Forbidden Donut

Well, to be fair to your opinion of Maddow, his stance on detention is currently the very anti-democrat stance, so she is probably still biased.

We've covered issues like this before, but since you bring it up:

I think this is an affront to our country's values and is a detriment to the security and rights of every single US citizen. I cannot begin to imagine why any rational person, regardless of political affiliation, would think this is a good idea.

Ok, seems I missed out on this one. PREEMPTIVE DETENTION??!!!???!!!! Constitution plz k thnx. Seig Heil yall.

Link for the lazy imo.

I performed a test:

Number of Clicks to reply to forum post: 3

Number of Clicks to google "preemptive detention obama" and come to a useful result: 4

The result found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY


True lazyness at its best fellas


/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

I'm pretty infuriated to hear this. This is just disgusting.

-dan

Ehh... seems to me he is just now realizing how bad these people are. Too many bleeding hearts complaining in my opinion.

Too many bleeding hearts about people being detained, not for what they DID do, (because they don't have enough valid evidence to bring the charges against them) but for what they are expected to do in the future?

You actually think this is reasonable?

Well, we have civil processes for detaining the insane and sexually violent predators (some states) so maybe we should create one for detaining terrorists? I know this would in no way work and I don't support Obama's thoughts here but I am throwing it out there. You would have to say they are so ingrained with hatred that they pose a danger to themselves or others and we can try to provide treatment but it probably won't work.

I'm not convinced the line between "radical" and "insane" is all that thin.

This might be acceptable, but can the guys have a trial first. Seriously, if they didn't do anything, what are they being detained for?

To be fair, they are probably terrorists NOW, regardless of their status pre-detention. I probably would be at least...

It's "preventive detention" as it turns out. Here's an article if you hate getting your news from youtube links as I do.

<=== is super pissed.

I don't know what I would do... It's worth noting the president's actual words:

The rationale is that a fair number of these guys are being held on evidence obtained illegally, so a trial would release them. However we KNOW they are just chomping at the bit to fight us more, or something. This whole situation's existence pisses me off far more than Obama's reactions to it. It shouldn't have gotten this bad.

Add it to the con side of his list though. Along with the Wiretapping.

Probably

Yes, things shouldn't have gotten this bad, but wasn't Obama elected because he was different and going to change Washington? I think that is why he gets so much attention. People expected him to be different.

I would rather let Osama Bin Laden free than give the power to the executive to arbitrarily create new justice systems when they want to hold people with evidence that was obtained through illegal means for an indefinite period because of things they haven't done yet. The fact is, our own government is FAR more destructive to American lives and liberties than any terrorist can claim to be.

This whole thing amounts to absolutely nothing more than the executive branch not liking the rules, so they create their own set of rules to make anything they do a-ok. Why not just make a new "rule" that a sitting president doesn't need to actually be reelected and isn't bound by any term limit? Somehow people think that that sort of thing is absolute crazy-talk, but totally ignoring another fundamental principle grounded in constitutional law is totally reasonable?

Edit: By the way, I get it. If Obama gives trials to certain prisoners, it will come up in court that they were tortured. Regardless of whether any information gained from torture is being used as evidence in the case, they will have to declare a mistrial and let them go free.

Most, if not all of them, are almost certainly terrorists that will go back into the fold and seek to kill US soldiers or citizens. Some very well will. It is entirely reasonable to assume that since they are suppose to be high ranking terrorists that at least one of them will be involved in orchestrating the next large-scale terrorist attack on a western nation (maybe even the US).

If and when that happened, there would be an outcry from the populous demanding to know why Obama failed to stop the attacks and probably even (by some at least) asking why he let them go in the first place. I also know that it isn't Obama's fault that these people were tortured, but he knew what he was up against when he started campaigning. If he's not man enough to handle the situation, then maybe he should step aside and let someone with bigger balls do what needs to be done (I'd make a Clinton joke here, but we all know the situation wouldn't be different at all with her in the chair). The fact is, he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Even if that means he must commit political suicide, that is his fucking job. That is why we elected him. Get the job done or get the fuck out.

The only problem i have with this preventative detention is that it's possible innocent people may be stuck in these prisons.

If these people were actually involved with terrorism in any way, then why shouldn't they sit in prison for the rest of their lives? If they were soldiers from another country we were at war with, would we give them criminal trials and release many of them back to their home coutries, just to re enlist and come back to fight us? No we would keep them imprisoned until the end of the war, or INDEFINITELY. These people have declared war on us, if they're caught they need to sit in prison til the war is over.

I don't like having our rights and liberties eroded for the sake of security but if we have proof of someone being a terrorist then i don't see why we shouldn't lock them up til the terrorist surrender and the war is over.

The problem with that hardline stance on the matter is that we KNOW there are innocent people in that prison.

which is why obama talks about setting up some sort of judicial review that can provide oversight and hopefully release people that we really have no business locking up, right?

He's saying that we might be forced to keep some of them locked up anyway, in spite of a lack of admissible evidence.

But yes, he is doing quite a bit better than his predecessor, and a whole hell of a lot better than 90% of the country would do.

Court, I'm curious as to what you believe should be done? Any terrorist who wasn't caught either red handed or after performing an act of terrorism/aggression should be let go?

Should be done in regard to what, exactly? I don't think the executive branch has the authority to detain any person for any crime other than a prisoner of war, and all prisoners of war must be treated in the ways that we describe in our own law and international treaties.

Since our government absolutely insists that these people are not prisoners of war, then the only other legitimate course of action is to arrest and charge them for criminal behavior in our judicial courts. As in all courts across this whole country, the evidence is put on the table and a verdict is drawn, and guilt must be proven. There are numerous forms of evidence that can be used to convict people of crimes that don't involve specifically catching them red-handed, and I think all should be explored as necessary.

If, however, it cannot be proven that they participated in or supported criminal behavior, then I absolutely support their immediate and unconditional release. If a motion for mistrial is presented on the grounds of mistreatment or abuse and sufficient evidence can be presented to support such a motion, then I also absolutely support their immediate and unconditional release.

Either way, I do not, have not, and will not ever support detaining anyone for any reason other than for crimes they have already committed.

Wouldn't detaining them as prisoners of war be pretty much the same as preventative indefinite detention?

I forget why we refused to consider them prisoners of war. Was it so we could torture them?

Yes, because then the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

So isn't the easy answer to all this to just call them prisoners of war and give them the protections afforded by the geneva convention?

That's just crazy talk.

As far as I know, the reasoning against doing that goes as such. They are not a regular military, and in most cases are not performing their attacks on behalf of a specific nation. Also, because of the method of attack, again, not regular military. And as such not prisoners of war, because war is a specific conflict between two or more nations. Somewhere after that I start to black out a little. Especially what with the whole nomenclature of the "War on Terrah".

If you make it a little farther into the reasoning you find out that these people think Jesus would have called for the torture of these individuals, that this is uncharted territory and thus needs new definitions and conditions, that they are getting treated better in Gitmo than they would in GP, or even in their own countries, that this is a war that MUST be won for our safety, and curiously that this isn't actually a war at all.

Geewiz Andrew. That makes it sound almost like people are using these things to justify their own fears of those who are different and innate belief that they somehow deserve better than nine tenths of the world. Golly... That couldn't possibly be it, could it?

Sorry, I blacked out...

What's up?

Yes, CJ. That is the ideal situation in my mind. I am well aware that prisoners of war are not due trial nor a specific release date, but that is necessary in the case of war. However, those prisoners of war must be treated humanely and in line with our laws and international treaties that define appropriate treatment of prisoners.

The constitution wouldn't have to be rewritten, the liberties of US citizens are preserved, the prisoners of war are treated ethically and humanely as is appropriate for the self-declared free-est nation in the world.

That wouldn't solve my other issue that a war on "terror" is absolutely ridiculous, but either way that is a separate issue entirely.

It's a really shitty situation because of the variety of people in that prison. You have people who were just wrong-place-wrong-time folks, hardened terrorists, their leaders, innocents, people who just didn't look right... kids...

If we'd had ANY consistency regarding what does and does not constitute a detain-able offense or circumstance this would be a might easier.

Now we're sort of required to take each case and examine the circumstances surrounding the individuals capture to decide if they are a POW or a regular old prisoner.

Ergo, this won't happen fast. First group to go free? I bet it's the Uighurs.

edit: That read an awful lot like an apology for this kind of activity. It isn't. This is unacceptable by any administration. This whole fiasco though falls squarely at the previous crew's feet. I hope this is reconsidered like a number of other initiatives like the fairness doctrine and the AWB. We'll see?

As far as I'm concerned, supporting the previous administration's detainment policies is no better than perpetrating them from the start. Further, I think Obama has gone beyond what Bush sought to do in saying he wants to detain people for crimes they may (but haven't) committed. From what I've seen Obama has talked the talk about handling this situation correctly but has done absolutely nothing to remedy the situation, so I think it is entirely unfair and disingenuous to say that this is the responsibility of only the previous administration.

Easy there tiger. How 'bout we wait til Thursday when the man is going to actually talk about this matter, rather than jumping on his dick for "mulling" the option.

If you're so interested in his actions on this matter, perhaps it would be best to see what they are. So far we're all outraged by some anonymous statement from two sources present at a meeting in which Obama is said to have considered the pros and cons of setting up a future legal system to deal with people captured in the future. Hopefully somebody tells him we have that already and he clams up on it. In case you haven't noticed, he has a tendency to change his mind a lot.

To clarify, what you want to happen could very well be the product of the considerations you're so upset about.

He's said he may continue to use military tribunals, but he'd add protections for defendants. You'd argue that this is worse than setting up the military tribunals and rewriting the law to redefine enemy combatants to include non-citizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the administration? That's weird.

I don't like it, but "beyond"? Unless you have read something I haven't, that's completely bizarre.

I will take issue with this as you have no idea what those people have done. You think a kid or someone that doesnt look right (whatever that means) cant be a terrorist?

True story - While on patrol in Iraq some soldiers find a 12 year old planting an IED on a road used by military. The child is ordered to stop in his native language. He continues, and is told to stop or he will be detained. The childs response is to pull out a handgun and shoot at the soliders. The child was killed and the soldiers were luckily unharmed.

A good friend of mine shot the kid, and it bothers him to this day. But he also realizes he was attempting to protect people from an IED when he was forced with the decision, me and my friends (along with possible innocents as an IED does not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants) or this kid will die. So dont tell me that kids or people that dont look right cant terrorists.

He was saying that a person not looking right was the reason they were detained, not that some of those detained just don't look like terrorists, I believe.

He also tossed in kids. And which people were in the wrong place at the wrong time? was it the people at terrorists meetings, that didnt know their best friends were terrorist and were just showing up for supper, I am sure there are lots that fit that situation in there. There is a reason for Obama taking the stance he has now, after condemning it. He now has the facts and made a decision based on those facts, where as before he was using the rosey colored glasses to make his decision on their detention.

Or he's simply lost his balls to his will to be re-elected in 2012. It doesn't require a misunderstanding of the situation to think our whole stance regarding pretty much the entire issues of exaggerated executive power, illegal detentions, and eroding liberties is appalling. It does, however, require a basic understanding of the ideals that this country was founded on -- this is obviously the tiny bit of understanding that is entirely lost upon the majority of people in this country and on this forum.

@Andrew: He didn't say this in a closed door meeting with a few advisers, he said it in front of the nation in a speech at the national archives. But you are correct, he was only talking about his plans to implement pre-emptive, indefinite detentions. I, however, would like to express my absolute disgust for this extremely irresponsible plan before it is instituted rather than waiting with my thumb up my butt for when the bad comes.

Hurrr Gurr Durr.

Muhammad Ismail Agha (14 y/o)
Faruq Ali Ahmed (16 y/o)
Saad Madhi Saad Howash Al Azmi (14 y/o)
Mohammed Al Amin (17 y/o)

Yeah, I toss in kids. Want me to get further into the list than 1/4 of the way through the A's?

Look, I thought the nature of the gitmo detainees was pretty well known. They aren't all innocent, even in the list of those kids. But to say they don't pick up kids off the street and throw them in prison is a little silly. Talk about rose colored glasses.

@ court: I'd like a citation of this. There has been a big ass thread here, which incorrectly refers to the item as "pre-emptive" instead of what it really seems to have been called. This makes it more difficult to find good information on it. You seem to know a whole shitload about this.

What I read, in 3 different publications yesterday, was what I conveyed here. That the sources for this story were anonymous, and that there was an official statement coming tonight.

Can you direct me to a source which shows me his official statement instead of just assuring me that what you say is true? I'm right there with you about getting up in arms before a plan is actually implemented, and I've already expressed my disgust at the mere suggestion that this is a good idea. But I have yet to see anything that indicates that this is his plan in some official capacity. I want to know that this is not just some wharrgarble nonsense before I write a fairly strongly worded letter to our leadership about something that isn't even a legit concern.


And don't be a pretentious cock, kthx.

Speech transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/obama.transcript2/



So in the event that we think someone will do something illegal (an act of war in this case), we will detain them indefinitely. Mind you, this isn't currently legal, so we are going to work with Congress to pass legislation to make such detainment legal. But don't worry guys, they will make sure the new laws they pass are guided by American values. Phew!

Sorry, I probably should have elaborated that the ideals of the US are lost or ignored by the majority of people in this country and on this forum. I didn't mean to go create any confusion between ignorance and pragmatism, regardless of whether I think they are equally destructive (which I do).

So that's why we don't get along in pol discussion.
<=== pragmatist

Thanks for the transcript. I'll probably draft a letter later this afternoon. woo.

------------------

I just finished reading it. I like his statements on reforming military commissions, while continuing to disapprove of them altogether. And I think this is political jockeying based on what he perceives as the next line of attack on his administration. Only thing we can do about it is let him know that it might not be as politically savvy as he thinks it is...

lame.

The reason I wrote what I did was that the way I interpreted your previous paragraph (which I could obviously be wrong) is that you thought that the children are innocent because they are children, which is why I told my story.

I would say they dont throw innocent children in prison is my stance.

"No true Scotsman" eh?

We know there are innocent people in gitmo.

We know there are/were children in gitmo.

It stands to reason some of the children are likely, or at least potentially innocent.

What is the name of the world you live in Andrew, where you are always right?


There are no clear answers on what to do here. We have had a series of bad decisions that were made by previous administrations, and now we have to try and fix it. Rather than we, it is the leaders that we have voted in to make decisions involving things like this on our behalf. We can contact our respective decision makers and let them know what we think, but that is pretty much all the more we can do.

Curiously, this is exactly what I said I was doing.

Those were two separate comments, for clarification.

Who? and where can I get this information?

Apparently you are unaware of the people who are sitting in there with their charges cleared and nowhere to go because we're a bunch of NIMBY pussies.

You can find it online.

I didn't think this was still a relevant debate...

A lot of the people are not being returned simply because their own country doesnt want them.

While noteworthy, largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I repeat: there are innocent people in Gitmo, there are minors in Gitmo. Some of those minors have since been released, even, indicating their innocence.

I don't understand how someone can contest that "They don't throw innocent children in prison". It simply isn't a matter of opinion at this point.