Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

[Rajiv]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Torture does NOT work! It is no good at extracting information or getting to the truth of the matter!

See my previous links and also - What's Not Said Is More Important Than What Is Said written by Matthew Alexander (author of "How to Break a Terrorist") who led the interrogations that found Zarqawi.

In addition, in his continued defense of harsh interrogation techniques (aka torture and abuse), VP Cheney forgets that harsh techniques have ensured that future detainees will be less likely to cooperate because they see us as hypocrites. They are less willing to trust us when we fail to live up to our principles. I experienced this firsthand in Iraq when interrogating high-ranking members of Al Qaida, some of whom decided to cooperate simply because I treated them with respect and civility.

The former vice president is confusing harshness with effectiveness. An effective interrogation is one that yields useful, accurate intelligence, not one that is harsh. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of interrogations, the goal of which is not to coerce information from a prisoner, but to convince a prisoner to cooperate.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

What kind of doubletalk and abuse?

Do you believe that the terrorists being held at Gitmo should be given court appointed lawyers and be tried in a US criminal court?

With the greatest of respects, your statement breaks all the traditionally accepted mores on the rule of law that has at its core the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The whole basis of the law stands on the idea that someone asks for an authority to investigate an abuse of the law and for the result of that investigation to be then placed in front of a court of our peers, usually a jury, and it is for the court of the law, by due process, to define if in fact a breach of the law has taken place and if that is so proven, to; AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT declare them "terrorists" and it is for that court of the law to issue punishment.

What we have today is an idea afloat, and being used in combat, that all those stages can be relinquished and the individual does not even need to be placed into custody, nor before such investigation has concluded, and for summary punishment meted out. A very good example being the use of drones to conclude, from observation many hundreds of miles away, by no one on the ground with any immediate court authority, (such as a junior officer at the controls of the drone), to mete out punishment with an explosion.

The law is very specific; you may be detained, but you still have rights. No one can ever say for absolute certainty that, without due process, anyone is a "terrorist", for they are innocent until that due process has concluded, as we all are...... in a free county.

What we now hear, from many different directions, is that a substantial number in GITMO are indeed innocent, that due process has so concluded they cannot be brought to a court of the law for they have no charge to answer.

Unless we stand by the full letter of the law, we are ourselves lawless. THAT is the underlying problem at the heart of this debate.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

That summary on the issue is pure gold. thanks.

[flintlock]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

I respectfully disagree. I may not always work, but I know it would work on me!

[Raz]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

With the greatest of respects, your statement breaks all the traditionally accepted mores on the rule of law that has at its core the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The whole basis of the law stands on the idea that someone asks for an authority to investigate an abuse of the law and for the result of that investigation to be then placed in front of a court of our peers, usually a jury, and it is for the court of the law, by due process, to define if in fact a breach of the law has taken place and if that is so proven, to; AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT declare them "terrorists" and it is for that court of the law to issue punishment.

What we have today is an idea afloat, and being used in combat, that all those stages can be relinquished and the individual does not even need to be placed into custody, nor before such investigation has concluded, and for summary punishment meted out. A very good example being the use of drones to conclude, from observation many hundreds of miles away, by no one on the ground with any immediate court authority, (such as a junior officer at the controls of the drone), to mete out punishment with an explosion.

The law is very specific; you may be detained, but you still have rights. No one can ever say for absolute certainty that, without due process, anyone is a "terrorist", for they are innocent until that due process has concluded, as we all are...... in a free county.

What we now hear, from many different directions, is that a substantial number in GITMO are indeed innocent, that due process has so concluded they cannot be brought to a court of the law for they have no charge to answer.

Unless we stand by the full letter of the law, we are ourselves lawless. THAT is the underlying problem at the heart of this debate.

Chris,

Your points are well taken by me. Those who will not be ruled by Law will then be ruled by lawless Men.
My view of the corruption of human nature requires that I prefer bad law to no law.

At the same time it seems that war is, to some degree, a breakdown or failure of civilization and the rule of law, such as an aggressor state like Nazi Germany (perfect example of the "Rule of Men" as opposed to the "Rule of Law"). To demand of those who are attacked by such that they observe a perfect adhearance to the rule of law in the midst of war seems to place not only a severe handicap on the defender, but unrealistic expectations upon men in the heat of battle. This being said, I'm not at all in agreement with our government waterboarding (torturing, relatively mild though it may be) anyone when our laws prohibit such. And I'm far more uncomfortable with the "Patriot" Act which seems to allow men in current positions of power to decide who among their own citizens is a "terrorist" or not! Fundamentalist Christians could simply be labeled "terrorists" as could some Leftist groups who use the tactics of Saul Alinsky.
(As disgusting as I find his methods to be they are not those of "terrorists" by a wide margin.)

I don't have the answers to all of these questions and the thoughts I've laid out might be in error. It's my belief that the best way to avoid terrorist attacks on our country is to ditch the 'friggin Empire and restore the Republic. It's what the Founders intended us to be.
That seems to be the message of Ron Paul and that's why, along with sound money and far less government, I supported him and wished that I could have written his name in for President.

[c1ue]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

This is amusing - there seems to be a clear divide on opinion on this subject:

1) The conservatives - Republicans - see this as proof that Obama is

2) The liberals - Democrats - see this as the fault of the system and Obama's predecessor

3) The libertarians see this as an assault on American freedom, or see the 'furners' as less than human/citizen and thus open to any use/abuse.

From my point of view (as a nonvoting 1):

'W' is an idiot. Probably well meaning, but still an idiot. A good 'ole Texan (transplant from NorthEast) who never pretended to be anything else (but an idiot). That he allowed or ordered abuses of the Constitution and/or various other American 'rights' is not surprising given who he is and what he was mandated to do after 9/11.

However, the whole point of Obama's campaign was principle.

I am amused that all those who believed in the Obama rhetoric are continuing to bend over backwards to preserve the aura of the 'great man' given the rich mountain of evidence already presented in a mere 4 months of Presidency:

1)

We will not rebuild our economy on the old model of bubbles and busts. We'll only climb out of the current crisis by creating a new, sustainable foundation for our economy's future -- and make the tough choices to put our economy back on the road to long-term prosperity.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any evidence of this other than the carbon tax. Is a tax a sustainable foundation for the US economy's future? Certainly it is new...

On the other hand we have all kinds of bank bailouts: Citigroup, Bank bailout II, etc etc.

And we have spending. Massive spending. Huge deficits.

New Boss same as the Old Boss? Wannabe FDR?

2)

The 21st century can be the next great American century if we make the necessary investments in our children’s education.

I'm not seeing any evidence of this either. But I think we will - in the form of bailouts to the states. The Federal government does hardly squat in terms of primary school education, but equally the states are facing massive cutbacks due to economic collapse and will have to be bailed out by Uncle Obama. So there probably will be 'necessary investments', but equally probably won't be any improvements.

Unless the federal government nationalizes primary school education.

3)

America can be the 21st century clean energy leader by harnessing the power of alternative and renewable energy, ending our addiction to foreign oil, addressing the global climate crisis, and creating millions of new jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.

$600B in tax rebates (Bread as in bread and circuses). $20B in tax cuts for renewable energy production. $50B in miscellaneous other possibly energy related spending.

I think countries like China and Germany are spending multiples of this - and in cash.

4)

We must fix a broken health care system to do what's right for America and renew our economy -- individuals and businesses can no longer afford the crippling cost of health coverage, and millions of Americans have no coverage at all.

Ok, sounds nice. Where's the beef?

5)

Yes We Can

Guantanamo/Gitmo - continue to operate but under a new legal framework. Uh, so what Bush was doing is OK, just didn't have sufficient lawyer-ese?

FISA - If what Bush was pushing was so bad, why did Obama ratify it?

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

All of above quotes direct from Obama's web site.

[Rajiv]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

That is exactly the point. You will not be able to hold up to torture!

1. You spoke the truth the first time
2. torture continues -- will you now continue to hold to that truth no matter how long the torture continues -- when the interrogator wants you to say something else? -- or will you cave in to the torture and say what the interrogator wants to hear?

The point is that the interrogator never knows what is true and what isn't -- which is why information obtained under harsh interrogation is always untrustworthy. That is why experienced interrogators consider torture to be useless and counterproductive in getting at the truth! However it is a great way to get confessions that the interrogator wants.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

That is exactly the point. You will not be able to hold up to torture!

1. You spoke the truth the first time
2. torture continues -- will you now continue to hold to that truth no matter how long the torture continues -- when the interrogator wants you to say something else? -- or will you cave in to the torture and say what the interrogator wants to hear?

The point is that the interrogator never knows what is true and what isn't -- which is why information obtained under harsh interrogation is always untrustworthy. That is why experienced interrogators consider torture to be useless and counterproductive in getting at the truth! However it is a great way to get confessions that the interrogator wants.

Rajiv, you have brought us right to the nub of the matter without realising it. Torture is not about getting at information; it is all about the screwed up minds of the perpetrators. Torture is all about the needs of the torturers. The reality is, some people get a very BIG buzz from causing other people harm. Torture is all about satisfying that inner need to harm others. It is sick in the extreme and that is why I find it so unacceptable.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Chris,

Your points are well taken by me. Those who will not be ruled by Law will then be ruled by lawless Men.

Raz,

what is so important here is that if government is the font of all law; then government has an absolute duty to at all times remain inside of the rule of the law..... or it is itself.... lawless. And therefore, a lawless government has no standing whatsoever. PERIOD.

[Judas]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

What kind of doubletalk and abuse?

The kind which is self evident, and explained by numerous posters on this thread, the news piece which started this thread, etc.

Do you believe that the terrorists being held at Gitmo should be given court appointed lawyers and be tried in a US criminal court?

What I "believe"? If I have to come up with a plan right now I guess:

The suspected terrorists which aren't just people who were sold for profit by enemies or downright mistakes should be sorted into two groups- those who can be tried (their cases haven't been horribly screwed up by assinine policies already) and those who we know or suspect are terrorists.

The first group should be tried. The second group should be fingerprinted, surrepticiously scanned for facial recognition software, DNA sampled, etc. (everything we can do with our technology, hell, maybe even tracking chipped) and then released. Then we should use some of our trillions of dollars/spy networks/satellites/drones/informants/etc. to keep an eye on them. If they cause no trouble and go back to their lives fine, but if they hook up with terrorist networks we have well-documented, known quantities to deal with that may give us more leads than we could get by keeping them in boxes for regular doses of waterboarding or "stress positioning".

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Dealing with an armed combatant in the middle of a conflict is completely dissimilar to dealing with an unarmed prisoner in custody on land in American control. This is well-settled U.S. and international law.

If you are interested in more than chest-pounding and would like to develop an informed opinion of whether these enemy combatants are actually entitled to legal protections, I suggest you read and consider:

Ex parte Quirin, 1942.
The Supreme Court ruled that Roosevelt was acting under the authority of formal congressional Articles of War (as required by the constitution). We have no such articles for the "war" on terror. Note also that these non-citizen, unlawful combatants, who had come onto U.S. soil, without uniform, were entitled to trial by military tribunal and were represented by counsel. They were not held indefinitely without review.

I don't think any of the detainees at Gitmo were captured on US soil; therefore Quirin shouldn't be relevant.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004.
The Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. citizen captured in Yemen, detained at Gitmo and deemed an "illegal enemy combatant" was entitled to habeas corpus. The important thing to consider is that this ruling applies specifically to a U.S. citizen; how far does the Court imply this ruling goes to non-U.S. citizens? It is also interesting that Justice Scalia's opinion contains the most striking rebuke of Bush's claims of executive authority. Also note that O'Connor's opinion states that U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens alike have the right to habeas corpus under the Geneva conventions.

As you note, Hamdi was a US citizen. O'Connor was wrong.

Rasul v. Bush, 2004.
A short and sweet opinion in which the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have the jurisdiction to determine the legality of holding prisoners indefinately in Guantanimo Bay.

A horrible decision and yet another example of an imperial judiciary legislating from the bench. Scalia's dissent nails it.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006.
The U.S. government claims that, by congressional act, no detainee in Gitmo is entitled to habeas corpus review of their detention. The Supreme Court patently disagrees, reaffirms the precedent of ex parte Quirin and strengthens it by ruling that a detainee held in Guantanimo has a right to review of the legality of their detention and to trial (albeit by military commission). The Court further held that this trial must conform with the laws of war, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. This is a very interesting case in that there are at least six opinions as to what is required for Gitmo detainees in various concurrences and dissents. [/quote]

Another bad decision. Again, Scalia's dissent was the correct decision, imo.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

I find this telling and amusing:

39% Say U.S. Legal System Too Worried About Individual Rights Over National Security

Most Republicans (54%) say the legal system is too concerned about individual rights. So do a plurality of voters not affiliated with either major party (42%).

Democrats lean in the opposite direction. Thirty-four percent (34%) of those in the president’s party say the courts are too concerned about national security, 24% hold the opposite view, and 32% say the balance is about right.

And these party numbers have gone in opposite directions since 2006:

By a 46% to 21% margin, liberals say the courts are too concerned with national security. By a 42% to 13% margin, conservatives believe the courts are too concerned with individual liberties.

Principles my ass, politics at the grass roots level in the U.S. is about rooting for the winning team.

But, but, but, I thought conservatives were all about individual rights and limited government?

Not for a long time that hasn't been the case. Real conservatives are a tiny minority, especially since 9/11. Along the same lines, the tea parties, organized from the top down by the conservative version of MoveOn.org, had no chance of occurring while a Republican President was in office. There was no widespread support for such an event in the face of massive deficit spending first by the Republican president and his party between 2000 and 2006, because most so-called conservatives and members of the Republican party backed the policies that the excessive spending covered.

Similarly, we're not seeing MoveOn.org organize street protests against the Obama administration for expanding the war in Afghanistan.

[KGW]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

I got news: if some entity had thrown me into detention because my neighbor had a grudge against me, and they released me years later, I would be hard-pressed to say "no hard feelings, mate!" So, on that basis, they should hold me indefinitely?

The logic is "tortuous," to say the least!:p

[Munger]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Another bad decision. Again, Scalia's dissent was the correct decision, imo.

That you disagree is not surprising. As you probably know, what you think doesn't matter; this is the law of the land and the current state of the constitution.

So you now know that your drivel about the detainees not having rights under U.S. and international law is completely incorrect. You should also be aware that if you disagree with this policy, you hold an unconstitutional opinion.

[Raz]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

babbittd wrote:

"Principles my ass, politics at the grass roots level in the U.S. is about rooting for the winning team.

But, but, but, I thought conservatives were all about individual rights and limited government?

Not for a long time that hasn't been the case. Real conservatives are a tiny minority, especially since 9/11. "

I don't know where you fall along the political spectrum, but you sure have the Republicans figured out.

It has taken ten years of my ranting and the eight-year debacle of George W. Dumbass to open my wife's eyes.
She now says that even though the Democrats are running the brothel, their best girls are Republican.

The NeoCons have managed to ruin conservatism in the eyes of most Americans by presenting neoliberalism instead. I can have a heated discussion with a Classic Liberal about FACTS and policy knowing that we both care more about the next generation than we do about the next election. One sign of a Classic Liberal is that when I disagree with them they don't pull out the "racist" card.
Half of the Democrats of today fall into the category of the "Bed Wetting" Left - America is to blame for most of the world's problems, opposing "choice" is the same as hating women, opposing socialism is "racist", and other mendacious slurs.
With the exception of Reps. Paul and Kucinich, a few other Republicans and most of the "Blue Dog" Democrats, the rest of these rat-bastards are only concerned with being re-elected by appealing to the moron vote (of the Right or Left) - the country be damned.


Many people think Pat Buchanan is a racist because he doesn't believe U.S. foreign policy should be subservient to Israeli interests in the Middle East. And because he actually thought Jon Demanjuck shouldn't be lynched. Buchanan has said a few things that I disagree with, and quite a few more that make me uncomfortable. But he has had the NeoCons tagged for well over a decade, and correctly predicted that "W" would be a disaster for the Conservative Movement, the Republican Party, and more importantly, the United States.