ANTI-Interrogation Training. This consists of all manner of the enduring of various torture techniques that have been used by Armies of the World for Several Millenia, waterboarding not the most vicious of them.

They go through this training voluntarily, because there is a reasonable expectation that one, if captured WILL have to endure such atrocious and very real practices conducted by our enemies. They also go through this training Voluntarily because they KNOW it will help them stave off the breaking point. Let there be no doubt, you WILL give it up eventually, timeframes and resistent to this ultimate end are what are important. Long enough for the Team to extract etc.

Interrogations while appaling to normal safe civilians are part War. They have been since war was invented and they will be continued by the victors long after the defeated have been erased from The Books of History.

Are they effective...Abso-fucking-lutely! Are they neccessary...only if you dont wanna be enslavbed. Will they continue? For as long as another man is willing to throw a rock at a fellow man either in attack or defense.

Do they save lives? I can personally attest that YES they do indeed. I can also personally attest that most people would really rather not know the exact truth of the results of some interrogations, because what some of them have prevented are truly more horrific than torture itself.

I think its best that some of you remain in the dark, as many of you willingly blind yourselves with Media Mis-Direction anyways, remain so.

"You CAN'T handle the truth!" Jack N.

Those words hold an amount of Truth most cannot nor will not fathom, and its best most did not have to.
I can personally attest to that.

PS Done for Today ...GOTTA watch NCIS.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 273.column

While watching the SOU I kept thinking to myself... seriously, you really believe you aren't an idealogue? Really? I've heard a couple of Dems use the word and I assume its going to be a foundation of their 2010 campaigns, GOP = Idealogue not practical, "common sense" democrats (BTW, Sarah Palin and GOP staked a claim to that message 6 months ago), so I'm not surprised that Obama seems to drop it almost as often as the word I, but thats not really the point. He actually believes hes a pragmatist.

This article rips him pretty bad and points out the lunacy of the statement. Its akin to being good God fearing Klan or performing a legal lynching. No, Obama may style himself as a pragmatist or actually be one compared to his opponents, but he is clearly an idealogue at the same time and an ego maniac.

But it is interesting... you liberals believe that you're such pragmatists. so fact and science driven despite the very obvious truth that you're all pushing an ideological agenda just like I am. cloaking your positions in science instead of declarations of "Truth" that we find self evident after studying the Bible. You actually think you're smarter and better than we are. We just think you're misguided and enscrolled in a very unpragmatic belief that socialism is the cure to all the world's ills.

damn it, lost my fuking post so you're getting the condensed version.

panty bomber is an example of ego maniac tendencies. apparently he was talking but everyone thought he wouldn't talk. this was potentially a great misdirection ruined now because of how it was handled. once upon a time there were security committees that were briefed on highly sensitive information secretly. Instead, this was done publicly probably because of the withering criticism Dems are facing on the stupid decision to try enemy soldiers in our civilian courts.

Sure GOP deserves some blame for their relentless attacks, but GWB understood something Obama and Dems probably never will. You are the President, you make the tough decisions, the unpopular ones even if it means they run you and your party out of town on a rail. Obama can't do it because hes an ego maniac. Dems can't do it because they can't believe they can't stand anyone thinking they are smarter than them. Thats why they can't stop running against GWB. It's not our fault, GWB did it. No responsibility. What would they claim as their responsibility, only the unmeasurable "successes" of having "saved or created" jobs?

Obama can't lead his party because he is an ego maniac afraid to make decisions; he wants a consensus decision that won't stick to him if it needs to change for factual or political reasons. Mr professor, leading a discussion, not a nation.

kiryan wrote:damn it, lost my fuking post so you're getting the condensed version.

panty bomber is an example of ego maniac tendencies. apparently he was talking but everyone thought he wouldn't talk. this was potentially a great misdirection ruined now because of how it was handled. once upon a time there were security committees that were briefed on highly sensitive information secretly. Instead, this was done publicly probably because of the withering criticism Dems are facing on the stupid decision to try enemy soldiers in our civilian courts.

Sure GOP deserves some blame for their relentless attacks, but GWB understood something Obama and Dems probably never will. You are the President, you make the tough decisions, the unpopular ones even if it means they run you and your party out of town on a rail. Obama can't do it because hes an ego maniac. Dems can't do it because they can't believe they can't stand anyone thinking they are smarter than them. Thats why they can't stop running against GWB. It's not our fault, GWB did it. No responsibility. What would they claim as their responsibility, only the unmeasurable "successes" of having "saved or created" jobs?

Obama can't lead his party because he is an ego maniac afraid to make decisions; he wants a consensus decision that won't stick to him if it needs to change for factual or political reasons. Mr professor, leading a discussion, not a nation.

GWB had ten times the ego Obama does. He was the ultimate cowboy, the one who invaded countries unilaterally, the president who gave the finger to the UN and the American people every day he was in office.

You are telling stories.

kiryan wrote:damn it, lost my fuking post so you're getting the condensed version.

panty bomber is an example of ego maniac tendencies. apparently he was talking but everyone thought he wouldn't talk. this was potentially a great misdirection ruined now because of how it was handled. once upon a time there were security committees that were briefed on highly sensitive information secretly. Instead, this was done publicly probably because of the withering criticism Dems are facing on the stupid decision to try enemy soldiers in our civilian courts.

Sure GOP deserves some blame for their relentless attacks, but GWB understood something Obama and Dems probably never will. You are the President, you make the tough decisions, the unpopular ones even if it means they run you and your party out of town on a rail. Obama can't do it because hes an ego maniac. Dems can't do it because they can't believe they can't stand anyone thinking they are smarter than them. Thats why they can't stop running against GWB. It's not our fault, GWB did it. No responsibility. What would they claim as their responsibility, only the unmeasurable "successes" of having "saved or created" jobs?

Obama can't lead his party because he is an ego maniac afraid to make decisions; he wants a consensus decision that won't stick to him if it needs to change for factual or political reasons. Mr professor, leading a discussion, not a nation.

GWB was a great decision maker. Like Custer.

Obama's quagmire of amibuity as told by HuffingtonPost. Basically, what I said, he wants to be loved by everyone or rather needs to be loved to support his ego.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-blan ... 47300.html

If the president is to save his presidency from a fatal weakening, he needs promptly to work through his inner dialogue and resolve the contesting urge to be loved with the urge to be true to himself -- in favor of the latter. His State of the Union speech reflected too much of the former.

He could do with a little less public love and a lot more public respect. Take some stands and stick with them. If he thinks we need more deficit spending to stimulate the economy, he shouldn't trot out rhetoric and faux policies in support of deficit reduction. He thereby neither gained the support of fiscal conservatives nor kept the favor of those for more deficits.

Bush had an ego? Bush fought for what he believed in (even if it wasn't true), thats different than having an ego. Bush had a job to do which was protect the US and he executed that despite what was popular.

The proof is in the transition. He seemed to go the extra mile to welcome Obama into the white house as the duly elected repudiation of Bush's policies. Bush has kept largely SILENT as Obama continuously bashes him over the past 12 months, 2 years. Ego maniacs go out there and dispute every "false" allegation, continously remind everyone how its not their fault. They can't stand any insult to their person because they know in their heart of hearts they are right and everyone else is wrong.

You can call Bush many things, but ego maniac would not be one of the valid choices especially compared to the standard Obama sets.

http://www.politico.com/arena/

Someone also apparently thinks its redonkulus that the government has disclosed that the panty bomber is cooperating. He talks about what if WW2 was fought in today's political climate, and I think he's right.

It's amusing -- ok, scary -- to imagine how this country might have waged World War II in this political climate. Fox News and GOP congressmen would complain 24/7 that the Roosevelt administration wasn't doing enough to win the war, which would have prompted unnamed administration officials to leak to the New York Times that contrary to public criticism about the nation's intelligence capabilities, the United States had actually managed to break Japanese naval codes. And, oh by the way, administration officials would add, the military was frantically working on a nifty new weapon that would....

WWII may never have reached the level it did had we existed in a world of Twitter and mass media. Trying to conceal what Hitler was up to in a world with spy planes and high res satellite footage, let alone social networking, wouldn't have gotten him very far. Pearl Harbor likely wouldn't have happened either thanks to the speed of communication. I don't see how this comparison really has any bearing on anything, the war would have been approached from an entirely different perspective in today's age. Apples and Oranges.

Ragorn wrote:GWB had ten times the ego Obama does. He was the ultimate cowboy, the one who invaded countries unilaterally, the president who gave the finger to the UN and the American people every day he was in office.

You are telling stories.

Ego? I see the decider and the promiser. I think that alone speaks for who the bigger ego is.

"These negotiations will be on C-Span."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4yFiPQZ ... r_embedded


http://change.gov/page/-/documents/20090109Report.pdf

"The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order." - Jan 22, 2009
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... Facilities

Now that's ego getting in the way of things.

kiryan wrote:Bush had an ego? Bush fought for what he believed in (even if it wasn't true), thats different than having an ego. Bush had a job to do which was protect the US and he executed that despite what was popular.

Believing you know the right thing to do despite the opposition of... well, the entire world... that is the quintessential example of a huge ego.

I thought that was the definition of courage. Doing what you believe is right despite the consequences or consensus.

kiryan wrote:Bush had an ego? Bush fought for what he believed in (even if it wasn't true), thats different than having an ego. Bush had a job to do which was protect the US and he executed that despite what was popular.

The proof is in the transition. He seemed to go the extra mile to welcome Obama into the white house as the duly elected repudiation of Bush's policies. Bush has kept largely SILENT as Obama continuously bashes him over the past 12 months, 2 years. Ego maniacs go out there and dispute every "false" allegation, continously remind everyone how its not their fault. They can't stand any insult to their person because they know in their heart of hearts they are right and everyone else is wrong.

You can call Bush many things, but ego maniac would not be one of the valid choices especially compared to the standard Obama sets.

Have you read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

How often does Zaphod actually go out an announce the things he does? He just lands and expects everyone to know how froody he is, because HE knows how froody he is. People look at him like "who the hell are you" and he just doesn't get it.

Egomaniacs don't need validation, they don't need to be in the public eye constantly. They don't need that reassurance, because they have their ego.

Bush is at home on a coke and hooker binge, thoroughly convinced he saved America from the commi... err... ter'rists.

kiryan wrote:I thought that was the definition of courage. Doing what you believe is right despite the consequences or consensus.

Like Charles Manson?

kiryan wrote:I thought that was the definition of courage. Doing what you believe is right despite the consequences or consensus.

Well see, that's the thing. If you tell the entire world to get fucked, and you turn out to be right, you are hailed as a hero. But if you're wrong... god help you.

Was Bush right or wrong?

Where are the WMDs?

Ragorn wrote:

kiryan wrote:I thought that was the definition of courage. Doing what you believe is right despite the consequences or consensus.

Well see, that's the thing. If you tell the entire world to get fucked, and you turn out to be right, you are hailed as a hero. But if you're wrong... god help you.

Was Bush right or wrong?

Where are the WMDs?

Where is the <8% unemployment in 2009?
Where is the C-Span coverage of healthcare negotiations?
Where is closure of Guantanamo Bay's detention facilities January 22, 2010?
Where is the bipartisanship?
Where is the withdraw of combat troops from Iraq (due date coming up soon)?
Where is the balancing of the budget?
Where is the reduction of the deficit?
Where is the open service for gays?

Was Obama right or wrong?

Honestly, it doesn't even matter. Courage for a politician is doing an unpopular thing if you believe it to be right.

teflor the ranger wrote:Honestly, it doesn't even matter. Courage for a politician is doing an unpopular thing if you believe it to be right.

"why not include the opinions and beliefs of others when making your own determination of what's right and wrong?" - Teflor

Sarvis wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:Honestly, it doesn't even matter. Courage for a politician is doing an unpopular thing if you believe it to be right.

"why not include the opinions and beliefs of others when making your own determination of what's right and wrong?" - Teflor

What a coward!

Point: Sarvis

Guess I'm not the only one who thinks its bullshit to play politics with valuable intelligence. However apparently some people think that its playing politics to call the administration out for letting out the "secret" that the panty bomber was cooperating. Any idiot knows its not a good idea to tip your hand.

Completely mismanaged, the intelligence committee should've been briefed in secret. The administration should've withered the firestorm of criticism. Instead, we're leaking shit to influence public opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... operation/

"I do find it an interesting strategy that we hastily call a briefing to let America and our friends and our enemies in the Middle East know that he's now singing like a canary," Hoekstra, R-Mich., said during a hearing with Blair.

Kind of a he-said she-said on that one. No way of knowing who is right. In general, it is usually good practice for law enforcement to keep tight lipped during a pending investigation, including the status of cooperating witnesses.

Sarvis wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:Honestly, it doesn't even matter. Courage for a politician is doing an unpopular thing if you believe it to be right.

"why not include the opinions and beliefs of others when making your own determination of what's right and wrong?" - Teflor

Those are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. This is a problem many of you have, just because it's unpopular, it doesn't mean that your opinion was not included.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... cess-iraq/

"I am very optimistic about Iraq," he said. "I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration."
--biden

really? Because you opposed the surge and said Iraq was destined for civil war of which we had no business being involved? DO YOU REMEMBER VOTING AGAINST THE SURGE and proslethyzing for the anti war effort?

"When Joe Biden was in the Senate and Obama was in the Senate, they authored and were the chief architect of the resolution opposing the surge," he said.

"You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer," he said. "You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

But the drawdown was negotiated in the Status of Forces Agreement before the Obama administration took office.

What exactly has obama and biden done other than continue Bush's policies since he had it all wrapped up before they came into office?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-ha ... 59701.html

What Obama following GWB again on secret prisons? Expanding them? I guess reality happened to all your grand rhetoric.

The day George W. Bush was elected, Omar says, "my father was so happy. This is the kind of president he needs -- one who will attack and spend money and break [his own] country."

Wow... and you posted that article in a thread purportedly DEFENDING Bush?

And you wonder why we have so much trouble taking you seriously...

Bush, the man Osama wants leading America!

Ok assuming that criticism is fair and that Osama single handidly master minded a global war on terror...

Obama's decision to intensify the war in Afghanistan, after receving the nobel peace prize, is still following in Bush's footsteps.

Either way this thread is about Obama and what he is doing. talk crap about Bush all you want, it just makes Obama that much dumber for following his "failed policies".

About Obama?

"I guess GWB wasn't so stupid after all mr professor" - Kiryan's thread title

"The day George W. Bush was elected, Omar says, "my father was so happy. This is the kind of president he needs -- one who will attack and spend money and break [his own] country."" - Kiryan's Article

Just sayin... you could have started a different thread to attack Obama rather than posting an article saying how stupid Bush's policy was in a thread saying he "wasn't so stupid after all."

But that would require too much logic.

Anyway, I'll leave it to others to attack your actual "point." I'm betting something's glossed over here that I'm not familiar enough with politics/current events to catch...

LOL, I just read that liberals consider "professor" to be a perjorative term when referring to Obama. LOL, I'm ahead of the curve!

Sarvis wrote:

The day George W. Bush was elected, Omar says, "my father was so happy. This is the kind of president he needs -- one who will attack and spend money and break [his own] country."

Wow... and you posted that article in a thread purportedly DEFENDING Bush?

And you wonder why we have so much trouble taking you seriously...

Bush, the man Osama wants leading America!

They were wrong about breaking the United States of America. They were right about the attacking part

kiryan wrote:LOL, I just read that liberals consider "professor" to be a perjorative term when referring to Obama. LOL, I'm ahead of the curve!

Actually, we consider professor to be a compliment. Professors are smart, like scientists, scholars, and all the other people the religious right tells you not to listen to.

Ragorn wrote:

kiryan wrote:LOL, I just read that liberals consider "professor" to be a perjorative term when referring to Obama. LOL, I'm ahead of the curve!

Actually, we consider professor to be a compliment. Professors are smart, like scientists, scholars, and all the other people the religious right tells you not to listen to.

Except there are plenty of professors that the religious right wants you to listen to, particularly those that know how to respect people's faith.

Referring to the president of the united states as professor is insulting despite professor being a respetful term. In the case of the president, it is obviously insulting the office and the sitting president and perhaps the American people as well.

http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/14/wher ... ay-bomber/

Good blog post on the undiebomer and the 'leak' of intelligence so many people are clamoring over. The author works for DHS.

SECOND, many pundits in addition to Mukasey criticize the administration for not obtaining actionable intelligence by its decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant.

Then, when the administration defends itself by explaining that it has, indeed, been obtaining actionable intelligence, the administration is lambasted for revealing to the enemy that Abdulmutallab has been cooperating. If national security was the real concern – instead of politics – critics would not be placing the administration in the untenable position of being damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t.

Mukasey states: “Once his former cohorts know he is providing information, they can act to make that information useless.”

In this respect, I truly wonder whether Al-Qaeda is out there pondering in some strategy session whether to change tactics based on the fact the administration says Abdulmutallab has been cooperating. If he was held incommunicado as an enemy combatant – as Mukasey seems to advocate — would the enemy assume that he was withstanding whatever interrogation methods were being used and therefore not change tactics? Would Al-Qaeda assume that no news is good news?

This is not some case where we secretly capture an Al-Qaeda operative and can feel confident that the enemy is not aware we are interrogating him. Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a plane over Detroit. It was a pretty public event. While I hate to speak for Al-Qaeda, I think we can safely assume that Al Qaeda realized he was compromised as soon he burned half his body without taking down the plane.