Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (Rickster), 11 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 14 of 19 < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 >
Topic Options
#43258 - 02/24/09 03:47 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Cute cartoon, but not serious even within the realm of satire.

There does have to be a process put in place to see which of the remaining detainees really pose no threat and shouldn't have been there in the first place, which deserved to be detained but should be tried on the evidence against them, and which may be truly dangerous but face uncertain prosecutions due to key evidence that the Bush administration obtained through torture rendering such evidence inadmissible.

Jane Mayer has an article in a recent New Yorker on the topic. An excerpt:

"A number of national-security lawyers in both parties favor the creation of some new form of preventive detention. They do not believe that it is the President

Top
#43260 - 02/24/09 11:22 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
Pardon my radical thread deviation here. The last sentence of Daniel's post immediately above was truncated, much as in some previous posts. The HTML code for an apostrophe,
 Code:
&#8217;
was the culprit here.
This UBB threads quirk is a pain in the ass for cutter/pasters from web pages.
Those who are troubled with this and are keen on posting from webpage content must find the truncation point on the webpage to see where some punctuation mark must be manually inserted in the post as a substitute for what appears on the webpage. This may entail several cut-and-paste reiterations around offending punctuation marks. So you really must be keen on posting that stuff.
And yes, I know this belongs in the Bugs & Comments forum, but the context wouldn't be as clear.
.................................................................
Getting back to the subject, I thank Daniel for that New Yorker article link. Reading it makes me smug about not having voting for Obama. Things would have been different under Nader.
_________________________

Top
#43263 - 02/24/09 01:41 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I thank oneo for pointing out the technical problems.

To continue with Jane Meyer's excerpt:

"They do not believe that it is the President's prerogative to lock 'enemy combatants' up indefinitely, yet they fear that neither the criminal courts nor the military system is suited for the handling of transnational terrorists, whom they do not consider to be ordinary criminals or conventional soldiers. Instead, they suggest that Obama should work with Congress to write new laws, possibly creating a 'national-security court,' which could order certain suspects to be held without a trial."

Now, I don't believe that indefinite detention is justified. And I believe that implementing such a system would harm us more than it would help us. But the fact that such issues are being intensely discussed--and that Jane Meyer could write such a long article on the topic--indicate to me that the issue really is not simple, and so the cartoon is off base in merely asserting otherwise.

I have my opinion on the matter, and I will be critical and disappointed if the Obama administration concludes otherwise and is unable to convince me that they're right. But I'm going to give them more than a month to reach a decision, and I think it's a little premature to take them to task for a decision they haven't even made yet.

Oeno, I'm curious. You read the Jane Mayer article. Do you still agree with the cartoon that the issue is not at least somewhat complicated? How do we know things would have been different under Nader regarding this issue when the Obama administration hasn't reached a conclusion?

Top
#43273 - 02/24/09 04:59 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
Yes, the cartoon strip is only marginally applicable. And perhaps Obama might just turn out to be the constitutional adherent and civil libertarian we'd like him to be. And maybe Nader was full of used food about this in his campaign rhetoric. I believe the latter to be less likely than the former.
The issue is complicated; most issues of this kind are. Whatever the case, I would like to see or hear something to the effect that the US Constitution shall strictly apply. I did not see or hear that. It can not be taken for granted nowadays.
_________________________

Top
#43279 - 02/24/09 06:17 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Whatever the case, I would like to see or hear something to the effect that the US Constitution shall strictly apply. I did not see or hear that. It can not be taken for granted nowadays.


Part of the problem is that people differ on what the US Constitution says and therefore what it means to "strictly apply" it. I strongly disagree with what the Bush administration said the Constitution says, but I have little doubt that they (or at least most of them) believed they were acting within constitutional constraints, regardless of how ridiculous some of us thought their interpretations of the Constitution were.

Still, I agree that fairly obvious interpretations of the Constitution cannot be taken for granted. And I would like to see a clear rejection of indefinite detention policies (absent some form of due process akin to a criminal proceeding). But I'll critique the new administration when they come to a decision. As Andrew Sullivan said regarding the Obama administration's wrangling of many crises and issues simultaneously: "Give them time. Then give them hell."

Top
#43280 - 02/24/09 06:45 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
As Andrew Sullivan said regarding the Obama administration's wrangling of many crises and issues simultaneously: "Give them time. Then give them hell."

Ooh, I like that! Not a bad sentiment.
_________________________

Top
#43288 - 02/25/09 04:54 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
A few points from memory:

Jane Mayer also said that a very large part of the problem now is due to the fact that the Bush administration screwed things up so badly by torturing prisoners. Now we can't use much of the evidence we have against them in court. If we could, we could trie them in our regular court system

Listen to her On Fresh Air.

I don't believe that all or even most of the Bush administration believes what they said the Constitution meant. I am pretty sure they they knew they were at the limit of what they could argue it meant - which is exactly why we they made the cases they did.


Too many of them should be in prison, and a few deserve to be tortured - starting with Bush. He should be water boarded until he admits (figures out for Daniel and others) that it is torture.


Edited by mworking (02/25/09 05:52 AM)

Top
#43289 - 02/25/09 11:49 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
Too many of them should be in prison, and a few deserve to be tortured - starting with Bush. He should be water boarded until he admits (figures out for Daniel and others) that it is torture.

This is anger speaking, of course. I'm willing to bet these culprits will go scot free.
_________________________

Top
#43290 - 02/25/09 11:59 AM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Jane Mayer also made it sound as Obama would not push to prosecute them, but that they might still be disbared. Anger, yes, but not just anger. I feel they need to be made an example. Theat might make some difference in the future.

Added: After some refelction this morning I feel that disbarement would be a very suitable minimum punishment. It would render them harmless in the manner they have caused abuse in the past and make an example of them.


Edited by mworking (02/25/09 01:26 PM)

Top
#43307 - 02/25/09 07:54 PM Re: Meanwhile, back in Guantanamo ... [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: mworking
I don't believe that all or even most of the Bush administration believes what they said the Constitution meant. I am pretty sure they they knew they were at the limit of what they could argue it meant - which is exactly why we they made the cases they did.


I understand the skepticism. But I think Cheney and others are true believers in the unitary executive theory. And I think many of them believe that there's a war exception to just about everything in the Constitution. I think those positions are wrong, but I'm not willing to assume they don't actually believe it.

 Originally Posted By: mworking
Too many of them should be in prison, and a few deserve to be tortured - starting with Bush. He should be water boarded until he admits (figures out for Daniel and others) that it is torture.


My understanding is that prosecuting these folks is going to be tough, since they did have legal opinions--flawed as they were, and likely telling them what they wanted to hear--to rely on. Disbarment for the lawyers is a distinct possibility; they have an obligation to the law as well as to their clients.

Cheney's insistence that waterboarding is not torture absolutely confounds me.

Top
Page 14 of 19 < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored