And they said Palin was too naive
-
So after Bush couldn't get Guantanamo Bay sorted out in 6 years (his attempts to try people kept getting aborted by the Supreme Court and other considerations), Obama is to be the object of derision for not sorting it out in a couple of months. A typical example of the different standards of judgment you apply to the two parties.
John Carson
Umm... Bush tried to "sort it out"? I don't believe Bush saw anything there that needed sorting out.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
0[^] typically exercises his brain weeks after the mouth moves, apparently.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
0[^] typically exercises his brain weeks after the mouth moves, apparently.
Or, sometimes, months or even years (you know, the whole "all these Bush policies are totally wrong and must be abandoned at once" thingie).
-
Oakman wrote:
The almost-son-in-law is turning out to be a helluva
I heard he pimp-slapped Larry King the other night.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I heard he pimp-slapped Larry King the other night.
I saw outtakes - the way-past-his-prime interviewing the never-will-have-a-prime.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
0[^] typically exercises his brain weeks after the mouth moves, apparently.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
So, what would be your suggestion? They are there since 7 years without any trial.
-
So after Bush couldn't get Guantanamo Bay sorted out in 6 years (his attempts to try people kept getting aborted by the Supreme Court and other considerations), Obama is to be the object of derision for not sorting it out in a couple of months. A typical example of the different standards of judgment you apply to the two parties.
John Carson
The question of whether to keep prisoners there and the question of how to try them are separate issues. Bush had not problem with the first, Obama has problems with both, having rushed to the decision to close the prison before having worked out where to move the prisoners.
-
So, what would be your suggestion? They are there since 7 years without any trial.
Le Centriste wrote:
So, what would be your suggestion? They are there since 7 years without any trial.
The problem is that Bush, rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), insisted that we were not at war and these prisoners were, ipso facto, not prisoners of war. There is a point to be made there, but it seems to me that -- lacking any other guidance except from Alberto ("I can't recall") Gonzales - treating as if they were P.O.W.'s might have made great good sense. Creating a third category besides criminals and POW's and then not formulating strict rules (via Congress) about how we would treat them is another example of the Bush Administration's short-sightedness. Such treatment (as POW's) would have precluded the "harsh interrogation" techniques that were used and there is some evidence that has been alluded to that suggests we obtain information by using those techniques that we wouldn't have gotten any other way. On the other hand, that is always true and it might have saved many lives, for instance, if we had routinely used those techniques on POW's in WWII. Nonetheless, there were few allegations, and less proof, of that kind of behavior back then. Now Obama is stuck - as I believe Bush intended him to be - with the problem of Gitmo. Whatever use the prison might have once had as a source of information is totally outdated. Most of the prisoners have been rejected by their countries of origin, no other country will incarcerate them, and even Yemen will accept them only if paid to do so and with no guarantees that they will not release them a day later. Although it is with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that a "take no prisoners" attitude among our soldiers would have been the wisest course, if not one much of the U.S. could be comfortable with. I am at a loss to understand why Obama cancelled the military tribunals, except as political grandstanding. These were trials, authorised by the Congress, and with the power to sentence or release the prisoners. Instead, he has condemned some who might have been freed to continue to wait upon a President's pleasure and granted a reprieve to some who might have been proved to be guilty of mass murder.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
So, what would be your suggestion? They are there since 7 years without any trial.
Le Centriste wrote:
So, what would be your suggestion? They are there since 7 years without any trial.
I'm content to leave them there. Obama obviously didn't have a clue what to do he was only pandering to the left when he announced the closure, rather like announcing a trip to the moon then asking directions.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
So, what would be your suggestion? They are there since 7 years without any trial.
The problem is that Bush, rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), insisted that we were not at war and these prisoners were, ipso facto, not prisoners of war. There is a point to be made there, but it seems to me that -- lacking any other guidance except from Alberto ("I can't recall") Gonzales - treating as if they were P.O.W.'s might have made great good sense. Creating a third category besides criminals and POW's and then not formulating strict rules (via Congress) about how we would treat them is another example of the Bush Administration's short-sightedness. Such treatment (as POW's) would have precluded the "harsh interrogation" techniques that were used and there is some evidence that has been alluded to that suggests we obtain information by using those techniques that we wouldn't have gotten any other way. On the other hand, that is always true and it might have saved many lives, for instance, if we had routinely used those techniques on POW's in WWII. Nonetheless, there were few allegations, and less proof, of that kind of behavior back then. Now Obama is stuck - as I believe Bush intended him to be - with the problem of Gitmo. Whatever use the prison might have once had as a source of information is totally outdated. Most of the prisoners have been rejected by their countries of origin, no other country will incarcerate them, and even Yemen will accept them only if paid to do so and with no guarantees that they will not release them a day later. Although it is with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that a "take no prisoners" attitude among our soldiers would have been the wisest course, if not one much of the U.S. could be comfortable with. I am at a loss to understand why Obama cancelled the military tribunals, except as political grandstanding. These were trials, authorised by the Congress, and with the power to sentence or release the prisoners. Instead, he has condemned some who might have been freed to continue to wait upon a President's pleasure and granted a reprieve to some who might have been proved to be guilty of mass murder.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Le Centriste wrote:
So, what would be your suggestion? They are there since 7 years without any trial.
The problem is that Bush, rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), insisted that we were not at war and these prisoners were, ipso facto, not prisoners of war. There is a point to be made there, but it seems to me that -- lacking any other guidance except from Alberto ("I can't recall") Gonzales - treating as if they were P.O.W.'s might have made great good sense. Creating a third category besides criminals and POW's and then not formulating strict rules (via Congress) about how we would treat them is another example of the Bush Administration's short-sightedness. Such treatment (as POW's) would have precluded the "harsh interrogation" techniques that were used and there is some evidence that has been alluded to that suggests we obtain information by using those techniques that we wouldn't have gotten any other way. On the other hand, that is always true and it might have saved many lives, for instance, if we had routinely used those techniques on POW's in WWII. Nonetheless, there were few allegations, and less proof, of that kind of behavior back then. Now Obama is stuck - as I believe Bush intended him to be - with the problem of Gitmo. Whatever use the prison might have once had as a source of information is totally outdated. Most of the prisoners have been rejected by their countries of origin, no other country will incarcerate them, and even Yemen will accept them only if paid to do so and with no guarantees that they will not release them a day later. Although it is with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that a "take no prisoners" attitude among our soldiers would have been the wisest course, if not one much of the U.S. could be comfortable with. I am at a loss to understand why Obama cancelled the military tribunals, except as political grandstanding. These were trials, authorised by the Congress, and with the power to sentence or release the prisoners. Instead, he has condemned some who might have been freed to continue to wait upon a President's pleasure and granted a reprieve to some who might have been proved to be guilty of mass murder.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
So, he's kinda stuck in a catch-22 situation. :doh:
-
Le Centriste wrote:
So, what would be your suggestion? They are there since 7 years without any trial.
I'm content to leave them there. Obama obviously didn't have a clue what to do he was only pandering to the left when he announced the closure, rather like announcing a trip to the moon then asking directions.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm content to leave them there
What good would it do?
-
The question of whether to keep prisoners there and the question of how to try them are separate issues. Bush had not problem with the first, Obama has problems with both, having rushed to the decision to close the prison before having worked out where to move the prisoners.
Rob Graham wrote:
The question of whether to keep prisoners there and the question of how to try them are separate issues. Bush had not problem with the first, Obama has problems with both, having rushed to the decision to close the prison before having worked out where to move the prisoners.
They are only separate if you adopt the (in my view morally indefensible) position that it is OK to hold people indefinitely without trial. Once that view is rejected (and it would seem that even the Bush Administration wasn't totally comfortable with it), then the issue of how to try people is central to how to deal with the prisoners. Obama's executive order said Guantanomo was to be closed within a year. That should be adequate time to figure out what to do with the prisoners (if all else fails, some may end up in a prison facility of some sort in the US). I don't see any "rushed" decision, but I do see a rush to declare a policy failure when the Administration is only a very short distance into that 1 year period. Read the executive order in full here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Closure_Of_Guantanamo_Detention_Facilities/[^]
John Carson
modified on Friday, April 24, 2009 10:16 AM
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm content to leave them there
What good would it do?
Le Centriste wrote:
What good would it do?
they couldn't participate in jihadist activity.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
In a civil trial the concept of "reasonable doubt" is well understood. Is it the same for Military Tribunals in the USA or is there some other test that doesn't have a civil equivalence?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
In a civil trial the concept of "reasonable doubt" is well understood
Not Necessarily: Consider France, for instance Having no direct experience with anything worse than an article 13 (non-judicial punishment) I cannot testify from first hand experience, but all the movies and TV I've watched (The Truth? You can't handle the Truth!) suggest that in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the prosecution. However. military courts do not have juries, they have judges. It is my understand that it simply requires a majority of judges to find a defendant guilty, not a unanimous verdict.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
In a civil trial the concept of "reasonable doubt" is well understood
Not Necessarily: Consider France, for instance Having no direct experience with anything worse than an article 13 (non-judicial punishment) I cannot testify from first hand experience, but all the movies and TV I've watched (The Truth? You can't handle the Truth!) suggest that in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the prosecution. However. military courts do not have juries, they have judges. It is my understand that it simply requires a majority of judges to find a defendant guilty, not a unanimous verdict.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Not Necessarily: Consider France, for instance
Yes, but are the French civilized :) "The Truth? You can't handle the Truth!" (Jack Nicholson to Tom Cruise?) wasn't that film set in Guantanomo?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yes, but are the French civilized
Mais oui, mon ami. Without them we wouldn't know how to make French Fries, how to French Kiss, or how to Surrender.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
wasn't that film set in Guantanomo?
Yep - though at the Naval Base, not the prison.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin