The End of Gitmo...

[dilettante]

As an American I find considerable relief in reading that Guantanamo Bay is finally going to be shut down. Details still have to be worked out about what to do with the prisoners, but this is certainly a step in the right direction.


Mr. Obama signed executive orders closing the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/guantanamobaynavalbasecuba/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), Cuba, within a year; ending the Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s secret prisons; and requiring all interrogations to follow the noncoercive methods of the Army (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/us_army/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Field Manual.


“We intend to win this fight,” he said. “We are going to win it on our own terms.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23obama.html

[SMadsen]

Not only a step in the right direction but a wise move for the President as far as retaining credibility is concerned :)

[Michael]

:bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap:

Yes, three cheers for Barack Obama on making this the first official act of his Presidential Administration. The symbolic value of that is huge and I'm certain it was long planned to be that way.

Use of torture, Gitmo, Abu Graib, violation of Habeus Corpus and the violation of the Geneva Convention are absolutely the worst attrocities of the Bush Administration and moving immediately on all of these matters is critical to the process of restoring America's honor and integrity as a nation (and the rule of law).

[Donkey]

This closes (or will close when they get it sorted out) a rather dark chapter in our history, or at least I hope.

I suppose we always used pretty nasty means to do this sort of thing (the CIA doesn't have the best reputation around the world), but but the GWB administration practically flaunted it. Maybe, as an ironic result of this openness about shady interrogation etc. it will lead to a real reduction in what goes on covertly too.

[Americano]

This closes (or will close when they get it sorted out) a rather dark chapter in our history, or at least I hope.

I suppose we always used pretty nasty means to do this sort of thing (the CIA doesn't have the best reputation around the world), but but the GWB administration practically flaunted it. Maybe, as an ironic result of this openness about shady interrogation etc. it will lead to a real reduction in what goes on covertly too.

I'm always amazed at the number of posters on other forums who avidly support torture and Gitmo under the guise of keeping the US safe from terrorists. They seem to be the same posters who feel the US military is woefully underfunded.

[Michael]

I'm always amazed at the number of posters on other forums who avidly support torture and Gitmo under the guise of keeping the US safe from terrorists. They seem to be the same posters who feel the US military is woefully underfunded.
If the US is going to support torture, the US military is underfunded to face the short, medium and longterm fallout from that policy.

[Dominick]

Uhm, and what about the 20 or so other Guantanamo's in Afghanistan, Iraq, Thailand, Azerbeijan and similarly 'benevolent' nations ?

[Donkey]

Uhm, and what about the 20 or so other Guantanamo's in Afghanistan, Iraq, Thailand, Azerbeijan and similarly 'benevolent' nations ?
He's ordered them closed too, I believe.

[Michael]

He's ordered them closed too, I believe.
That would be pretty radical in that it would involve the US admitting they exist - something that has been officially denied for years.

And all these grandstanding games-playing by Obama may be symbolically impressive but are ultimately meaningless unless he pursues criminal charges against American perpetrators of these war crimes. No trials, means no actual change in US policy.

[Michael]

Uhm, and what about the 20 or so other Guantanamo's in Afghanistan, Iraq, Thailand, Azerbeijan and similarly 'benevolent' nations ?
I've just been chasing this up. Donkey is correct.

The executive order that orders Gitmo closed includes the various CIA "black sites" around the globe as well.

[Dominick]

I'm genuinely impressed.

[Donkey]

I'm genuinely impressed.
This, assuming its followed through, and the lifting of the "abortion" ban strike me as the two actions that will have the most actual impact, so far. We'll see what he does next.

[Michael]

This, assuming its followed through, and the lifting of the "abortion" ban strike me as the two actions that will have the most actual impact, so far. We'll see what he does next.
What "abortion ban" are you referring to?

I do know Obama has reversed (again) the ban on US foreign aid money being spent on contraceptives. This is standard procedure. Reagan invented the ban, Clinton reversed it, GWBush reinstated it and Obama has now reversed it. This is a pure 'party-line yo-yo' policy.

[Donkey]

What "abortion ban" are you referring to?

I do know Obama has reversed (again) the ban on US foreign aid money being spent on contraceptives. This is standard procedure. Reagan invented the ban, Clinton reversed it, GWBush reinstated it and Obama has now reversed it. This is a pure 'party-line yo-yo' policy.
That is what I was referring to. In my understanding (though I'm sure I could be wrong), it didn't ban money for contraceptives, it banned money going to any organization that promoted contraception as an option.

I say that this is big because, aside from its rather minimal symbolism, I think it could point a good deal of cash in the direction of good organizations that would otherwise not get it.

[Michael]

That is what I was referring to. In my understanding (though I'm sure I could be wrong), it didn't ban money for contraceptives, it banned money going to any organization that promoted contraception as an option.
You are correct here. I just remember this as a 'contraceptives' thing, not an 'abortion' thing. ;)

I say that this is big because, aside from its rather minimal symbolism, I think it could point a good deal of cash in the direction of good organizations that would otherwise not get it.
Yes, reversing the rule is good policy and will free up existing funds to go to worthy organizations.

[Donkey]

You are correct here. I just remember this as a 'contraceptives' thing, not an 'abortion' thing. ;)


Which is why I put it in "". I think that couching it in terms of abortion was a technique that they tried to use to give the policy more legitimacy.

If by "abortion" they meant "condoms." :erm:

[Americano]

That is what I was referring to. In my understanding (though I'm sure I could be wrong), it didn't ban money for contraceptives, it banned money going to any organization that promoted contraception as an option.

I say that this is big because, aside from its rather minimal symbolism, I think it could point a good deal of cash in the direction of good organizations that would otherwise not get it.

Two-thirds of the aid package for Africa at the end of last summer to combat AIDS was, in the face of a Bush Veto of that package, designated for abstinence only training by US Christian missionary groups in Africa.

[Dominick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8052999.stm

Whoops. Back to square one ?
Obama's just another politician. That's all.

[Evangeline]

It's very depressing to see him go back on so many campaign promises.....

[partofme]

It's very depressing to see him go back on so many campaign promises.....


And this is with a clear victory and both houses of congress.

[Evangeline]

And this is with a clear victory and both houses of congress.

Warrantless wiretapping, military commissions, don't ask, don't tell, torture pictures.....he's caving in right and left. Mostly right.

[Michael]

It's very depressing to see him go back on so many campaign promises.....

It wouldn't be so bad if the key issues he keeps renegging on weren't the critically important national security-American-law-and-order issues that were one of the main driving forces of his election - and a major symbolic issue that the rest of the world is following VERY CLOSELY.

Gitmo is a huge (apparently permanent) black mark on the US conscience and legal system. The rest of the world is not going to stop bitching about this travesty of international law until America ends it completely.

What are the chances of finding a Spaniard in that remaining block of Gitmo prisoners.... lets hope!

(Btw, I believe a Canadian is in the group... and Canada has the same kind of laws that Spain has used to try foriegn political leaders for crimes against humanity - Canada would be legally obligated to persue charges - better hope Harper stays in office up here to prevent that ball starting).

Btw, Canada is currently engaged in a ten-year long legal battle with former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney over corruption charges (a lousy $250,000 in cash). Mulroney has had a major jail term hanging over his head the whole time. If we will prosecute our own prime ministers, I doubt if we would hold back for your President!!!

[partofme]

Warrantless wiretapping, military commissions, don't ask, don't tell, torture pictures.....he's caving in right and left. Mostly right.

Does he think it will help him any? It isn't like the right wingers are letting down on their constant attacks of his every move so I don't see the motivation after winning on those very issues. :ummm:

[Michael]

Does he think it will help him any? It isn't like the right wingers are letting down on their constant attacks of his every move so I don't see the motivation after winning on those very issues. :ummm:

I think Obama is getting trapped in the bubble of Washington conventional wisdom (thinking inside the Beltway).

It is 'conventional wisdom' that both Carter and Clinton got into trouble early in their first terms by picking a fight with powerful congressional interests and that this soured their relationship with Congress. Thus, Obama is trying to avoid any fight with Congress on the torture/Gitmo/national-security issue in order to be better able to get his 'true' progressive agenda through (i.e. healthcare and carbon emissions).

I think that 'conventional wisdom' is wrong and the strategy based on it is foolish. Axlerod might be a brilliant campaign strategist for getting Obama elected President, but he is clearly NOT a smart Washington player for policy or a man of progressive political principle.

Rahm Emmanuel's fingerprints are all over this one and I don't like his politics either (he smells too much like one of those infamously smokey Chicago backrooms).

The Democratic party has a long history of making these kinds of policy-surrenders to the rightwing and then not getting what they thought they were bargaining for in the end because the rightwing will reneg and fight tooth and claw against healthcare and carbon too!

The Democratic party needs to learn that the Republican party plays dirty and they play to win - everytime, principles be damned - they are on a mission to serve the corporate interest.

[partofme]

I think Obama is getting trapped in the bubble of Washington conventional wisdom (thinking inside the Beltway).

It is 'conventional wisdom' that both Carter and Clinton got into trouble early in their first terms by picking a fight with powerful congressional interests and that this soured their relationship with Congress. Thus, Obama is trying to avoid any fight with Congress on the torture/Gitmo/national-security issue in order to be better able to get his 'true' progressive agenda through (i.e. healthcare and carbon emissions).

I think that 'conventional wisdom' is wrong and the strategy based on it is foolish. Axlerod might be a brilliant campaign strategist for getting Obama elected President, but he is clearly NOT a smart Washington player for policy or a man of progressive political principle.

Rahm Emmanuel's fingerprints are all over this one and I don't like his politics either (he smells too much like one of those infamously smokey Chicago backrooms).

The Democratic party has a long history of making these kinds of policy-surrenders to the rightwing and then not getting what they thought they were bargaining for in the end because the rightwing will reneg and fight tooth and claw against healthcare and carbon too!

The Democratic party needs to learn that the Republican party plays dirty and they play to win - everytime, principles be damned - they are on a mission to serve the corporate interest.

I've noticed that there is a huge campaign to fight the idea of any universal coverage. Yesterday I was at the gym and saw it on CNN twice within a half an hour and then I came home and saw the same one during NBC Nightly News. I don't think it was put on by the G.O.P. exactly but with that sort of thing and the pressure from the base I'm pretty sure they are not going to consider compromising on it.

[Americano]

I've noticed that there is a huge campaign to fight the idea of any universal coverage. Yesterday I was at the gym and saw it on CNN twice within a half an hour and then I came home and saw the same one during NBC Nightly News. I don't think it was put on by the G.O.P. exactly but with that sort of thing and the pressure from the base I'm pretty sure they are not going to consider compromising on it.

The spin against universal coverage is definitely on the rise, heavily supported by big pharma and the insurance industry.

[Evangeline]

And the spin against cap and trade is heavily funded by the oil companies.

Obama has to learn to stick to his core values and not be swayed by the big money pressure. Like Michael said, it's not like the Republicans are going to EVER give him a break just because he sides with them over gitmo or any of the other constitutional violations committed by the Republicans. I really thought he'd fight for the constitution. That's why I campaigned so hard for him.

I'm still trying (it's not easy) to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that on the first day of the Presidency they get a big shock when they find out all the classified details of threats to our country. I'm sure he has a lot of information that we don't know. That's probably why he released the torture memos, he knows what went on now, and he's probably disgusted. But he can't make it his main issue, because there are so many more things he wants to do.

I would really like to see the gitmo detainees get a fair trial according to US law, but there's probably not much evidence against them, there was no real record keeping and too much torture to make a good case against some very bad people. So he's afraid they'll be let go, only to kill again. But I think that's the price we have to pay for the Bush crimes. I think we should try them, and release them if that's what the trial outcome is, and then keep very close tabs on them.

[Dominick]

Obama is the same as Sarkozy and so many others these days. The mainstream parties in the US (Dem and Rep) as well as those in Europe (christian democrats, social democrats and classical liberals) have all in the last one or two decades outsourced their campaign to professional marketeers and spin doctors.

Those know how to advertise but as in marketing their campaign has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, present or future. They can create a hype but just like in business they don't have to cope with the discrepancy between the ad and the product.

These phantastic (in the literal, original sense of the word) campaigns will therefore always dissatisfy and disappoint. As soon as reality sets in, the wide gap between campaign and actual policy will create an almost universal alienation from the powers that be, amongst the opposition obviously, but also in the people that support the party in power.

The result is an ever increasing feeling of antipathy against politics in general. The only ones who benefit from this are extremists, i.e. the extreme right in Europe and groups such as the Evangelicals in the US.

Some of these populists, such as Bush, will introduce authoritarian legislation. And the main danger here is not the actual use of these measures, and the ensuing erosion of rights, but the fact that the next populist will not have the audacity ro repeal these measures. And so we end up in an endless spiral straight towards fully fledged authoritarianism.

Italy e.g. is already in a further stage of this development. Since Berlusconi, another such populist, owns and actively controls the content of most television stations and newspapers, the hype is continuous. De facto there are no rights anymore there. If you go against Berlusconi, even if you're a high ranking judge or a previously influential journalist, you're screwed. You end up or murdered or entirely disgraced by a media shit storm against your person with as little bearing to reality as the campagin that brought this moron to power.

[Americano]

And the spin against cap and trade is heavily funded by the oil companies.

I don't find special interest attempts to sway legislation as anything unusual. Most US legislation at all levels is subject to so many variables in the trade votes for money game I don't want to take the time to review how every legislator voted on past issues. Where the money lands is the only important consideration in regard to determining professional political ideology. Bring home the bacon will most often dominate legislator opinions.

Obama has to learn to stick to his core values and not be swayed by the big money pressure. Like Michael said, it's not like the Republicans are going to EVER give him a break just because he sides with them over gitmo or any of the other constitutional violations committed by the Republicans. I really thought he'd fight for the constitution. That's why I campaigned so hard for him.

I'm still trying (it's not easy) to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that on the first day of the Presidency they get a big shock when they find out all the classified details of threats to our country. I'm sure he has a lot of information that we don't know. That's probably why he released the torture memos, he knows what went on now, and he's probably disgusted. But he can't make it his main issue, because there are so many more things he wants to do.

IMO Obama inherited a nightmare. Regardless of who was elected to lead our economic system has for all practical purposes crashed. Until the US general public understands the credit game is over, requiring a large number of that public to drastically reduce its standard of living, all the government can do is attempt providing the best cushion it can under the circumstances.

I would really like to see the gitmo detainees get a fair trial according to US law, but there's probably not much evidence against them, there was no real record keeping and too much torture to make a good case against some very bad people. So he's afraid they'll be let go, only to kill again. But I think that's the price we have to pay for the Bush crimes. I think we should try them, and release them if that's what the trial outcome is, and then keep very close tabs on them.