Will the U.S. close the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in 2009?

Well, it may take more than 100 days...but Obama will have 247 days or so to do it before the year's out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28624679/

"Anyone who has ever run for office knows this: Running FOR an office is far, far different than serving IN an office if you win. ... During the recent campaign for President, candidate Obama pledged to close the prison at Guantanamo. The American Civil Liberties Union ran a full-page ad in the New York Times to remind one and all of that promise. In the accompanying press release the ACLU wrote: 'Obama, as a candidate, pledged to "close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions."' The ACLU, also called for President Obama to foreswear anything stronger than reduced potty breaks in interrogations, saying, 'The ACLU calls on President-elect Obama to sign Day One executive orders banning the use of torture and abuse.' In case you didn't think they were serious, the ACLU wrote: 'There is no room for patience or delay in these areas. We have to hold President-elect Obama's feet to the fire if we're going to turn hope into reality.' Let's take a moment to examine that phrase: 'Feet to the Fire.' In one sentence the ACLU's demands that unsavory techniques be banned from questioning suspected terrorists. In another, the ACLU urges putting the feet of the President of the United States into a flame to force him -- torture him, if necessary -- to do what they want. Interesting, huh!?" --political analyst Rich Galen

No, not interesting --- stupid.

I trust the wording of this is "literal", ie. the military prison camp, NOT the military base. We have a long-term treaty/lease (in perpetuety??)with Cuba for that land and base which I seriously doubt will be closed. Bush's Nazi-like prison interrogation & torture camp, YES. The military base: NO.

News outlets are reporting that Obama will sign an order today (1/22) to close the naval prison at Guantanamo within one year...meaning that this one could be close.

Despite what many on the Right see as mere blather, Obama is making good on his promises, no? On his first full day in office, he A) closed the Gitmo prison; B) banned the CIA's torture program; C) froze salaries for White House staffers making more than $100K; D) prevented anyone in his administration from becoming a government lobbyist; and E) introduced a re-interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act which will help pave the way toward openness and accountability. He also spoke with four Middle East leaders, hosted an open house for 200, attended the traditional prayer service, and who knows what else. Say what youu will about the man, my conservative friends: he promised to hit the ground running, and he has done just that.

President Barack Obama on Thursday ordered the closing of Guantanamo prison: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50J17D20090122

@Sqlman
Re: # 6

C) Froze salaries = Good idea

D) Lobbyist ban = Exceptions allowed
"When is a ban on lobbyists in an administration not a ban on lobbyists in an administration?
When you need a lobbyist who knows how the Pentagon works to help run the defense establishment."
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/obama_lobbying_ban_hits_realit.html

A) & B) Another large contingency of people who like this idea are called Islamic Jihadists

D) He has certainly re-interpreted the very concept of openness and and transparency
with the following list of unaccounted for documents.
1. Occidental College records
2. Columbia College records
3. Columbia Thesis paper
4. Harvard College records
5. Selective Service Registration
6. Medical records
7. Illinois State Senate records
8. Law practice client list
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate
10. Harvard Law Review articles published
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles

Oh, you guys:

1. Occidental College records - Obama graduated from Occidental College; his diploma has been studied and it's official
2. Columbia College records - His transcript has been made available, and there's nothing wrong with it.
3. Columbia Thesis paper - True, Obama hasn't been able to provide any copies of a 26-year-old paper he wrote while at Columbia.
4. Harvard College records - He definitely graduated from Harvard Law School; the transcript is available for any who care to look.
5. Selective Service Registration - No controversy; he registered, as his name was in the rolls.
6. Medical records - Aside from an admitted battle with cigarettes, Obama has passed every physical with flying colors; he's in excellent health for a smoker.
7. Illinois State Senate records - These are public on his website (along with his voting record).
8. Law practice client list - No controversy; read more here: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/06/nation/na-obamalegal6
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - This one has been studied more than most; the Birth Certificate has been studied by objective third parties and found to be completely kosher.
10. Harvard Law Review articles published - As an editor, he edited rather than wrote. However, one HLR article (on abortion) has been attributed to him.
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles - He lectured at UC from 92-04; there's no controversy.

So, except for #3--his inability or unwillingness to produce his Columbia thesis paper--he's been pretty much in the sunshine for his whole life. What's the problem?

Released detainee now Yemen al-Qaida commander
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_al_qaida_14

Freedom looms for terrorist
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_re_us/mystery_terrorist_3

Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

Erik, really, who is surprised that this happens?

Certainly not I.
Should the annoited one should release them all, as promised?

@kruijs:

Are there some empty houses in your neighborhood where your friends can live after they leave Guantanamo?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6577399
More countries should offer to take in Guantanamo prisoners to help U.S. President-elect Barack Obama close the detention camp for terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s torture investigator said on Monday.

to my knowledge nobody knows what their gonna do with the prisoners. i'll bet all my HD money if their put in regular american prisons they beg to go back to gitmo. theres no way they'll get the special treatment they get at gitmo in US prisons. can you imagine what the american prisoners would do if the terriosts got special treatment? they'll also have to be held in isolation. again i'll bet people in jail ain't politically correct. you put the terriosts in gen pop they'll be killed ASAP. its gonna be interesting to see how this gets handled.

@notable: did I say they were my friends?
@diesel: that tells us much about US prisons, actually, less about Guantanamo detainees.

Has anyone ever said that these prisoners would be released? No. Part of the huge challenge is where to put them. Diesel, I think you are entirely wrong. These prisoners have been offshore precisely SO THAT the U.S. has not had to follow the rules about prisoner detention and about habeas corpus. They have been tortured because they are not on U.S. soil. Special treatment? You are dreaming, friend.

Comparing those in American prisons with the Gitmo detainees is apples and oranges, my friend. Folks incarcerated in American prisons have been tried for their crimes and found guilty; the guys in Gitmo, on the other hand, have not been tried, nor even--in many cases--even charged. Bush figured why bother with the niceties of the American legal system when we can just throw the guys in a box somewhere offshore and keep them there indefinitely without benefit of legal representation or habeas corpus. Now, lots of folks--including some right here in these comments--like to refer to all those kept at Guantanamo with the inflammatory buzzword 'terrorist', because they're either intellectually lazy or they're aware of the emotions it conjures. But that doesn't make it necessarily so, does it?

emmag - given special diets, special religious rights, special clothing, etc. do you think they'll be given those things in an american jail? do the US prisoners in american prisons get those rights?

sqlman - i wasn't comparing one to the other. my point is they have it easiar at gitmo than they would in an american jail. hence my statement they would beg to go back to gitmo. what do you call people who kill civilians over the God they worship? if your found on the battle field shooting at the american-coalition soldiers what should be done with you? they can't get their native countries to take them, the ones who will are supposely bad people who will torture or kill them. so if obama decides to keep them in a box off shore in another place besides gitmo will that be ok?

kruijs - yes it tells us that america jails are a tougher place to serve time than gitmo. i find it absurd that those at gitmo are treated better than our own inmates in our own jails. if i ever gotta serve a long prison sentence i would take gitmo over american jail.

Yiou missed my point entirely, diesel, and you've proven that by your comments to me, emmag, and kruijs. You have to stop comparing folks serving a sentence in an American prison with folks rounded up and awaiting trial or something. American prisoners have been tried and convicted, while the detainees at Gitmo haven't been tried at all; I would hope that conditions at Gitmo were better (though that's a relative term, since I doubt you'd want to do a stretch on the island). The Right is constantly touting the Country Club standard of living there, but it isn't that way. Also, you've again called them terrorists with nothing to back it up. If the Gitmo guys really are "...people who kill civilians over the God they worship", then try 'em and fry 'em; if they're not, let 'em go. The US government has no right to hold someone indefinitely without a trial; anyone who can't see the moral, ethical, and legal problems with that just doesn't get how America works.

I think you'll find that Obama won't do the Bush thing and lock them away forever sans trial

Sqlman - please provide valid links to the information in your response # 9.
If he is in the sunshine, as you proclaim, then why is it so difficult to actually find these articles with a google search?

Sqlman:
Enemy combatants are fortunate to have living conditions made available to them at Gitmo. Usually enemy combatants are killed in combat, instead of being given American Jurisprudence. Political Correctness has hampered our ability to win this war. Take a look at any previous war and tell me where we tried to offer lawyers, and having religious materials removed was often called torture. Or where their living conditions are inspected by the ACLU for quality assurances.

Obama thinks that discussion with our enemies can bring about Hope and Change. Well, look at him. He talked his way into the highest office in the land. He is a smooth talking salesman, and I would hire him in a heartbeat, but that alone does not make him qualified for office. The ability to act decisively is not related to being an articulate spokesman. He is setting us up for failure and I dread the day when I have to say "I told you so".

For those not aware of the reflection of the term "Enemy combatants":

The term enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.
In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatants

The detainees currently held as of June 2008 have been classified by the United States as "enemy combatants." After claims were made that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on 29 June 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under its Common Article 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp



IMO: This is where the hypocrisy starts. The US Administration had to be forced by the US legislative to given the people in there ANY human status - they didn't want to.

So, if Guantanamo is "better" than a normal US jail - do Human Rights not apply to the US imprisoned?

You can't condemn the countries on the so called axis of evil as long as you do not behave "better" yourself. So Political Correctness is what should be very important. "Political Correctness has hampered" is exactly the problem. Don't call countries unprogressive where punishment is cutting of hands and feet if you have defend the death penalty, if you apply torture yourself, if you do not mind Human Rights and international standards yourself.

The Arab world--heck, the whole world--applauded Obama's announcement last week that he;d shut down the Gitmo prison. (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45543) As Beirut's Daily Star was quoted in that article:

"With public knowledge of the American use of waterboarding in Guantanamo and elsewhere, why would Arab leaders promote human rights and political reforms? The closing of Guantanamo will send an important message that torture will not be tolerated by the Obama administration."

IOW, Bush cost America dearly in the eyes of the world. Regardless of what most in the conservative media would have us believe, America is perceived by five billion people as being on the decline, and all blame-pointing fingers for that can be pointed directly and correctly at Bush. Correcting some of Dubya's most egregious sins as quickly as possible is one way to help begin restoring America's stature and status; closing the prison at Gitmo is just one step among many.

On a lighter note: how can *anyone* still say "Obama is setting us up for failure"? Wanna talk about failure? Let's see: at the end of Bush's reign, a simple look around shows that banks are failing, businesses are failing, jobs are failing, stocks are failing, loans are failing, mortgages are failing, schools are failing, kids are failing, marriages are failing, health care is failing, the environment's failing, the climate's failing, our wars are failing, our morale is failing, our stature around the world is failing...and that's just to name a few. I think it'd be nearly impossible for Obama to fail; Bush left such a horrendous mess that doing absolutely nothing would be a vast improvement.

pfui, lucky Obama that the POTUS doen't actually have anything to say.

"Being a president isnt as all powerful as people make it out to be. They actually have a lot of limits on there power. They cant make bills, they cant go to war without congresses approval(a democratic congress i might add) and they all in all dont influence our day to day lives very much."

therefor: Obama can't even fail!!!!!!11one1!!

sqlman - i'm not comparing gitmo as all them being guilty or innocent. i'm comparing gitmo to american jails. your missing my point. i never said gitmo was a bed of roses. what i have said and stand by it is that gitmo is a easiar place to serve time than an american jail. you have proof that they ain't terrorists? to my knowledge the people in gitmo was captured on the battle field. i haven't heard of the USA running around taking people from the civilian population to put in gitmo. they had trials taking place..obama ordered them stopped. the left likes to say bush was running a concentration camp. don't be "intellectually lazy" go research concentration camps before using such babble. obama campaigned on closing gitmo, now the ball is in his court. it will be at least 6 months to a year before he decides what he's gonna do with them. things are differnt when one has to make decisions. why don't obama order all charged or released in a month? things aren't that simple now are they? the left thinks terrorists, POW's, enemy combatants, whatever you choose to call them deserve the same civil rights as american citizens. i wholeheartly disagree.

so making the arab counties happy is a great achievement in your view? thats a really good way to define success. the radical arabs-muslims who want to kill us are happy and we owe that to obama. maybe he should apologize for fighting with them, and pay restitution for the damage the USA has inflicted on them. that would really make them happy. heck they wouldn't try to kill us any more. geesh if only bush woulda been nice to them they wouldn't have flowin planes into buildings killing thousands of civilians.

once again you spout the liberal talking points and offer no solution. i'll ask you again..if your found on the battle field shooting at the american-coalition soldiers what should be done with you?

yea the arab countries was making reforms on promoting human rights and political reforms until bush opened gitmo. that darn bush ruined it all when he opened gitmo. GIVE ME A BREAK! they haven't changed what they was doing before gitmo came about, and they won't change after gitmo is closed.

"you have proof that they ain't terrorists?" - SIMPLE: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=guantanamo+innocent
"to my knowledge the people in gitmo was captured on the battle field" --- WRONG! Pakistan? Eastern Europe? Please define "battle field".

"And every now and then, without comment, we bundle a few of them onto international flights and dump them out on a street somewhere -- and suddenly it turns out that this dangerous menace was just a bewildered Kabul taxi driver, or a 10-year-old."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2004Mar/0004.html

"the left thinks terrorists, POW's, enemy combatants, whatever you choose to call them deserve the same civil rights as american citizens" - oh yes I think so - I'd say EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING has the same civil rights If you do not agree, you are following NAZI arguments. a US citizen deserves not more civil rights than anyone else in this world.

Once for all
"Detainees are imprisoned without adequate access to legal counsel or independent tribunals violating the right to fair trial. Prisoners have been detained for undefined periods, without charges, and have been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement violating the right to be free of arbitrary detention. Detainees lack independent medical evaluation violating the right to health Detainees have been subjected to physical and psychological interrogation techniques that are in violation of the right to be free of torture. Prisoners have been denied independent investigation into allegations of torture and ill treatment. Rendition of prisoners to countries with a substantial risk of torture violates the principle of non-refoulment. There have been violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Force feeding of detainees on hunger strikes violates the right to health."

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/resettlement-and-refugees-guantanamo
http://freedetainees.org/

I do not generally condemn the self defense of a country. But do it the right way.

# I. Close the Military Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay
# II. Abolish the Military Commissions and Prosecute Terrorist Suspects in Federal Court
# III. Reject Preventive Detention as an Alternative to Prosecuting Terrorist Suspects
# IV. Reject the "Global War on Terror" as the Basis for Detaining Terrorist Suspects
# V. Issue an Executive Order to Implement the Ban on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
# VI. End the CIA Detention Program
# VII. Prohibit Renditions to Torture
# VIII. Account for Past Abuses
# IX. Provide Redress for Abuse
# X. Repudiate Justice Department Memos and Presidential Directives that Permit Torture and Other Abuses
# XI. Protect Innocent Victims of Persecution Abroad from Being Defined as Terrorists

http://www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/counterterrorism/guantanamo

As long as you do not follow the rules yourself do not expect anyone else to follow the rules.

oh, and
"you have proof that they ain't terrorists?"

why should I?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

The Bush Administration did NOTHING in the way of Political Correctness....trying to assert that is laughable.

Krujis, you seem to have located the key to the principles this country is SUPPOSED to operate under....no big surprise people living here would be this clueless.

One cannot claim rights for themselves they deny others. We're not a dictatorship (anymore) nor a monarchy.....

Now...last time I checked KBR had received a 385 million dollar contract for building FEMA detention camps here on our soil. Why not put em there till we figure out who has a case to be tried and who should be released?

More info on the detention camps:

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

kruijs - again your using blogs, wiki, and opinon sites for your sources.

what your not understanding is..bush didn't call these prisoners "enemy combatants" so they could be mass torture. at the time when they first started taking prisoners they had to put them some where. the problem is al Qaeda and the Taliban don't belong to a state. its not like when the war is over you return them to their country/state. the USA can't hold a state/country liable for 9-11, WTC bombings, the attack on US cole, etc. so how do you aplly the Geneva Conventions to people who never signed-joined it. so a decision had to be made what to do with these "people." bush didn't have the luxury of time to make a decision either. some have disagreed with the decision he made. some have bashed him for over 2 years and they still don't have a plan on what to do with the prisoners. to be fair if you bash a guy for 2 years on a decision he made, ought not you have a plan on how to fix the problem? why would you need a blue ribbon panel to meet for 6 months to tell you what to do? why sign an order saying your gonna close gitmo in 1 year. that will mean it took 3 years to fix what some call the worst thing bush ever did. they've had the luxury of time and still have no plan. thats what i call incompetent at best and down right idiotic at worst. do use gitmo for political gain and have no plan to change-fix it for at least 6 months after decrying it for 2 yrs is not a sign of leadership imho.

"blogs, wiki, and opinon sites for your sources" what's wrong with that? you for your part did not provide one single source in this comment thread. so, where is your opinion coming from? where do you base your opinion on?

"bush didn't call these prisoners "enemy combatants" so they could be mass torture"
Maybe not. But it still is a qualification. A qualification made upon a definition which was altered to met the intention. And combined with the usage of a detention camp premeditated located not on US soil makes the legal state of the imprisoned quite complicated. And that was done by purpose.

"so a decision had to be made what to do with these "people.""
Again, you use quotes to mark the word "people" as if you don't want to admit that these people actually are humans, just like you and I. Is this correct?

"bush didn't have the luxury of time to make a decision either, some have disagreed with the decision he made."
Did he made a decision or not? What are you saying here? IMO they (I don't think Bush did it alone) made a very clever decision.

"ought not you have a plan on how to fix the problem?"
I agree with you on this, and I hope Obama and allied countries will find a solution soon. But it's a mess, and this time, it should be done with care.

kruijs - my opinon is mine. i don't need a blog to tell me what to think. i haven't claimed anything i posted on this question to be a fact..just mho.

And combined with the usage of a detention camp premeditated located not on US soil makes the legal state of the imprisoned quite complicated. And that was done by purpose. - ok whats the problem with that? why make it easy or your enemies?

as if you don't want to admit that these people actually are humans, just like you and I. Is this correct? - their humans but this being a family sight i choose to call them "people" instead of a bunch of nasty things.

IMO they (I don't think Bush did it alone) made a very clever decision. - i would say bush to advise from serval people before deciding what to do.

I agree with you on this, and I hope Obama and allied countries will find a solution soon. But it's a mess, and this time, it should be done with care. - ROTFLOL! yea its bush's fault obama and the other countries don't have a plan AFTER 2 yrs of bashing him on it.

you can defend your country the way you see fit and as long as you don't bother the USA you won't hear me bashing your heads of govt. if you think you can bash my president based on your morals when you neither voted, fought for, pay taxes, had 3,000 civilians killed in one day, etc then me and you will have a problem my friend. your free to do as you choose...as am i. when a foreigner bash's my president i'm gonna defend him.

Sqlman -
Again. please provide valid links to the information in your response # 9.
If he is in the sunshine, as you proclaim, then why is it so difficult to actually find these articles with a google search?

I have looked for the info online. I am having a difficult time verifying the info that you provided.
Snopes has not debunked these allegations, so I question where you get your info.

@diesel,
"my opinon is mine": have you been there, have you seen or experienced it by yourself? No? than you must have read about it. Just like me.
"yea its bush's fault obama and the other countries don't have a plan AFTER 2 yrs of bashing him on it." Huh? I just agreed with you?

Why can't I criticize the US? You are criticize Muslim countries yourself - do they bother you? It's fine when you want to defend your President. That's okay for me. I just want to bring up positions with which I do not agree. I can certainly see why the US acts in certain ways. But I still do not have to agree with it, and I will criticize it whenever I think it is appropriate. I will criticize anyone else, even the Swiss Government (to which I am paying taxes these days), Dutch Government (which's origin I am), German, French or Italian, Russian and eventually US, if I have a different meaning.

"you won't hear me bashing your heads of govt" - that's your choice. But do I not have the freedom to express my opinion?

@diesel,
do you defend your President against criticism?
you could prove your honest intend by answering chatarra's last post, lol :-P

oh, no, you would only defend him if "foreigner bash's" Obama, what a pity, could've been fun.

@kruijs: Why so meddlesome? Have you solved all the problems on your side of the Atlantic and time is weighing heavy on your hands?

Chatarra is right in questioning the statements made in #9 - there have been no such disclosures made public, and it would be good to get this "insider information" if it is out there.

"No such disclosures"? Doesn't anybody here watch anything but Fox News, listen to anyone but Rush Limbaugh, or read anything but American Spectator? ;)

1. Occidental College records - From the school's website: http://www.oxy.edu/x7992.xml

2. Columbia College records - From the school's website: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/11/obama.html and http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/jan05/cover.php

3. Columbia Thesis paper - True, Obama hasn't been able to provide any copies of a 26-year-old paper he wrote while at Columbia.

4. Harvard College records - From the school newspaper's website: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516664 (Also see http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full)

5. Selective Service Registration - From a right-wing website: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-did-obama-actually-register-for-selective-service/2/

6. Medical records - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10686.html

7. Illinois State Senate records - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629 (Full voting record: http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm or http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html)

8. Law practice client list - The client list of a law firm is confidential and remains such as a standard practice; Obama would be running afoul of the law by disclosing this.

9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ (also http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp)

10. Harvard Law Review articles - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260 (Also http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/28797353.html?dids=28797353:28797353&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT)

12. University of Chicago scholarly articles - From the school's website: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

The past eight years have seen the most secretive administration this nation has ever seen. Obama is like a blinding ray of sunshine after Bush's darkness, and for that we can all be thankful...even those of us who'd like to see America back in the shadows...

"Have you solved all the problems on your side of the Atlantic and time is weighing heavy on your hands?"
Didn't you read my response?
Here, I'll quote it: "I will criticize anyone else, even the Swiss Government (to which I am paying taxes these days), Dutch Government (which's origin I am), German, French or Italian, Russian and eventually US, if I have a different meaning. "
And about Guantanamo: That's a problem not restricted to your side of the Atlantic.

With other words: I am a world citizen with open eyes and and open ears - and, from time to time, a desire to speak up. Because this site is US focused (nowadays) and therefor US topics make around 99% of all topics here doesn't mean that I don't have other concerns. I just contribute to the mainstream of topics. If a non US citizen should not do so, in your opinion, well, sorry if I disturb your party. I won't go away just because you don't like it.

So, come on why do you call me meddlesome? Would you do it if I were an US citizen? This is your second attempt to tell me to shut up, as I read it. Hope you didn't mean it.

And to my post #35: I meant that in a funny way, not meant to affront you (or chatarra).

@ DDog & Chaterra:

Do you think that it's possible that anybody we've detained was mistakenly rounded up and falsely imprisoned?

Do you question the infallibility of your Government, no matter who is in office?

Does it bother you one whit to think we've got some innocent people who make have been incarcerated for years now?

What is your reasoning for leaving them locked up and legal limbo with no charges filed, no day in court and no final resolution as to their fate?

@sqlman:

1. Occidental College records: From http://www.oxy.edu/x7992.xml

Barack Obama attended Occidental College from fall 1979 through spring 1981 and then transferred to Columbia University in New York. He is not a graduate of Occidental, however, the Occidental College bylaws state that anyone who completes at least eight courses of undergraduate work (or a year of graduate studies) is eligible for alumni status. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations protect the privacy of student education records. We, therefore, cannot disclose students’ classes, grade point averages, majors or other such information. (So, Barack could release these but did not)


2. Columbia College records - I did not see any of his records at your links, only a description.


4. Harvard College records - Same thing

5. Selective Service Registration - OK, good point [ & I like the source too :-) ]


6. Medical records - From your link at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10686.html : The Obama campaign released this summary of the senator's health records on Thursday and does not plan to make additional records available:

7. Illinois State Senate records - still missing... you have summaries there.

8. Law practice client list - still missing, and there is no law against releasing these, as you assert. Only what is covered with attorney-client privilege, or sealed records (which, by the way, he did not mind disseminating sealed records illegally when it was to his political advantage)

9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - still missing, and he spent over a million dollars in legal fees to avoid producing this. At one time his defense team even claimed "significant embarrassment" would result in having to show this.

10. Harvard Law Review articles - neither of your links provide any of Mr Obama's articles, that I could see. Only stories about him being on Harvard Law Review.

12. University of Chicago scholarly articles - your link only provides a statement from the school, not a scholarly article written by Mr Obama.

We are starting to see the beginning of a secretive administration like never witnessed before!

Taliban say Guantanamo closure "positive step"
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LR340030.htm

Source: Reuters
LONDON, Jan 27 (Reuters) - The Taliban told U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday that his plan to close Guantanamo Bay prison camp was a "positive step" but peace was only possible if he withdraws U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Taliban, toppled in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, also told the new president that sending more troops to Afghanistan "and the use of force against the independent peoples of the world, has lost its effectiveness".

[more at the link]

@Kruijs
"So, if Guantanamo is "better" than a normal US jail - do Human Rights not apply to the US imprisoned?

You can't condemn the countries on the so called axis of evil as long as you do not behave "better" yourself. So Political Correctness is what should be very important. "Political Correctness has hampered" is exactly the problem. Don't call countries unprogressive where punishment is cutting of hands and feet if you have defend the death penalty, if you apply torture yourself, if you do not mind Human Rights and international standards yourself."

Your implication is that USA has never acted in good faith and is only capable of terror and evil. Bush said in his farewell address, "If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led".
I believe he is correct on that count. Please name me just one other country that has done more for the name of freedom in the world. One country that has donated more to other countries in crises, or been a larger benefactor to various causes in the world.

Take for example AIDS in Africa - something that liberals do not like to mention is the fact that Bush has done more to attempt a cure for ailing Africans than any other man in history. The fund to combat AIDS, which he created in 2003, has spent more than $15 billion on the continent over the past five years.

"It was incumbent upon us to help deal with this pandemic that ... could have literally wiped out an entire generation of Africans," Bush told reporters in the Tanzanian capital today.

The fund is the largest international health initiative ever to fight a single disease.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4303636&page=1

@Kruijs
Thank you for your definition of my posting. I am happy to coin another term to keep the meaning of my original post.
Instead of Enemy Combatants, I will refer to them as people who were captured on the battlefield, probably trying to cause harm to US soldiers.

"- oh yes I think so - I'd say EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING has the same civil rights If you do not agree, you are following NAZI arguments. a US citizen deserves not more civil rights than anyone else in this world."

Again, I disagree. The United States sets the bar for civil rights. It does not guarantee that all of our enemies are entitled to American jurisprudence during wartime incarceration.

While I see your point about a basic quality of life and that all humans are created the same, the difference is that each country has the right to enforce sovereignty as they see fit. I am not a citizen of the world. By virtue of my place of birth, I am a citizen of the United States. Would I expect to be treated equally in another country, especially one that has had a long history with a differing religion? It would only be naive for me to think so. For example,

Mexican illegal immigrants cross into the border of the United states every day, but look at what happens to Guatemalans that try to cross the northern border and cross into southern Mexico. The southern border has become a no-man’s land for Central American immigrants. In crossing, they are run over by trains, stabbed by bands of delinquents, robbed by police and Army personnel. Many women are raped and killed. Families are split up.21 Some 100 bands of smugglers operate in the Mexico-Guatemala border zone, charging migrants for getting them a little closer to their destination of the United States.
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/959

@C2R
"The Bush Administration did NOTHING in the way of Political Correctness"
That is a good thing - Political Correctness will bring the end of our country as we know it.

C2R

Do you think that it's possible that anybody we've detained was mistakenly rounded up and falsely imprisoned?
Yes. Not likely or common, but mistakes do happen.

Do you question the infallibility of your Government, no matter who is in office?
As the man who was asked "Pardon me, but do you have any gray poupon mustard?"
My answer is: But, of course!

Does it bother you one whit to think we've got some innocent people who make have been incarcerated for years now?
When it comes to the argument for release that says: Even if it only saved just one life - wouldn't it be worth it?
My answer: "No". As a society, we do not hunt and capture innocents for the thrill of it, or because their skin color is different, or because they believe in a different diety, than we do. While we try and prevent mistakes, it cannot be done to 100% infallibility. A reasonable solution to address the fear that an innocent might be incarcerated by mistake, might be to release everybody, since there is no way to know who is guilty of crimes and who might be innocently jailed. However, I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

What is your reasoning for leaving them locked up and legal limbo with no charges filed, no day in court and no final resolution as to their fate?
It seems more humane than ending their lives prematurely. But as DieselDog has said, they would fare worse in a US prison. They will be doing hard time, if they enter gen pop but they don't deserve special treatment for being foreign prisoners. In some cases their own countries of origin do not want them back. What would you do with such individuals? F. Lee Baily is available for a price. What amount of legal assistance do you think they are entitled to?

Ok - You guys are lucky.
I am done for tonight.

[almost trips, as he is jumping off his soapbox. . . ]

krujis - " Huh? I just agreed with you? - no you didn't. you said bush messed it up so bad it would take time to fix and you hope its done right this time. imo obama and the other countries who bashed bush for 2 yrs shoulda had a plan on day 1. he has a economic plan, why not a gitmo plan?

You are criticize Muslim countries yourself - do they bother you - what muslim countries have i criticized?

But do I not have the freedom to express my opinion - yes! chances are you wouldn't if it wasn't for the USA.

you could prove your honest intend by answering chatarra's last post - chatarra didn't ask me the question. obama has plenty of people defending him on HD. he don't need my help. if in the future somebody attacks obama unfairly and i agree with obama's postion i'll defend it.

I will criticize anyone else, even the Swiss Government (to which I am paying taxes these days), Dutch Government (which's origin I am), German, French or Italian, Russian and eventually US, if I have a different meaning. - the next time you criticize one of the countries (besides the US) will be the first time to my memory. you only seem to find fault with my govt. my memory is as long as my elbow and you might have criticized one of those other countries.

con2 - yes its possible there are innocent people in gitmo. its also possible and has been proven there innocent people in american jails. does that mean we should release all people in jail?

Do you question the infallibility of your Government, no matter who is in office? - i never said the govt don't mistakes. all presidents have made mistakes.

What is your reasoning for leaving them locked up and legal limbo with no charges filed, no day in court and no final resolution as to their fate - my reasoning is they where captured during an ongoing war. is war perfect? no! are there civilian casualties during a war? unfortunately yes.

see the question below for a good example of the bind obama is in now and the problem bush had to deal with ASAP. Under the laws of war..SOME people think the laws of war should be the same as the basic laws of every day society. thats not the deal.
http://www.hubdub.com/m30399/Will_the_Obama_administration_decide_to_build_the_new_prison_complex_in_Bagram_Afghanistan

@kruijs:

I hate to break it to you, but you are not a "citizen of the world". I know a lot of people who suffer under this delusion, but if you look carefully at your passport, you might get some clues about your citizenship.

@nn,
would I've been born as my mom was incidentally just in the US I would have a US passport - so, what does a passport tell me anyway?. would I be an Guantanamo prisoner, I would probably have no passport at all (anymore).
I feel as a citizen of the world. this is no delusion. this is no formality. feeling as a citizen of the world just expresses my feeling for responsibility for the world around me. and what does a passport tell me about what I feel?
I feel sorry, that you, as a member of the "leading" civilization, the "best of all countries", seem to not feel a similar responsibility for the world. chatarra seems to do, as he points out the AIDS aid the US gives. and even George W. Bush feels a responsibility, obviously, as he's "sharing" democracy with other nations to make the world a better place.

@dieseldog, #47
I said: "I agree with you on this, and I hope Obama and allied countries will find a solution soon. But it's a mess, and this time, it should be done with care."
By saying "But it's a mess" I referred to the current situation where the Guantanamo prisoners should be handled. It's a mess that European countries don't provide support, as they should (hey, criticizing Europe, not US). And it should be done with care to ensure the right people are released, the right people are given asylum and the right people stay in jail.

@kruijs:

I was born outside the US, and now have my US passport. Citizenship does mean a lot, and a citizen of the world means "meddler" - unfortunately it is become rather vogue these days. (Any hey, that was a close call - how did you avoid going to Guantanamo? Just kidding, but I had to say that! :-) )

No, please hear me out, you do not want the US or it's citizens meddling in the affairs of other countries. That is the most common complaint I hear when I travel - that people think Americans feel they have a right to tell other places how stuff should be done. I try not to do that - believe me, I understand there is a temptation there, but I find it is the best policy to respect each country's citizens right to determine what works for them.

@nn
somehow I can agree with what you say, I "fear" I see your point. somehow, hm, it's true what you say.

The most of what I criticize about the US is the behavior in foreign affairs. and yes, randomly picking up people around the world to interrogate in the sense of homeland security. I deter myself from, for example, criticizing the US health system, as that is actually really you own thing, which doesn't affect anyone else.

But still, I think I can speak out what I think, isn't it so? And if it would only be for you to learn how the US is seen from another viewpoint. And I still feel like a citizen of the world, even if meddling is a part of that.

Krujis Krujis Krujis, you need a quick lesson in USA-pedia my dear:

THE USA:

meddling in the USA affairs: definition - a person or country that stands up and says heck no, you are not taking what is not yours. we do not like it now stop.

the USA Foreign Policy - take what we can, send in the CIA to destroy governments and people that dont co-operate. we want it we want it it is ours!

u.s. citizen (majority) - brainwashed into believing absolutely everything the USA does are right just necessary to further civilization maintain peace and have god's blessing

u.s. citizen (minority) - wait a minute that is not fair! that is not what the Bible says about treating your neighbor!

The later is called left wing commnist socialist gay loving bible bashing american way destroying satanical liberals who will die in hell with all the other meddlers.


Krujis now that you have had your USA civics lesson for the day, feel free to speak out; you know more about the USA than most americans do!

@kruijs:

Yes, definitely - I agree it is good to have conversations, and about everything.

I was just making a difference as to "tone". For example, if I would feel something is wrong with my own government's policies, I would point out "this is wrong" very quickly. On the other hand, if I were to notice a policy that I did not like in a country where I am visiting, the conversation with one of the citizens would be different, such as "I do not understand the reason for this policy, do you [citizens] like it that way?" Perhaps, if they were interested, I would give reasons or what a change would look like; but I would hope to never say "This is wrong" in a confrontational or condescending way.

And, by way of mentioning it here, I do enjoy reading your comments. They remind me of many conversations I have had with relatives - I believe many Europeans have feelings similar to how you express them on these issues. So please keep commenting and don't be surprised or offended if I continue to disagree - it is nothing personal, just honest conversation.

@nn, thanks, I appreciate that very much. I hope you're not getting in trouble for that with the other "right wingers" there :) yes, maybe you're right. I have and I will try to do so, as you say. I sometimes phrase my thought in a too controversial way.

now can someone help me understand the intention of mr. bo's post?

the Blues Brothers said it all in the lyrics they added to their re-make of the Booker-T and the MGs Green Onions tune
"we have the Marshall Plan that says we have to Police Force the world"

Green Onions lyrics

Speech by Elwood:
All right people. The rest of the hard working all star Blues Brothers are
gonna be out here in a minute, including my little brother Jake. But right
now, I'd like to talk a little bit about this tune you're hearing. This is
ofcourse the Green Onions tune. It was a very big hit in the early sixties in
this country. And ofcourse it was composed and recorded in Memphis, Tennessee,
right here in the United States Of America. You know, people, I believe that
this tune can be acquinted with the great classical music around the world.
Now you go to Germany, you've got your Bach, your Beethoven, your Brahms...
Here in America you've got your Fred McDowell, your Irving Berlin, your Glenn
Miller, and your Booker T & The MG's, people. Another example of the great
contributions in music and culture that this country has made around the
world. And as you look around the world today, you see this country spurned.
You see backs turned on this country. Well people, I'm gonna tell you
something, this continent, North America, is the stronghold! This is where
we're gonna make our stand in this decade! Yeah, people, I've got something to
say to the State Department. I say Take that archaic Monroe Doctrine, and that
Marshall Plan that says we're supposed to police force the world, and throw
'em out! Let's stay home for the next ten years people! Right here in North
America and enjoy the music and culture that is ours. Yeah, I got one more
thing to say. I'm just talking about the music, people, and what it does to
me. And that is, as you look around the world, you go to the Soviet Union or
Great Britain or France, you name it, any country... Everybody is doing flips
and twists just to get into a genuine pair of American blue jeans! And to hear
this music and we got it all here in America, the land of the Chrysler 440
cubic inch engine!

@ kruijs: It seems like mr. bo couldn't resist playing the mid-fourties-wise-guy by telling you how disappointing political discussions with authoritarian americans can be ;)

I myself have been quite impressed, too, when I had the "opportunity" to talk to an ex-US army guy about foreign politics. They seem to be well trained for this kind of conversation and are therefore even stylistically not bad. I remember something like "There's two reasons why the USA are taking part in so many conflicts around the world: One: We can. Two: We are already there."

Things that chatarra and friends are choosing to ignore: continuing to state that the Gitmo detainees have it a lot better there than they would in a prison on American soil is a ridiculous argument. Please pay attention to the following statement: folks in American prisons have been tried and convicted for their crimes; they deserve the austere and often harsh treatment they receive. The poor souls sitting at the soon-to-be-closed camp in Guantanamo, on the other hand, have not tried; they haven't even been formally charged. There, did you get that? I'll repeat it in case you missed: THE GITMO DETAINEES HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED, OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. Neither the US nor any other government has the right to hold anyone indefinitely. That's not how things are done in a civilized world, you know?

@notable: now you're just being intentionally obtuse, I think. ;):

1. Occidental College records: From http://www.oxy.edu/x7992.xml

What, exactly, would you like to know? How many absences he had? Whether his assignments were completed when due? That is, what sort of information do you need from Oxy (or any other school) that would satisfy your mind that he's either fit or unfit for command?

2. Columbia College records - I did not see any of his records at your links, only a description.

See above.

4. Harvard College records

See above.

6. Medical records - From your link at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10686.html : The Obama campaign released this summary of the senator's health records on Thursday and does not plan to make additional records available.

What would you like? His blood pressure? Standing heart rate? Red blood cell count? Again, what sort of information do you need from Oxy (or any other school) that would satisfy your mind that he's either fit or unfit for command? Let's see: he's 30 years younger than Reagan; he plays basketball regularly; he works out; he appears to be in good health.

7. Illinois State Senate records - still missing... you have summaries there.

Huh? Did you expect I would present you a full list of every vote/no-vote on every issue? C'mon, surely you can do some of the work for yourself...

8. Law practice client list - still missing, and there is no law against releasing these, as you assert. Only what is covered with attorney-client privilege, or sealed records (which, by the way, he did not mind disseminating sealed records illegally when it was to his political advantage). Attorney-client privilege applies to every

9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - still missing, and he spent over a million dollars in legal fees to avoid producing this. At one time his defense team even claimed "significant embarrassment" would result in having to show this.

Now I think you're just pulling my leg, aren't you? He was born in Hawaii. It's been investigated by the Left, the Right, and the middle, and it's legitimate, Period. For the sake of all conservatives, let it go already, would you?

10. Harvard Law Review articles - neither of your links provide any of Mr Obama's articles, that I could see. Only stories about him being on Harvard Law Review.

Well, he wasn't just "on" the HLR; he was the president. However, as I stated earlier, he only published one article--a story on abortion rights. Now, if you care to read things by others and published during his tenure, you'll have to get back copies from Harvard, I suppose.

12. University of Chicago scholarly articles - your link only provides a statement from the school, not a scholarly article written by Mr Obama.

Well, you never asked for articles...and besides, he wasn't a writer there, but a lecturer. Read about it; you may be surprised.

We are starting to see the beginning of a secretive administration like never witnessed before!

I'd suggest you read either of his books "Dreams of my Father" and "The Audacity of Hope". Both--especially the first--are chock full of autobiographical tidbits. I can promise you that you'll see his absolute lack of secretiveness after you do so.

Here's some helpful advice to those on the Right: you guys lost, and lost pretty badly this time. And you lost not because the Dems stole the election, or because people everywhere are gullible and naive, or because some Cult of Personality held sway. No, you lost because America and Americans were sick of the way things were going under Bush, and they flocked to the polls in record numbers screaming for change. So, rather than spend the next two or four years looking under rocks hoping to find some tiny little crumb that you can hold to the world while proclaiming that Obama's a fraud, you guys should start listening to the American people--and that means all of them, not just white folks in the middle of the country, but people of all colors and religions and sexual orientations and philosophies; any failure to do so will only serve to increase the length of time you guys are on the outside-looking-in majority.

Cheers!

Amen sqlman

sqlman, you do the critical thinking crowd proud. always a pleasurable read when your around.

Im pretty sure we lost for a reason. ACORN! Frauded votes! Phisically stopping republicans from going to the election boths. A town in ohio with 150% of hispanics voting. However i agree we lost and we should move on. Now the reason a lot of these people in guantonomo bay wernt tried is because they wernt americans. The system for trying them is different and is not guided by our constitution. While they wernt tried by our standards, by the military trials standards they were. As for "The audacity of hope" I have not and will never read it. However i do remeber seeing quite a few complaints about large gaps of information listed in it. Plus i have my doubts on accuracy.

That you can even spell accuracy blows my mind.

??? I spelled it the same way you spelled it

Yeah but it's about the only word you managed to spell correctly in post #63.
Phisically
election boths
guantonomo bay
wernt
remeber

In the interest of saving time here, I won't address grammar and punctuation. But I will reflect on what a POS school you must of attended, drag on. I am beginning to wonder if you are not Joe the Plumber....I can easily envision turd chasing being your chosen career path.

whut < bring out your altro ego >dragon
con >bang chitty chitty

Turd chasing huh.. Thats way better than my chosen carrer of dung roper!

So your the same type of cowboy as Blagojevich. Sounds plausible.

Oh yeah! We hang out all the time! That is until he offered me that senate seat. I said "500k? Thats robbery!"

sqlman - Neither the US nor any other government has the right to hold anyone indefinitely. That's not how things are done in a civilized world, you know?

1. there not being held indefinitely

2. do you try POWS, enemy combatants, terroists, whatever you choose to call them in the justice system? if your answer is yes where do you hold them till they have their day in court? if your answer is no where do you hold them till they have their day in court?

3. they was being tried until obama ordered the trials stopped

4. you've said repeatly...try them or release them. where do you suggest we release them? take them out in international waters and throw them overboard?

5. i'll try this one more time..IF YOUR FOUND-CAPTURED ON THE BATTLE FIELD SHOOTING AT THE AMERICAN-COALITION SOLIDERS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH YOU?

My answer for 5 is SHOOT BACK AT THEM!

d-dog....the problem is alot of those guys we're holding were not captured on a battlefield. they were 'rounded up' by bounty hunters that were paid handsomely by our gov't. or simply snatched out of their homes. or off a street in another country while vacationing cuz somebody had bad intel.

additionally they had all these years TO try them and they had just now geared up to do it in Bush's final months. it's not like trials have been just rolling along since 2003 in some timely, well organized manner.

meanwhile, kidnapping, rendition and tortured prevailed over the 6 years.

i sure would not advocate setting dangerous people free, but i have less evidence these people are evil than i have that Bush was evil.

now, you want a real story that has my interest and concern? caught a bit today on tv about these somalian teenagers that are going missing.
it's not the typical runaway story. these kids live here, in minneapolis, boston, portland, maine and are US citizens. they are all, and i think i read there are between 12-18 of em, a bit fanatical about their faith. and yes, they are Muslim. anyhow....all these boys have disappeared and have taken some clothes and their passports. the FBI thinks there is reason to believe they have left the country in some weird exodus to attend terrorist camp. being American citizens they would of course easily return to America and be able to integrate back into our society...possibly as sleeper cell agents that could be activated later.

THAT sounds like a more credible threat than 95% of the guys we've been hanging onto to do perverted things to all these years.

Hmmm... 12-18 teenagers in america are terrorists.......,. seems fairly plausible....

well, it's got the FBI curious. we may learn that more than that have split and there is some coordinated effort underway. i think the best time to impress a certain ideology upon someone is in their teens. that most certainly is when my liberal leaning radical side began to emerge.

anyhow....i find it interesting and i hope something is learned from this investigation.

say....what happened to misterbojangles? he's been scrub dubbed and within the last 2 hours.

con2- my math sucks so take that into consideration. the question i posted in comment 48 says theres 245 prisoners at gitmo. so according to you 233 are innocent. i find that hard to believe. if 233 people where kidnapped why don't we hear nothing about that? their not americans being held so you can say the govt is keeping the media from reporting it. don't you think your hero the huffington post would give all 233 of them famlies a place to report-speak out about their kidnapping by the evil americans?

so because the trials didn't start ASAP bush gets no credit and obama gets no blame for stopping them.

just saying....if they had such clear evidence these were enemy combatants you'd think convicting them would've been a walk in the park.
now their files are all scattered and missing and you have to wonder why things are in such a disorganized state.

for crying out loud, the big deal they made over grabbing bin ladens cab driver and his file is nowhere to be found. i've no idea what's gone on but yes, Bush was in power and he managed to F everything up...so much so a 'community organizer' whipped a war hero.

i suspect we will be weeding thru this all for a long time to come.

say...what happened to misterbojangles? do you have any idea?

Survey: Most Austrians don't want Gitmo inmates
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/31/international/i060240S62.DTL

A new survey suggests three in four Austrians don't want their country to take in prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

The poll by the OGM institute was conducted for the news magazine Profil. It says 73 percent of respondents are opposed to Austria accepting inmates from the U.S. detention center in eastern Cuba.

Only 19 percent said they have no objections to Austria taking in some of the 245 "enemy combatants" captured since 2001 and held at Guantanamo. No margin of error was given.

The findings were released Saturday. They reflect an unwillingness among many Europeans to accept prisoners even though EU nations have insisted Guantanamo be shut down.

It's our responsibility to see these people are tried and put where they belong. If that means incarcerating some while returning others to their homeland, so be it. Why should another country have to clean up our mess?

I don't have the answers for all of this but I like the idea of them moving in with Bush in his gated community a great deal. Say, maybe they can score jobs on his 100,000 acre compound down in Peru.

Really? Bush has a 100,000 acre compound in peru? What for? Farming and stuff of that nature?

Yeah...it's where all the Nazi's flee to avoid prosecution. Got a hunch Ken Lay is down there sporting his 'new look', compliments of some plastic surgeon.

Ha ha. But seriously, what is it for? Im sure he has some purpose for it, is there oil there? Farming ground? Manufacturing?

great big safe house is my best guess. can't extradite from there. all the successful war criminals have a plan B.

....losing your humor. Im begining to think this place doesnt even exist

"Whoever causes a problem has to resolve it. What is stopping giving innocent people a future in the USA?"
(Austrian's People’s Party (ÖVP) Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger)

I totally agree with Spindelegger, krujis. Now...if we could just find their files....

Polish hostage 'beheaded' by Pakistan Taliban
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090207/ts_afp/pakistanpolandunrestkidnap_20090207164751

Why? Poland doesn't run Guantanamo...

Why didn't they let this innocent man go? Barack wants to let the "innocent" detainees out of Guantanamo - I notice the Taliban didn't waterboard this hostage though - they are much too humane to do that, evidently.

Because I just remembered you, robamichael, I'll post a last quote here which explains, why torture is not the right way.

Maybe you can agree with this, leaving all these annoying details about respect for human life, international treaties and such unimportant stuff aside:

"Good interrogation is not an exercise in domination or control. It's an opportunity for negotiation and compromise. It's a common ground where the two sides in this war meet, and it's a grand stage where words become giants, tears flow like rivers and emotions rage like wildfires. It is a forum in which we should always display America's strengths -- cultural understanding, tolerance, compassion and intellect. But that's not how all interrogators see their role.
(...)
We will win this war by being smarter, not harsher."

(Matthew Alexander served in the Air Force for 14 years and is the author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." He writes under a pseudonym for security reasons.)
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-alexander30-2008dec30,0,1446555.story

Panetta Says CIA Interrogators Won't Face Prosecution
President Obama's nominee for CIA chief, Leon Panetta, formally retracted a statement he made Thursday that the Bush administration transferred prisoners for the purpose of torture.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/06/panetta-retracts-statement-detainee-rendition/

Captives told to claim torture
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/may/31/20050531-121655-7932r/

An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regime that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

The American Civil Liberties Union last week posted on its Web site 2002 FBI documents regarding accusations from suspected al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the detention center. The organization had won a court decision that forced the administration to release scores of e-mails between agents who had interviewed captives.

U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the prison, is investigating interrogation techniques at "GTMO," as the naval base in Cuba is called, as well as the FBI-conveyed, unsubstantiated complaints. The U.S. Justice Department inspector general has begun a separate probe.

One investigator, Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, said last week that the most explosive charge so far -- that guards flushed the Koran Muslim holy book down a toilet -- is not true. The Pentagon tabbed Gen. Hood to conduct a probe into how Islam is treated at the prison in the aftermath of a since-retracted report by Newsweek on the Koran claim.

U.S. officials think the Koran story -- told by a detainee who did not see the purported event -- might be part of an al Qaeda campaign to spread disinformation.

"There have been allegations made by detainees," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "We know that members of al Qaeda are trained to mislead and to provide false reports. We know that's one of their tactics that they use. And so I think you have to keep that in mind."

In a raid on an al Qaeda cell in Manchester, British authorities seized al Qaeda's most extensive manual for how to wage war.

A directive lists one mission as "spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy."

If captured, the manual states, "At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."

The handbook instructs commanders to make sure operatives, or "brothers," understand what to say if captured.

"Prior to executing an operation, the commander should instruct his soldiers on what to say if they are captured," the document says. "He should explain that more than once in order to ensure that they have assimilated it. They should, in turn, explain it back to the commander."

An example might have occurred in a Northern Virginia courtroom in February.

Ahmed Omar Abul Ali, accused of planning to assassinate President Bush, made an appearance in U.S. District Court and promptly told the judge that he had been tortured in Saudi Arabia, including a claim that his back had been whipped. He is accused of meeting there with a senior al Qaeda leader.

Days later, a U.S. attorney filed a court document saying physicians had examined Ali and "found no evidence of any physical mistreatment on the defendant's back or any other part of his body."

"As a defense team, we had access to intelligence papers, and we tried to provide the president [of the United States, Barack Obama] with the evidence of torture we obtained. We wanted him to know that. But all the substantial parts of my letter were blacked out so the president could not read them. Under the bizarre laws the Americans have, they are preventing their commander-in-chief from knowing things that he should. I wrote to him that he is being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel and that these decisions have been made by the very people he commands."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,608480,00.html

Thanks for that link, krujis.

Let's hope we get to the bottom of these cases, no matter where they lead.

Officials: Taliban ops chief once held at Gitmo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainee_taliban_10

And he wants to set them all free -

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind and four other men charged in the attacks declared they were "terrorists to the bone" ...and predicted that America would fall like "the towers on the blessed 9/11 day."..."To us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride,"
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20090311_5_suspects_express_pride_in_9_11_attacks.html

Duh,

When they were so evidently serious dangerous ....

... why haven't they been accused, brought to trial and convicted in a constitutional lawsuit?
Why have those, who had the chance to serve up justice and take care of the situation in a well ordered way, did not do so?
Why have those, who had the chance to protect the western society according to their own pretensions behaved like those who they accuse to have poor social/civilized standards and justice systems?

And why are those weeping now as someone else takes over responsibility for something they goofed themselves?

@Kruijs
I doubt that officials of Guantanamo knew how dangerous he was, when he was set free. He probably lied (oh horror. . . ) about his identity.

POW's (as defined by me) do not deserve a constitutional lawsuit, lawyers, jury trials or book deals later. They do not have rights to American jurisprudence and do not have the rights of American citizens in any way shape or form.

The ACLU (Anti-American Civil Liberties Union) had a lot of influence over the treatment of Gitmo prisoners, which resulted in early release under mounting public pressure.

"And why are those weeping now as someone else takes over responsibility for something they goofed themselves? "
When does closure and early release of dangerous war participants count as taking over responsibility. Instead it is the absolute abdication of responsibility.
Speaking for myself, THAT is what I am weeping about.

"I doubt that officials of Guantanamo knew how dangerous he was"
So you agree that the officials obviously had no clue who they were imprisoning and even weren't able to identify serious dangerous people.

"POW's (as defined by me)"
Since the officials obviously had no clue who they were imprisoning, how could they know if these people would actually be POW? It depends on how you define PoW, really. And how much you have to be involved in W (zero?) to become P.

"taking over responsibility" towards humanity and respect towards the innocent among the "dangerous war participants". The US lost reputation, lost reliance and much credit by arbitrarily imprisoning without showing the involvement of these people. Who cares about "democracy" if you're about to be thrown into prison like in China. Just because they suspect you because of your appearance.

"The US lost reputation, lost reliance and much credit by arbitrarily imprisoning without showing the involvement of these people. Who cares about "democracy" if you're about to be thrown into prison like in China. Just because they suspect you because of your appearance. "

It's nice to make blanket statements like "arbitrarily imprisoning" these terrorists. Where's your proof of that? Not being privy to the inside information that you apparently have access to, and knowing that these prisoners were captured during and in the process of a war, I'm inclined to believe that they are enemy combatants, prisoners of war, who shouldn't be released until the war is over, or there is some reason to believe otherwise. The fact that many have returned to the "jihad" is further proof, not an indication that these terrorists should be released.

It's easy to understand your enmity for the US, considering you come from a place that stands for nothing, other than money. What is documented about Switzerland is how they helped finance the Nazi war effort and stole from the victims of the Nazi holocaust and their descendants. ( You can find all the references that you need to those facts in Google, though being from Switzerland, you must be aware.) Today Switzerland stands for those same principles. I notice you're frequently quick to criticize the US. Are you proud of your pathetic country?

@Kruijs,
"obviously had no clue who they were imprisoning"
I would phrase it differently:
imprisoning battlefield participants who were introduced with less than optimal social graces.

Translation:
The guy tried to kill me and he is still alive, but needs to be incarcerated before he can kill any more soldiers.
As for the argument regarding innocents and the need to release all prisoners because we cannot be sure that they are guilty:
"If it would save just one life, wouldn't it be worth it?"
No. sometimes harsh decisions have to be made.
In a battlefield, you cannot always have the option of being 100% right about guilt or innocence.
Most, if not all, of the prisoners in Gitmo today are enemies of the USA..
If we release them, they will not change their beliefs and will probably return to fight us again some other day.
That does not give me confidence in the leadership of our current administration, when they have less concerns for our fighting men and women than they do for wartime guerrillas.

Many liberals do advocate open borders and in the case here in Colorado, recently votes for In-State Tuition rates for illegal aliens.
We are losing our sovereignty and our country is being taken over - from inside.

@chatarra

You are talking as if there were actually a real war. But there isn't. There is a thread. And there are attacks, no doubt, and people are killed.
But there is no battlefield. The decision to detain people is made by police authorities and secret services. In most cases: Not in a war situation. They are picked up on the streets, in public life situations.

I'd say, many of them have had no positive opinion on the US or western civilization before - but having an opinion alone doesn't make someone a terrorist. And that opinion will not lighten up if you detain them this way. But if you stop acting illegally, you give them - and others - one reason less to have a negative opinion. If you do not release them you will give others even more reason to attack you, for sure.

@drzinternet
1) "Where's your proof of that?": where is the proof that all of them are terrorists?
2) "during and in the process of a war": which "war"?
3) "until the war is over": how do you say a "war" is over when you actually fight terrorism?
4) "returned to the "jihad"": My words. If they'd proven the thread these people are, nobody would criticize the detainment. Not even I would. But they did not do so.

I currently live in Switzerland, but I am of Dutch origin. I assume you are aware of the European geography, but else you can use google (since you live in the US, I guess you have internet). And obviously most of the topics on Hubdub are US oriented. And most of these are even quite controversial topics. And in most cases I seem to have an other opinion on these than you have. So, to say "quick to criticize the US." is wrong. If you'd read carefully (and though you are from the US you should be able to read) you could recognize that I actually do not criticize the US but only US politics of a certain kind. The kind of politics you obviously identify yourself with.

@Kruijs,
This is where we will probably have irreconcilable differences.
(and please understand how much I admire your ability to view both points of view on occasion!)
I question how you know the location and details of where prisoners placed into Guantanamo have been picked up from?
I have been to 3 different funeral services for servicemen who lost their lives in Iraq. Try telling those families that this is only a pretend war and not real.

While we do not have a declared war against Iraq as a country, it is obvious we are fighting a war against insurgent guerrillas, with our military as the main fighting force. Some people will object and question the difference between insurgent guerrillas and freedom fighters, but I won't. Iraqi citizens have voted in elections since we have arrived and I consider the right to self determination a valuable piece of democracy. If we were to leave today, would Iraq maintain the right to free and unfettered elections?

"I'd say, many of them have had no positive opinion on the US or western civilization before - but having an opinion alone doesn't make someone a terrorist."
Please point out to me where we arrest anybody and everybody who has a negative opinion of the US.
Conspiracy2Riot would have been arrested many times by now. he he
Seriously, we are not arresting people with poor opinions of the US - the jails would be overflowing & we would not be able to build enough jails fast enough if that were the case.

"If you do not release them you will give others even more reason to attack you, for sure. "
What do you do when you release them and they keep attacking you anyways?
It is sheer idiocy to let them go free so they can attack you again.
Many of the released detainees are being re-arrested by police actions in other countries.
If they were held in Gitmo, they would not be subject to re-arrest in those countries.
They are not being arrested because they escaped, but rather because they have committed new offenses.

I do not want to live in a world where the inmates run the asylum. Do you?

"I currently live in Switzerland, but I am of Dutch origin. I assume you are aware of the European geography, but else you can use google (since you live in the US, I guess you have internet)."
Sorry I must have missed the Dutch part when I read your autobiography. I don't get your point here, but I'm sure there is one.

"If you'd read carefully (and though you are from the US you should be able to read) "
Is that a criticism of the collective intellect of the US or an attempt at humor?

@chatarra,
This is not about the war in iraq. It's about the "war on terrorism" and a-Qaida.
I believe in innocence as long guilty has not proven. Most of the prisoners were not captured by the U.S. in combat but were turned over by local forces, often in exchange for a bounty. A report found that only 8 percent of those held at Guantanamo were al-Qaida fighters. Even a study done at West Point concluded that just 73 percent of the detainees were a "demonstrated threat" - which means 27 percent were not.
You might be right about C2R, lol
I agree on the problem of releasing the detainees. But if you don't release them, others will attack you. I'd say: If you can prove the thread they are for you, keep them in jail. If you can't, let them go. Anything else is arbitrary.

@drzinternet
"the collective intellect of the US" ... please define "intellect"

@chatarra,
see also comment #27
@drzinternet

no need to read my CV, just read previous comments in this thread (#34 for example)

The issue here is that the Bush administration did such a lousy job of vetting these people that they imprisoned innocent people for years, and turned loose very dangerous people as well. It is merely another example of how inept Bush and the people around him were. A local police department could have separated out the bad apples in about 10 minutes. But under the infrastructure of Bush's torture campaign, they couldn't even pick out the bad guys.

@KRU
I Read #34, but didn't see the relevance. Though I haven't read all 107 comments, I don't think anyone has said you can't voice your opinion or criticize the US. Like myself, people disagree with you, and let you know. And even if they did, they'd only be voicing their opinion.

Free speech is nice, isn't it? If you prize free speech, aren't you ashamed to admit that you're of Dutch origin? I hear that they're trying to throw people in jail there for exercising free speech. I'm amazed that this goes on.

@drzinternet
In comment #34 I mentioned my origin.

but, honestly, what do you want from me?

why should I be ashamed to admit that I am of Dutch origin? just to let you know: I am not.
why should I defend anything you blame a country for, being it switzerland, the netherlands or any other country?

I haven't said that what is happening concerning Wilders (I assume you are referring to him) is either good or bad. so why should I be "ashamed" for that? In fact, even Wilders is protected by the same laws "A woman who sent over 100 threatening e-mails to Geert Wilders has been sentenced to a year in jail and conditional psychiatric treatment.". But for your interest: it was ruled that Wilders' insults to Islam were so egregious that the principle of free speech was not sufficient defense. The court explained that Wilders' claims in "Fitna" and other media statements were "one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred."

where did I prize free speech anyway? but, if you're asking: if insulting people is an essential and fundamental part of free speech, than, my enthusiasm towards "free speech" is restrained. I think peoples right on integrity comes first, than free speech.

wrong again, candi...The Afghans released him.

@Kruj
"why should I defend anything you blame a country for, being it switzerland, the netherlands or any other country? "
No reason. I don't care whether you do or not. It's just a way for me to make a point.

"where did I prize free speech anyway?"
reread your comment 34

"But for your interest: it was ruled that Wilders' insults to Islam were so egregious that the principle of free speech was not sufficient defense. The court explained that Wilders' claims in "Fitna" and other media statements were "one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred."
I haven't viewed Fitna recently, but as I recall, he took verses from the Koran, and images, such as a video of a beheading by radical Muslims. His film was a warning about radical Islam. I don't believe he's been accused of lying or making false statements. Only that some Muslims are insulted by his attack on radical murderous Muslims. It's sad, that in the country where Theo Van Gogh was murdered for a movie by Islamic terrorists, the government is bowing to these terrorists.

"I think peoples right on integrity comes first, than free speech."
You're usually pretty clear, but I don't really know what this means (did you write that or curios?), but if it means that the truth must be hidden so as not to insult the terrorists, you've got to be joking. I find this European mentality amusing.

sorry, I used integrity instead of dignity.
but people in the US should be aware of what it means. (The American Convention on Human Rights (1969), art. 11(1) ).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_dignity

if these people are terrorists, prove it, sentence them, then put them in jail.
if you cannot do so - do not attack their dignity just because you think they are suspicious.

that's all I'm saying.

Please Erik. He was at Gitmo. He was released to Afghanistan.

@Kruijs -- you will forgive my fellow US citizens, particularly diesel, whose command of the English language is inferior to yours. You must be a product of one of those "socialist," "European" schools. :)

Seriously K, I don't know if you've ever been to the States but unfortunately, we have a lot of people -- good people in many respects -- who are convinced that safety for Them, and justice for Them is more important than safety and justice for anyone (better yet, Everyone else).

Americans, for the most part, are decent people. But they have this nasty little habit of believing that anything Not American is suspect.

Like you, I consider myself a citizen of the world, though I realize that legally such a category doesn't exist. What the phrase implies is that I don't view myself as merely a member of American society, but a member of a far larger, non-nationalistic society. And who can say that's not true given that I live in Mexico and I have friends and family all over the world, including you?

Those who would say that calling yourself a "world citizen" somehow implies "meddler" ought to go back to the Reagan years and see how the German PEOPLE felt about having Bonzo's nuclear missile silos in their backyards. No country in the world meddles more than the good old USA.

@ DD
Isn't it interesting how the raving lunatic jsevigny, who got banned for flying off the handle once too often (I guess), is now candalario, "man of the world." What a transformation. We'll have to keep our eyes open for when he graces the cover of GQ. I'm sure he must be very dashing. No wonder C2R has the hots for him.

I can tell that he's very sophisticated, after all, he's living in Mexico. Well Gomer, I know it's kind of difficult for us hillbillies to understand and appreciate the world of this evolved soul. I guess the best we can hope for is to learn from this selfless and nationless gifted one. Lucky for us he's back from banishment for being a lunatic.

But I wonder if it's real. You know what they say, "once a jsevigny, always a jsevigny."

drz - i learned it was easiar to ignore jsevingy than to deal with him. same goes for candyboy. he can pay his little game of hide and seek with the HD big chiefs. i got better things to do. :O)

I don't see why anybody would be surprised over my fondness for candelario. I've always been drawn to intelligent men.

And what exactly is the point you're REALLY trying to make, driz, with your statement about sophisticated people and Mexico?

@candelario,
not to forget Kennedy, who showed the same understanding by saying "Ich bin ein Berliner"

@drzinternet
again, you go after the one who says something, rather than respond to what he said. and this time your a coward addressing your thoughts to dieseldog - from whom you know he'll cheer for you -, rather than to the person in question directly.
to make this clear. the way I read your response to me was,
you tried to:
- accuse me for making generalizations by saying "criticize the US" rather than, for example criticize George W. Bush
- accuse me for a anti-US attitude by saying "frequently quick to criticize the US" rather than arguing for my positions
- reduce the culture and history of the country to a fairly generalized association with money business by saying "a place that stands for nothing, other than money." plus Nazi friendly opportunistic behavior in that context by saying "how they helped finance the Nazi war effort" as well as an accusation of highly unethical acts by saying "and stole from the victims of the Nazi holocaust and their descendants"
- extend and adopt your restricted, generalized historical view of opportunistic unethical behavior and greed on today's Switzerland by saying "Today Switzerland stands for those same principles."
- doubt my history knowledge or my willingness to accept historical facts by saying "You can find all the references that you need to those facts in Google, though being from Switzerland, you must be aware"
- tie me up being responsible for what this single country stands, for what you described before by saying "Are you proud of your pathetic country?"
- make a quite offensive conclusion of the country by saying "pathetic country"

That's quite a lot of arguing against me, considering we just were discussing the sense of the Guantanamo prison.

But the best thing is, as this is your way to "easily" explain my "enmity for the US", it just shows you own restricted mind IMO.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

drz>
"I find this European mentality amusing."

Amusing isn't the word I was thinking....
Good choice though, being a "family-friendly site" and all -

Cheers

@Erik,

so, after not getting a point with your poor/wrong arguments first, than ignoring what I say, followed by denigrating your counterpart afterwards, you now choose to switch to stage 4: name calling. fine with me, I will not follow you on that line.

but, just because I'm curios: what is the word you are thinking? if you are so cowardly that you do not dare to name it, you could try to describe it.

ups, no, I'm not curios, I am curious.

sorry, curios, no intent.

lol

@kruijs:
"@candelario,
not to forget Kennedy, who showed the same understanding by saying "Ich bin ein Berliner" "
I think you should be cautious with imputing "world citizenship" to Kennedy in this cold war context.. Well, probably one shouldn't refer to leaders of national governments at all, when you're talking about world citizenship.

@bernardo,
he was a US President who did not say "I find this European mentality amusing.", he did not snidely speak of "Old Europe" - no, he said "Ich bin ein Berliner" in an act of sympathy and to identify himself with the Germans.
Yes, maybe you are right about the context of the cold war. But at least he wasn't an aggressor like others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tente, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty, http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/DOCUMENT/NSDMNSSM/nsdm271a.htm etc. And not to forget: Kennedy supported racial integration and civil rights.

You're a cutey, drizzlenet. I owe you a big kiss, with a lot of tongue.

@kruijs,
I'm confused by your selection of sources. I really don't want to start a discussion on Kennedy's merits here, but I can't see where the invasion at the Bay of Pigs wasn't aggressive and I think this is exactly the wrong page in Kennedy's book to tell something about his open and liberal ideas (The fact that the cold war nearly escalated during his term left aside). And yes, trying to improve your nation's position in the world and asure safety for its citizens is what you expect of a president, but I can't imagine someone calling himself a "world citizen" who counts on medium-range missiles and other international strategies to "solve" "problems". I also think there's a personal note in the "Ich bin ein Berliner"-speech, but first of all it's a statement of policy and therefore no identification with the Germans but with the idea of an East Germany that is not under Soviet control, which makes a difference.
I'm okay with seeing Kennedy as a less aggressive man than others, but you surely don't need him as a rolemodel for your "world citizenship" ;) (Maybe I just misunderstood your Kennedy-reference a little..)

@ candelario....please find out if driz is from Texas before you go swapping any bodily fluids. one look at the tongue with an STD on one of my Texas q's will show you what dangers may lie ahead.

You may be right: @Driz: Are you a Texan? Do you have STDs?

kru> I have no idea what thought you are attempting to get across in your first paragraph.

I'll attempt to describe the word I would prefer...more of a phrase though...it would include one's cranium and one's sphincter.

Any other questions, oh cowardly one?
(and yes, you seem to be the spitting image of the "one" mentioned in my phrase)

@bernardo
okay, agree that there might be much better examples of "world citizenship". what I was trying to point out was that Kennedy actually tried to keep up diplomatic relationship and coop with the Russians to let not escalate the cold war (and it is seen as a merit for him that Cuba actually did not escalate). and why choose a Kennedy quote? because he was one of the less "suspicious" US presidents.

@Erik, yes, many

what do you base your opinion on (besides knowing me)?

@Erik,

which word would you use as a substitution for "enemy combatant"?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUxng-zkl2uhqdCATFQyY9_8QV3QD96TCD383

@ Kruijs
I'm surprised that in the same sentence you accuse me of going after someone personally, you deem it necessary to personally attack me, and call me a coward. Since this isn't your native language, I'll give you some definitions from dictionary.com that apply.

Hypocrite:
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Coward:
a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

Seeing how jsevigny attacked diesel, while addressing you, I used the same technique with him. I also used sarcasm, as I thought it was appropriate for that fool. It's hard for me to fathom how a normal mind would twist that into being cowardly. Besides, I don't usually interact directly with candelario. If you can't tell by his past behavior, perhaps his last few comments might be indicative of his level of maturity. I imagine he'll take that as a compliment.

"You're a cutey, drizzlenet. I owe you a big kiss, with a lot of tongue.
You may be right: @Driz: Are you a Texan? Do you have STDs? "

@ Kruijs
I wanted to respond to the rest of your post:

1) "accuse me for making generalizations by saying "criticize the US" rather than, for example criticize George W. Bush"

Isn't this a generalization by you below?
"again, you go after the one who says something, rather than respond to what he said."

Isn't this criticising the US?
"The US lost reputation, lost reliance and much credit by arbitrarily imprisoning without showing the involvement of these people. Who cares about "democracy" if you're about to be thrown into prison like in China. Just because they suspect you because of your appearance."
(I'm not saying you can't criticize the US, but try not to be such a hypocrite when the proof is just a few clicks above.)



2) "accuse me for a anti-US attitude by saying "frequently quick to criticize the US" rather than arguing for my positions"

I think I have argued against your positions. You don't seem to like my arguments.

3) "reduce the culture and history of the country to a fairly generalized association with money business by saying "a place that stands for nothing, other than money." plus Nazi friendly opportunistic behavior in that context by saying "how they helped finance the Nazi war effort" as well as an accusation of highly unethical acts by saying "and stole from the victims of the Nazi holocaust and their descendants"

What's wrong with that? That's what I said. Feel free to dispute it.

4) extend and adopt your restricted, generalized historical view of opportunistic unethical behavior and greed on today's Switzerland by saying "Today Switzerland stands for those same principles."

Your point?

5) doubt my history knowledge or my willingness to accept historical facts by saying "You can find all the references that you need to those facts in Google, though being from Switzerland, you must be aware"

Sorry, I was just being helpful. I didn't realize you were so sensitive. I honestly don't get your point.

6) tie me up being responsible for what this single country stands, for what you described before by saying "Are you proud of your pathetic country?"

It's a yes/no question. You really don't like someone else taking charge of the conversation.

7) make a quite offensive conclusion of the country by saying "pathetic country"

I won't call it that anymore. Would they throw me in jail for that, or is that reserved only for those who expose the terrorists?

Wow. The conservatives here sure use a great number of words to say nothing important.

@krujis, i would like you to know i do not hold you responsible for the atrocities of WWII or any country's actions in their entirety. furthermore, think you've made a great argument but you presented it to a predominately less than great audience. nice try though.

Unless you're a terrorist, drz, and you seem to have the dangerous mentality of one, I wouldn't worry about it.

con & kru - you both made drz's point even more clear. you wanna hold the USA responsible for slavery and blame it on the failure of blacks today. drz turns the table and kruijs says you can't blame him for the past actions of his country..and con agrees with him. rotflol. so is it only present day american's responsible for past american transagressions? all other present day country's people get a pass? no wonder you people support obama. depends on what day it is as to what you believe. rotflol.

DD, as an old friend once told me, "Liberalism is a mental disease." They (here I go generalizing about libs) see everything thru this distorted liberal filter, and anything that doesn't fit is ignored or if they are in power, it's legislated away.

kru>

I think “enemy combatant” is just fine. They certainly are not P.O.W.s and beneficiaries of the Geneva Convictions. I’m more interested in what The Anointed One’s new term will be. But, I digress...

From your cited article:
"Law-of-war principles do not limit the United States' detention authority to this limited category of individuals. A contrary conclusion would improperly reward an enemy that violates the laws of war by operating as a loose network and camouflaging its forces as civilians."
Retired Army Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a former Guantanamo official who has since become critical of the legal process, said it's a change in nothing but semantics.
"There's absolutely no change in the definition," Abraham said in a telephone interview. "To say this is a kinder more benevolent sense of justice is absolutely false. ... I think the only thing they've done is try to separate themselves from the energy of the debate" by eliminating Bush's phrasing.

As far as your question, “What do you base your opinion on (besides knowing me)?”
I believe comments 136 & 137 are a good starting point.

Sorry, I neglected to accredit (and thank) diesel and drz for their coments I cited.

@drzinternet, #133

1a) Isn't this a generalization by you below? "again, you go after the one who says something, rather than respond to what he said."
- uhm, no, this is a comment of an action you took ("you go after"). nothing in the sentence said that you do that alway, nor that all of the right wings around here do that. what generalization did you mean that I missed?

1b)
- "The US lost reputation, lost reliance and much credit by arbitrarily imprisoning without showing the involvement of these people." I agree the sentence may confuse - but everyone with a clear mind will recognize that I did not intent to make each and every US citizen responsible. Ask yourself: Who was "arbitrarily imprisoning"? And who lost reputation? Answers: The US Administration led by George W. Bush did. The US as a country suffered.
- "who cares about "democracy" if you're about to be thrown into prison like in China. Just because they suspect you because of your appearance."This is solely a hypothesis, and has nothing to do with the US Administration in the first place but could apply to government.

2) "I think I have argued against your positions. You don't seem to like my arguments." I was talking about myself, I tried to make the point that I argue for my points, it nothing to do with the fact that many of these are US related. In the context of Hubdub most topics simply are US related.

3) It, again, is a generalisation, additionally flawed by prejustices. You reduce the identity of the country to some aspects from the past for which our generation cannot take responsibility. You for your part think it reflects reality, which definitly is not the case. It's like saying all Christians today are evil because of the crusades.

4) see 3)

5) Well, if you would accept me as about coequal to yourself, you'd realized that I would be aware of these things. Pointing out platitudes shows that you doubt my knowledge and/or intelligence.

6) Sometimes answers are not simply yes or no. There are shades of gray. But asking for "pathetic" is suggestive - so it is not simply a "yes/no question". I will never answer such questions because either way my answer is (black, white or gray), it would give you further reason to attack me. You could ask "are you proud of your country", and I would answer "gray".

7) I don't get that point actually, as Switzerland is a constitutional state like the US. But "throw me in jail" could've happened to you in Guantanamo - without trial, without even knowing why. It would've happened covered by the George W. Bush administration and in my eyes these actions are to be considered unconstitutional.

So. I hope I made thing clearer. I even got the discussion back on track with my last point :-) after this diversion from the topic.

@drzinternet, comment #132

I said "and this time your a coward addressing your thoughts ..." Although I consider it to be true, I did not write that you are always a coward. I wrote that you are a coward in that situation.

"Seeing how jsevigny attacked diesel, while addressing you, I used the same technique with him." I must admit, jsevigny was acting cowardly in that situation too.

"I also used sarcasm," duh? where? please use some emoticons next time.

"as I thought it was appropriate for that fool." (another name calling?)


"It's hard for me to fathom how a normal mind would twist that into being cowardly. Besides, I don't usually interact directly with candelario. If you can't tell by his past behavior, perhaps his last few comments might be indicative of his level of maturity. I imagine he'll take that as a compliment."

Well, if you ask me: I am very well aware of who jsevigny/candelario is
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Topic/Death_markets_now_banned_400 comments #19,#20,#30
you were participating in that discussion too, remember?

@dieseldog

"you wanna hold the USA responsible for slavery" is this a questionable? I thought there was slavery? duh, maybe the holocaust hasn't happened either.
"and blame it on the failure of blacks today." well, there still is racism nowadays.
"you can't blame him for the past actions of his country." which still is correct. just as you are only responsible for discrimination and racism today, not in history.

"so is it only present day american's responsible for past american transagressions? all other present day country's people get a pass?!" your conclusion of what?

"no wonder you people support obama. depends on what day it is as to what you believe." I would rather say that it is a question of available alternatives. and don't you offend any religious people who support their church based on a believe?

I take anything and everything said on Hubdub as a compliment, especially when it comes from Diesel.

@drzinternet
almost forgot: you have still to answer my questions from post #101

@Erik,
if drzinternet doesn't want to, feel free to play his part and answer some of those.

@Diesel -- Are you going to make race the topic of EVERY hubdub post? Man, I bet you're one of those old white guys who hates blacks but gets off on "ebony" porn. You seem SO MUCH like the type.

"con & kru - you both made drz's point even more clear. you wanna hold the USA responsible for slavery and blame it on the failure of blacks today. drz turns the table and kruijs says you can't blame him for the past actions of his country..and con agrees with him. rotflol. so is it only present day american's responsible for past american transagressions? all other present day country's people get a pass? no wonder you people support obama. depends on what day it is as to what you believe. rotflol."

kru - if you wanna claim thats theres still racism today and tie it to slavery. then why can't i tie your county's funding of the holocaust to you today? you can't have it both ways. read what you said in comment 142. you try to have it both ways AGAIN.

which still is correct. just as you are only responsible for discrimination and racism today, not in history.

i'm only responsible for my actions tyvm. i guess you think i'm responsible for all killings and robberys.

so is it only present day american's responsible for past american transagressions? all other present day country's people get a pass?!" your conclusion of what?

YOU TRYING TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

I would rather say that it is a question of available alternatives. and don't you offend any religious people who support their church based on a believe?

i have no idea what your talking about.

I don't know how you manage to do it, Diesel, but you've turned this post into a debate on race as well. Old habits die hard, eh?

As for Germans making up for the past, you might read this document. It's 77 pages long but I think you can get through it. Germany has paid billions of dollars to Isreal and individual victims and their families over crimes committed during Hitler's reign.

http://www.uchastings.edu/faculty-administration/faculty/roht-arriaza/class-website/docs/reparations/german-reparations.pdf

Indeed, that is certainly on the mind of John McCain, the former prisoner of war who inserted the anti-abuse language into a defense appropriation bill.

What is saddest about the whole thing is that it seems completely gratuitous: the powers the administration claims are powers it cannot need, or rather that it could only need for purposes other than those it professes.

The administration insists incessantly that the people it holds at Guantanamo and a variety of other known or secret facilities, as well as the people it renders for torture to foreign powers, are "bad people," "terrorists."

One hopes that they make these claims on the basis of some evidence. If not, then they should release these people immediately. If so, then they can produce this evidence in some sort of legal proceeding. They have been instructed to do so by the Supreme Court, which has insisted that the detainees have a right to confront U.S. accusations and challenge their indefinite detention.

Instead, as electronic messages from two of the tribunals' prosecutors obtained by the New York Times make abundantly clear, the army simply rigged the proceedings and then went through the motions. "Among the striking statements in the prosecutors' messages," reported the Times, "was an assertion by one that "the chief prosecutor had told his subordinates that the members of the military commission that would try the first four defendants would be "handpicked" to ensure that all would be convicted." Other accusations - again made by prosecutors themselves - included that all evidence of the prisoners' innocence be treated as secret and not divulged in the proceedings.

Recall that the administration's position at the outset was that it was under no legal constraints at all with regard to anyone: that it could secretly arrest, hold, and torture anyone it wished for as long as it wanted for no reason at all. Even the kangaroo courts it finally conducted had to be imposed on it by court decree.

When the Constitution calls for due process of law, it does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, or between domestic and foreign facilities: it specifies not who must be treated according to the rule of law but how the United States government is obliged to act.

I believe the archipelago of secret detention and abuse facilities that the Bush administration operates is illegal according to our founding document.

But whether it is or not, our treatment of these people make a mockery of our claim to bring freedom and democracy around the world. Our treatment of these people brings us into a condition of moral equivalence with those we condemn as terrorists and murderers: dozens of prisoners against whom no evidence has been produced have been killed in our custody or the custody of countries to which we have rendered them for torture. We will never have a true count, will never even know most of their names or alleged crimes.

Obviously, that doesn't bother Alberto Gonzales, Condoleezza Rice, or whatever ethicists they have on staff. But it makes what they're saying sound ridiculous, and it undercuts their policies around the world.

@dieseldog

"i guess you think i'm responsible for all killings and robberys" nice try to make yourself the victim. The problem is that I cannot say that because you will not have committed every single killing and robbery.

But the answer is in lies your question: "if you wanna claim thats theres still racism today and tie it to slavery. then why can't i tie your county's funding of the holocaust to you today?"

Just read it one more time.

kru - nice try to make yourself the victim

i didn't try to make myself a victim. you said and i quote - "just as you are only responsible for discrimination and racism today, not in history." how can i be responsible for something not in my control? wasn't there just some protest in your country over israel/jews? should i hold you responsible for that? you have tried to link past US transgressions to modern day society. then when drz used the same argument on you, you cried foul. you can't hold the USA to one standard and your country to another.

does racism exsist in america..yes. should ALL americans have to bare responsible ability..NO! theres laws on the books to deal with such a crime. just as in crimes of murder and robbery you can't hold all americans responsible. theres no affirmative action for families of murdered victims, so why should there be affirmative action for people who have suffered racism?

Diesel continues his relentless efforts to make every post offensive to blacks.

Nonetheless, I am in total agreement with Curios. It doesn't help that so much evidence the potentially innocent people could have used to defend themselves was destroyed by Bush administration people.

"should ALL americans have to bare responsible ability..NO!"

I have never said so

I'm out dieseldog, the way you simply do not listen to what others say to you, just doesn't make any sense. But it explains your opinions in many ways. Someone mentioned a "distorted filter"?

i'm out as well. when people have double standards its hard to get them to see the truth. :O)

oh, man dieseldog, can't you even leave the part of the cry-baby up to me!?

THE International Committee of the Red Cross has reportedly concluded that the Bush Administration's treatment of al-Qaeda captives in CIA prisons "constituted torture".
The judgment was contained in a 2007 document kept secret, The Washington Post reported citing newly published excerpts.

The account of alleged physical and psychological brutality inside CIA prisons overseas also states that some US practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," the newspaper reported.

The secret report strong implies that the US violated international law prohibiting torture and maltreatment of prisoners, the newspaper said.

The Washington Post said the ICRC findings were based on its access to the CIA's 14 "high-value" detainees after they were transferred in 2006 to the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ICRC report gave uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning, the Post said.

The Washington Post said at least five copies of the report were shared with the CIA and top White House officials in 2007.

INSTEAD of arguing with one another do some research?

Research? What are you some kind of nut? This is the internet! No one does research here!

@ krujis #154.....good one

@DRAGON
#157


how right you are

The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration's treatment of al-Qaeda captives "constituted torture," a finding that strongly implied that CIA interrogation methods violated international law, according to newly published excerpts from the long-concealed 2007 document.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031502724.html?hpid=topnews

Obama's new detainee policy: Break from Bush, or the same?


While Amnesty International hailed the filing as "a strong symbolic gesture," other human rights groups said it changed little.
They have adopted almost the same standard (as) the Bush administration . . .the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a written statement. "This is really a case of old wine in new bottles."
That position was echoed by Seattle attorney Joe McMillan, who defended Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan, in federal and military courts.
"The position set forth by the Department of Justice is quite similar to the position adopted by the Bush administration,'' McMillan said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/v-print/story/63963.html

To answer your doubt: IMO, if Obama does not close the back site camps (not only Guantanamo), I will criticize him for that.

But, it must be real hard to find a quote in that article to post here, underlining your own position. Other from the article you quote:
"[T]he government's authority to continue to jail terrorist suspects would hinge on proving that they "authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks or that they "were part of or substantially supported" the Taliban or al Qaida."
"Others said the filing meant the U.S. had no right to hold their clients. Air Force Reserve Maj. David Frakt, an attorney for a young Afghan at Guantanamo, said the new definition means that his client, Mohammed Jawad, gets to go home."
"Still, Friday's actions put a little more flesh on the bones of Obama's approach to terrorism suspects, according to some legal experts."
""What's important about it is it's a plan on how they will evaluate Guantanamo detainees and future detainees," said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale University. "It sets the bar higher than it had been set in the Bush administration.""

It shows one interesting aspect of your mind, Erik: Since you quote the paragraph with the comment of the attorney "who defended Osama bin Laden's driver", I conclude you go like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend";
Seems that you sympathize with Al Qaida rather with democratic (or black?) Americans.

Am I right?

The problem I have, sql, is the pre 9-11 mentality that is in this administration’s policies. That anything to do with terrorists is a law issue. This is a war. People want to kill us and there are those in their rose colored glasses that want us to go to the attorney general for arrest warrants.
Me? I think we should be calling the Strategic Air Command

If it was really a war, then the previous administration would have gone after the real enemy instead of making up a pack of lies and chasing a bunch of oil around the desert, right? But they didn't do that, which alone tells me it's not a war.

Having said that, the US has managed to fend off all its previous enemies without violating the Geneva Conventions, without torturing, without rendition, without holding "enemy combatants" indefinitely, without destabilizing entire continents, without engendering animosity throughout the whole world, without giving those who weren't sure about us reason to hate us, and those who already hate reason to hate us more.

Conservatives like to paint liberals as yellow-bellied, lily-livered, bleeding-heart, sissified wimps when it comes to protecting the country and its interests. In reality, though, we just tend to believe that, as Teddy Roosevelt famously said, it's best to talk softly and carry a big stick. As of late, though, the Right has tried to run the country and the world using only the second part of that statement...and, QED, it doesn't work. It never has, and it never will....

Erik. Who is us? It's funny. The state of New York, which was where the attacks actually took place, went blue, looking to throw Bush the f- out of office like he deserved. I don't know where you live, but in your city-town do you seriously live your life thinking terrorists are following you down the highway? I suspect you are a more reasonable person than that.

sql> “If it was really a war, then the previous administration would have gone after the real enemy instead of making up a pack of lies and chasing a bunch of oil around the desert, right? But they didn't do that, which alone tells me it's not a war.”

I don’t know what you’re asking.
I’m not sure how one would chase "a bunch of oil" around a desert.
Therefore, I’m not sure if the previous administration conducted this alleged exercise correctly, or not.

As far as your comments concerning your allegations of violations of the Geneva Conventions...
I refer you to the Geneva Conventions:

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)...
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections... In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions... A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)
http://www.spj.org/gc-index.asp?#c

There's certainly more, if you'd care to debate the relevance of the Geneva Conventions in the war on terrorism.

sql> Sorry, forgot about you comment on rendition.
Looks like a good thing, if this is what you're referring to:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/01/29/the_confusion_over_renditions/

Erik,
see comment #23, comment #104
and, oh, please answer to comment #162

kru> Briefly... I'll repeat that this is should not be treated as a "police action." Prosecuting attorneys have no place in war. Captives are held until hostilities cease.
That's about as far as I can go right now.
I work nights...It's 1:00 in the morning, for me.

Cheers, I'll get back with you.

@Erik, thanks. I'm looking forward to it.
Just to let you know: In my part of the planet, it's 9pm now.

Here's one for all you Bush apologists:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday.

"There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hardly a flaming, bleeding-heart liberal, I'd say...

sqlman - what are you doing reading fox news? that will get you kicked out of the liberal group. so much for fox being biased eh?

gotta go find the secretary of defense (dragonfang) and tell him a liberal has penetrated our bureau of information. this can't be allowed! :O)

Yeah, Wilkerson is a bleeding heart liberal, just not a flaming one.

He supported Jim Web, admires Bill Clinton, dislikes Dick Cheney, doesn't support the war in Iraq, along with a long list of other things we could add.

Only slightly off topic, here's an interesting article about US policy to detain:

http://www.thestar.com/article/194832

A former State Department lawyer tells The Associated Press that the Bush administration panicked after 9/11 and tortured prisoners.

Former President George W. Bush denied anyone was tortured. But Vijay Padmanabhan is at least the second insider to publicly describe as torture the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the U.S.

Padmanabhan was the department's chief counsel on Guantanamo litigation. He says it was "foolish" for the Bush administration to declare that detainees were beyond the reach of U.S. and international laws and the Geneva Conventions.

He told the AP Friday that "Guantanamo was one of the worst overreactions of the Bush administration."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjD0weHpCkMwMc94iRSiCgw0UAMQD976H3VO0

Any comments? Anyone? Erik? Stall awaiting your reply ...

* still awaiting

I think it's obvious to the majority of the civilized world that George W. Bush had no idea what to do after the 9-11 attacks and reacted in the most illegal, Machiavellian, evil possible ways. We now have two former State Department officials connecting Bush's name to the word "torture." Historically, this is unprecedented. No US president has ever faced such accusations by such high level officials. Everyone who cherishes justice should be crossing their fingers and hoping that this doesn't end here.

Miss Universe Visits Guantanamo: 'A Loooot Of Fun!'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/miss-universe-visits-guan_n_180941.html

Judge: Bagram prisoners can challenge detention

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inrssFARYO4US7mMu27sqB9tc7WwD97AE6Q80

Senior members of the Bush administration today defended the physical abuse of prisoners by CIA operatives at Guantánamo and elsewhere round the world set out in graphic detail in secret memos released by president Barack Obama.
(...)
"The release of CIA memos on interrogation methods by the US department of justice appears to have offered a get-out-of-jail-free card to people involved in torture," Amnesty International said. "Torture is never acceptable and those who conduct it should not escape justice."
(...)
The memos, along with a leaked International Red Cross report earlier this year, provide the most detailed accounts yet into what happened to prisoners held at Guantanamo and hidden CIA sites round the world and corroborate much of the testimony of former Guantanamo detainees.

Patrick Leahy, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, said the content of the memos was "as alarming as I feared it would be".

The Centre for Constitutional Rights called for prosecutions: "Whether or not CIA operatives who conducted water boarding are guaranteed immunity, it is the high level officials who conceived, justified and ordered the torture programme who bear the most responsibility for breaking domestic and international law, and it is they who must be prosecuted."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/17/bush-torture-memos-obama-mukasey

"[T]hese are techniques that work, and by Obama's action ... we are telling the terrorists what they are ... ensuring they can never be used again." Gen. Michael Hayden, former CIA director, and Michael Mukasy, former attorney general, also eviscerated Obama's decision: "The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001."

On the other hand, the administration granted long-sought immunity for CIA officials who had employed harsh interrogation techniques -- including waterboarding -- after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Perhaps Obama realized he's not on the campaign trail any more.

The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror
The point of interrogation is intelligence, not confession.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html

"The CIA adapted the proposed methods from those used in military survival school, which conducts intense mock interrogations to prepare armed forces personnel for possible capture. The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency trained CIA officers in the methods in the spring of 2002. The methods are drawn from American prisoners of war real-life experiences at the hands of Communist Chinese, North Korean and Vietnamese interrogators."

"[T]he training officials told Pentagon lawyers that harsh physical techniques could backfire by making prisoners more resistant. They also said that if the use physical methods on prisoners were discovered, the public and political backlash would be "intolerable." (...) They also warned that harsh techniques cast into doubt the reliability of the information gleaned during the interrogation. "A subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," the training officials said in their memo."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iakd9i9QHJn3MgPadkhBZT4X2-HAD97PODIG0

Or to put it as Nice Guy Eddie (Chris Penn) put it in Reservoir Dogs: "If you [expletive] beat this [expletive] long enough, he'll tell you he started the [expletive] Chicago fire, but that don't necessarily make it [expletive] so!"

nobody is evil enough not to be an inspiration, it seems.

Comments like that would be more effective if these techniques were not useful.

Since they have in fact yielded good actionable information and saved lives, people who come out against this are either poorly informed or terrorist sympathizers.

Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times
The number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded was the focus of major media attention -- and highly misleading.
The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The "183 times" was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.

It was shocking. And it was highly misleading. The number is a vast inflation, according to information from a U.S. official and the testimony of the terrorists themselves.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/

more on link

@notablenotices

just to let you know: I am not a terrorist sympathizer, nor poorly informed. About "in fact yielded good actionable information and saved lives" - can you show me these facts?

@dieseldog:

I just realized that it's notablenotices who does the namecalling, not you. I'm sorry for this mistake. you guys argue so similar that I tend to mix up who said what.

President Barack Obama said Wednesday night that waterboarding authorized by former President George W. Bush was torture, and the information gained from terror suspects through its use could have been obtained by other means. "In some cases it may be harder," he conceded at a White House news conference marking a whirlwind first 100 days in office.

"Not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees ... but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD97SFOD80

heres a full version of his news/press conference. noticed when asked if he (obama) would ever allow waterboarding he didn't say NO! he said he goes to sleep and wakes up knowing his job is to protect the american people. he says "He will do whatever it takes." gets the question at the 18 minute 35 second mark...moves on at the 20 minute 59 second mark. so i make myself clear I'M NOT SAYING OBAMA SAID HE WOULD USE WATERBOARDING. in the USA you gotta listen carefully when any politican speaks. HE DID NOT SAY NO..so that leaves the option on the table.
http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse

... the option to no longer be "consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.".
if this is necessary, then he might even do that.

(I did not watch the complete interview, so I cannot swear he actually said these words as quoted. I trust AP to correctly quote Obama here.)

if this is necessary, then he might even do that - glad we're on the same wave length for once. obama could face a situation where he has to allow waterboarding or worse to protect the USA. people act like bush woke up one morning and said..geesh i'm bored think i'll waterboard/torture some people. bush did what he thought was needed to protect the american people. i'll bet 99% of people with kids would do things they wouldn't normally do to protect their children. imo that don't make them bad people..in fact if a parent wouldn't do any and every thing they could to protect their kids they would be a bad parent imo.

@dieseldog,
I think it's quite off to compare the US civilization amongst other societies and the military aggression of the US with parents who protect their children. You are comparing baser human instincts with world politics.

Anyway: So if it's necessary it's fine to break with what your values are, to protect just these values. You say, that it might be legit to betray your values to protect them - that's quite an interesting point of view.

What are these values worth then?

Assuming you listened carefully to what is said in the video: Obama didn't explicitly say that he would never, under no circumstances, permit waterboarding.

As far as I know, Obama said:
We have applied waterboarding (we can discuss how often, 183 times or less?),
Waterboarding is torture (and hence, against international conventions),
Waterboarding/torture is not necessary (and it provokes, and it even results in doubtable and unreliable statements)
Waterboarding/torture is against what we stand for.

This is said in retrospect to 9/11 and Iraq. So even 9/11 and the thread of other terrorist attacks IS NOT a situation in which he would allow waterboarding. The thread of Iraq's alleged WMD (A, B, C) IS NOT such a situation either.

The situation must be far worse than, to permit waterboarding - IMO were near the apocalypse than.

Quite an impressive option "left on the table", as you say.

@kruijs:

Here is one of the links (there are many):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html

by the way, isn't your comment at #187 a little self incriminating! :-)

@notablenotices,
maybe it is incriminating. but it's honest in the first place. know honesty?
;-)

kru - my comparing the parents to what bush did is not all that differnt as you think. you have to be in bush's shoes before passing judgment on what he did. he had to protect 300 millon people, after an attack killed 3,000 on american soil. thats the first time in US history that something like that has happened. where we disgree is the world politics. bush couldn't and shouldn't have cared what the rest of the world thought. his only concern was the safety of the american people. they coulda been more attacks coming..he had to do everything he could to stop them.

What are these values worth then - what are my values worth if me and my loved ones are dead or enslaved? if i used torture on a every day basis you would have a point. to only use it rarely/extreme cases don't hurt my values.

This is said in retrospect to 9/11 and Iraq. So even 9/11 and the thread of other terrorist attacks IS NOT a situation in which he would allow waterboarding. - i listned to what he said and didn't say. he said it was wrong and wasn't american values, etc. HE DID NOT SAY HE WOULDN'T USE IT. he's using hindsight when speaking about 9/11. God forbid we have another 9/11- lets see what he does or don't do. you have to live in the america to fully understand american politicans. he can say what pleases people when theres no pressure to act. i'm not gonna go on an obama bashing rant and point out things he said, then a week or month later does the opposite. those things he flipped flopped on didn't invovle saving/protecting millons of american lives on american soil. i see no reason why he wouldn't flip flop in another 9/11 situation. your free to believe he wouldn't flip flop.

@kruijs:

I believe you are honest - I sincerely think you are an honest person. I just think you misunderstood what I meant by the phrase "poorly informed".

talking about being "poorly informed"

Ex-FBI interrogator says harsh methods didn't work

A former FBI interrogator who questioned al-Qaida prisoners testified Wednesday that the Bush administration falsely boasted of success from extreme techniques like waterboarding, when those methods were slow, unreliable and made an important witness stop talking.

(...)

Soufan testified that "many of the claims made" by the Bush administration were inaccurate or half-truths.

(...)

Another witness, Philip Zelikow, was a top adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He described his efforts within the Bush administration to argue that the harsh interrogations violated the Constitution.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8SP2D0uKiFrSELRXbEMrv0JE0iAD985HPQO0

more from the link above...

He also joined in the frequent Republican criticism that members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were briefed on the interrogation program and raised no protest at the time

He said former Vice President Dick Cheney has suggested there was valuable information obtained from the extreme methods. "I would like the committee to get that information. Let's get both sides of the story here," Graham said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8SP2D0uKiFrSELRXbEMrv0JE0iAD985HPQO0

Finding a "smoking gun" linking Iraq and al Qaeda became the main purpose of the abusive interrogation program the Bush administration authorized in 2002, a former State Department official told CNN on Thursday.

The allegation was included in an online broadside aimed at former Vice President Dick Cheney by Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. In it, Wilkerson wrote that the interrogation program began in April and May of 2002, and then-Vice President Cheney's office kept close tabs on the questioning.

"Its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at preempting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaeda," Wilkerson wrote in The Washington Note, an online political journal.

(...)

Representatives of the former vice president declined comment on Wilkerson's allegations. But Wilkerson told CNN that by early 2002, U.S. officials had decided that "we had al Qaeda pretty much on the run."

"The priority had turned to other purposes, and one of those purposes was to find substantial contacts between al Qaeda and Baghdad," he said.

The argument that Iraq could have provided weapons of mass destruction to terrorists such as al Qaeda was a key element of the Bush administration's case for the March 2003 invasion. But after the invasion, Iraq was found to have dismantled its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and the independent commission that investigated the 2001 attacks found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two entities.

Wilkerson wrote that in one case, the CIA told Cheney's office that a prisoner under its interrogation program was now "compliant," meaning agents recommended the use of "alternative" techniques should stop.

At that point, "The VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods," Wilkerson wrote.

"The detainee had not revealed any al Qaeda-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, 'revealed' such contacts."

Al-Libi's claim that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government had trained al Qaeda operatives in producing chemical and biological weapons appeared in the October 2002 speech then-President Bush gave when pushing Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. It also was part of Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations on the case for war, a speech Powell has called a "blot" on his record.

Al-Libi later recanted the claim, saying it was made under torture by Egyptian intelligence agents, a claim Egypt denies. He died last week in a Libyan prison, reportedly a suicide, Human Rights Watch reported.

(...)

"This is my opinion," Maj. Paul Burney told the inspector-general's office. "Even though they were giving information and some of it was useful, while we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between aI Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link between aI Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link ... there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/

Italy agrees to take 3 detainees from Guantanamo

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h2Wi-riCpJmSUiCyEisR1a3oWSZAD98RKESO0

Slaughter of Foreigners in Yemen Bears Mark of Former Gitmo Detainee, Say Experts

"The fate of three of nine foreigners abducted in Yemen last week is known — their bodies were found, shot execution style. The whereabouts of the other six — including three children under the age of 6 — remain a mystery.

...they are the handiwork of the international terror organization's No. 2 man in the Arabian Peninsula: Said Ali al-Shihri, an Islamic extremist who once was in American custody — but who was released from the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

...the scheduled January 2010 closing of the Guantanamo prison and the release of most of its prisoners to foreign countries will galvanize Al Qaeda and compromise American national security.

...experts say killing women and children is considered off-limits among many jihadist groups — though not to al-Shihri, a Saudi national who was sent to a Saudi Arabian "rehabilitation" program for jihadists. It wasn't long before a "cured" al-Shihri was released from the program, crossed into Yemen and rejoined Al Qaeda, with whom he quickly rose to deputy commander.

In addition to last week's kidnappings, he is believed to have been behind the September attacks that left 16 dead at the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital of San'a.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527868,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html

What it does not include is $80 million the White House requested to start effort to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill also prohibits detainees from being released in the United States and allows the transfer of detainees for prosecution only after Congress receives a plan detailing the risks.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1DBB8JA46mzegcVniqdGeQYASwQD98TBF4G0

"the scheduled January 2010 closing of the Guantanamo prison and the release of most of its prisoners to foreign countries will galvanize Al Qaeda and compromise American national security. "

"In addition to last week's kidnappings, he is believed to have been behind the September attacks that left 16 dead at the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital of San'a."

so, you got hand on one of the alleged radical criminals but you didn't manage to proof it nor to convict and sentence them? oh, boy ...

Hope 'n Change

can't even give them gitmo detainees away...heck the govt is even offering to pay to take these. now they wanna get picky about where their released. i keep trying to tell ya gitmo is better than motel 6. :O)

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration's drive to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has hit a new snag: At least some of the 13 detainees accepted for resettlement by the island nation of Palau don't want to go there.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/20/guantanamo-detainees-resisting-palau/

That's the whole deal, K. Bush had years to convict these people. But he couldn't do it. So now we're stuck with this mixed salad of innocent people kidnapped by greedy Afghans and Iraqis, and dyed-in-the-wool criminals running the streets planning more terrorism. For all Bush got out of enhanced interrogation, the administration was apparently unable to determine who, in fact, anybody at Guantanamo actually was. I will not go so far as to say all Republicans are inept (though the case can certainly be made). But Bush, in fact, was inept, a dumb puppet operated by Dick Cheney, the kind of guy who had to wear a felt helmet to avoid head injuries and ate with soft plastic sporks velcroed to his hands.

I just discovered Hubdub so I've never posted before. Just to get back to basics, I'd like to ask a question: The poll question way up at the beginning of this conversation is: Will the U.S. close the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in 2009? Since President Obama signed an executive order that Gitmo will be closed in 1 year, how could it stay open?

@Free2Be,
Welcome to Hubdub. I hope you will find it as entertaining as I have.

Others may offer a better answer, but my take on your question is as such.
Certain news events seem to leave little doubt, when viewed as predictions but are still sometimes difficult to fulfill or complete even with the best of intentions.

As I write this - the odds are stacked against the idea that Gitmo will actually close by the end of the year. If you believe it will be closed, then you have the odds in your favor and stand to increase your $H if you wager that the prison will be closed. This question does not settle till the end of the year, so if you bet all your money on it now, your ability to wager on other events is diminished.

When in doubt about any question on Hubdub, it is usually best to start with the "Settlement Details" which are used to clarify the outcomes of most questions, listed just below the description of the question. If after reading the settlement details and your question is still not answered, then you can elevate your inquiry towards any of the administrators for further clarification.

And you can always drop me a line as well.
Happy Hubdubbing.

I've been searching my history books, but I just can't find it.....
candelario, could you possibly find the documentation of any Nazi's or Imperialist Japs being tried in U.S. court system?

Erik, it's quite simple: terrorists ought to be judged by the authorities of the country in which they (plan to) commit their crime. That's why the US courts should've taken care themselves.

Nazis and "Japs" were war criminals OTOH. obviously, there are other, international proceedings to punish them. to refresh your memory, Erik, after the second world war, the allies should have held the tribunals together. but national interests made that impossible. nowadays, the The Hague tribunals would take care.

but, in fact, the US authorities preceded those days. so, yes, they have been "tried in U.S. court system".

maybe you should buy some new history books. or goto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequent_Nuremberg_Trials

No, kru....they were held until the cessation of hostilities. I'm not speaking of war criminals. I'm speaking of enemy soldiers captured.

wikipedia belongs in the comic book section

"any Nazi's" = all Nazi's except the war criminals? huh?

More from the glorious "brilliant and successful operation that has kept us all safer", the US "doing it's level best to bring law and order to the region."

Former Bagram detainees complain of abuse

The former inmates said they were beaten, deprived of sleep, hung from the ceiling and threatened with dogs at the air base outside Kabul.

Allegations of ill-treatment appear repeatedly in the interviews, including the use of stress positions, excessive heat or cold, being forced to undress in front of female soldiers and, in four cases, being threatened with death at gunpoint, the BBC, a publicly funded broadcaster, said.

It said the former inmates had not been given access to legal representation, unlike detainees at the U.S. detention camp of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

All were ultimately released without charge.

The 27 were questioned separately around Afghanistan over a two-month period and were asked the same questions.

Two said they had been treated well, the BBC said.

"So far, it is disappointing that they haven't brought greater legal clarity, transparency and accountability to these detentions at Bagram," said Rob Freer, a U.S. researcher.

The BBC's investigation echoes the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where inmates were stripped, put in stress positions, piled up naked and abused.

More than 600 prisoners are held at Bagram's makeshift prison, and a $60 million prison complex is planned.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLO393540

Maybe this is "aiding and abetting the enemy" ...

God bless America, and protect her servicemen!

yep their all innocent just let them go. rotflol

Former Gitmo Inmate Leading Fight Against U.S. in Helmand
As U.S. forces are pushing ahead with the massive Operation Khanjar in the southern Afghanistan province of Helmand, Mullah Zakir is leading the Taliban fight against them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/07/gitmo-inmate-leading-fight-helmand/

@diesel-"now run along your starting to get on my nerves"-dog

"yep their all innocent just let them go"
who ever said that?

Probe of Alleged Torture Weighed

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is leaning toward appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate whether CIA personnel tortured terrorism suspects after Sept. 11, 2001, setting the stage for a conflict with administration officials who would prefer the issues remain in the past, according to three sources familiar with his thinking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071102787.html

Why can't the US even identify these fundamentalists while they live in their very own country ... like Abu Mansoor al-Amriki ....

How ever could they find Bin Laden then?

RELEASED GITMO DETAINEES FORM TERROR FRONTLINE
http://thelastcrusade.org/2009/07/15/released-gitmo-detainees-form-terror-frontline/

...

The Marines are encountering stiff resistance from the Taliban who have been newly energized under the leadership of Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, and several of his friends from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO), including Mohammed Nayim Farouq, and Abdul Rahman

These insurgents were released from GITMO to the custody of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who promptly freed them in an effort to gain the widespread support for his re-election bid.

The Karzai tactic backfired.


The released GITMO prisoners have assumed command of the Taliban army, and have succeeded in making July 09 the bloodiest month in the 8 year old Afghan war.

Several terrorists who rejoined the Taliban after spending some time at GITMO have bit the dust and are presently enjoying the seventy two houris in seventh heaven.

The list of such so-called “martyrs” includes Abdullah Mohsud, who blew himself up in order to avoid capture by Pakistani forces in 2007; Maulvi Abdul Fhaffar, who preceded Zakir as the Taliban regional commander in the Helmand and Uruzgan Provinces of Afghanistan; and Yousef Muhammed Yaaqoub, who executed a jailbreak in Kandahar, and led an attack on the border town of Spin Boldak.

...

[More at the link...]

More from the glorious "brilliant and successful operation that has kept us all safer", the US "doing it's level best to bring law and order to the region."

The 2004 CIA Inspector General Report on Torture

Classified for years — and still heavily redacted — here is former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson’s 2004 report into the CIA’s Bush-era interrogations operations. The ACLU sued to obtain the controversial report, which was so charged within the agency that former CIA Director Michael Hayden clashed with Helgerson over the inspector general’s independence and investigative authority.

Here is the full report:
http://washingtonindependent.com/56175/the-2004-cia-inspector-generals-report-on-torture

CIA Interrogations Uncovered Terrorist Plots

Here are some notable passages:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWEwZDFlNjVjODk5NGQyN2Y0ZmUwNTc4YWZlOTdhN2M=

God bless America, and protect her servicemen!

Is this a record for comments on a freaking post? I stumbled across this one and was shocked (for more reason than just its length).

Looks like too many people drink the Fox News / Limbaugh kool-aid. Scares me to think some people are so obtuse and ignorant and hateful, and they could live right next to me.

Maybe you would feel better living in Guantanamo? :-)

White House: We blew it on Gitmo
http://patriotroom.com/article/white-house-we-blew-it-on-gitmo

So White House advisor Greg Craig has been stuffed into a broom closet for advising Obama to close Gitmo, a position Obama himself shouted every day from every grassy knoll in the country last year. It was a ridiculous, nakedly political position, divorced from all reality, but the left-wing base just had to be appeased. A fourth grader would have had the sense to ask of and demand an answer from Obama on what he planned to do with the terrorists once he closed Gitmo, but that question apparently didn't occur to anybody with press credentials. After all, there is nothing inherently evil about Gitmo, any more than there is anything inherently evil about the Pelican Bay supermax prison in California. They are just sticks and bricks. More importantly, those sticks and bricks are on an island, far away from Americans. Why the left would want to close a building on an island and bring terrorists here defies logic.

Anyway, though it took 8 months, the administration has finally admitted what we have all known
[See link for link...]

Funny how liberals are always screaming about tolerance, acceptance, peace, love, multiculturalism, ..., yet are the most intolerant unaccepting, hating group.
Case in point:

"Looks like too many people drink the Fox News / Limbaugh kool-aid. Scares me to think some people are so obtuse and ignorant and hateful, and they could live right next to me."

I guess it must be that Fox News=Bad, CNN=Good. What the blind don't see is that both have their biases. It's just that they happen to agree with those biases.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092600296.html
"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama may not be able to meet his stated goal of closing the much-criticized Guantanamo Bay prison by January as his administration runs into daunting legal and logistical hurdles to moving the more than 220 detainees still there.

Senior administration officials acknowledged for the first time Friday that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip. "

Gee, that's a surprise!

Obama team clears 75 at Guantanamo for release

An Obama administration task force has so far cleared 75 of the remaining 223 Guantanamo prisoners for release as part of its effort to close the detention camp, a military spokesman said on Monday.

The review team is examining each prisoner's case to decide who will be held for trial and who can be sent home or resettled in other nations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58R4JV20090928

"Today, U.S. intelligence officers have been convicted of serious criminal
acts by a close ally. In addition to underscoring just how far beyond the law
the previous administration was willing to venture in its 'rendition' program,
this decision is a graphic illustration of just how damaging practices such as
kidnapping and torture are to America's national security.

"Continuing these practices will inevitably have a chilling effect on
countries' willingness to work with the United States until nations can be
sure that America will no longer operate as a rogue nation outside the law.

"The United States shouldn't need a foreign court to distinguish right from
wrong. The Obama administration must repudiate the unlawful practice of
extraordinary rendition - and hold accountable those responsible for having
put this system in place -- or his administration will end up as tarnished as
his predecessor's."

http://www.amnesty.org/

I cannot understand why others post political statements on Hubdub, and then engage in political volleys. Isn't Hubdub supposed to be a site that offers opportunities to predict events, in a competitive format? Why do so many people feel compelled to post their political opinions? Just because it's a convenient soapbox? I'll tell you, I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS about anyone's political opinions about these markets. And I'm ANNOYED that people do that here. In my opinion, it is NOT appropriate and I hope it will stop.

Hubdub has provided forums for political debate. PLEASE will everyone use those forums for your political opinions, and NOT pollute the main market area with your strong, emotional diatribes. You're making Hubdub an unattractive political sewer for those of us who just want to bet on events which is, after all, the mission of Hubdub.

Thank you.