NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356

"Obama restarting Bush-era terror tribunals"

This officially makes Obama the best President on the planet at this moment. J/K.

I'd like to know your thoughts are Obama restarting the Bush terror tribunals.

more rights are protected.

Oh noes! That means they'll have their day in court! :eek:

im cautiously pessimistic but willing to wait to see how it goes before getting pissed about it.

I'll wait and see. after all, they need to get though all of the detainees before Gitmo closes in 2010. otherwise, that adds yet more changes.

Maybe he'll reverse his foolish order to close Guantanamo.

Maybe he'll reverse his foolish order to close Guantanamo.
guanatamo needs to close. we cant keep people indefinitely.

guanatamo needs to close. we cant keep people indefinitely.

Dangerously anti-american of you to say that.

... Sorry, I was channeling a previous president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356

"Obama restarting Bush-era terror tribunals"

This officially makes Obama the best President on the planet at this moment. J/K.

I'd like to know your thoughts are Obama restarting the Bush terror tribunals.
I would be that before Obama leaves office, we'll have something similar to the Gitmo detention facility operating again.

Or they'll put it in Afghanistan where it will be subject to Afghan laws and US civilian courts will have absolutely no jurisdiction. The Afghan government has no problems with holding terrorism suspects indefinately.

Or they'll put it in Afghanistan where it will be subject to Afghan laws and US civilian courts will have absolutely no jurisdiction. The Afghan government has no problems with holding terrorism suspects indefinately.

See Bagram.

Maybe he'll reverse his foolish order to close Guantanamo.

Wtf? Holding people indefinitely, torturing them etc is Bad Thing, even if they are Muslim terrorists, which a lot aren't.

Wtf? Holding people indefinitely, torturing them etc is Bad Thing, even if they are Muslim terrorists, which a lot aren't.

Pffft, they're all brown people, and all brown people are m0zl3ms, and all m0zl3ms are terrorists. Don't you know how it works?

Pffft, they're all brown people, and all brown people are m0zl3ms, and all m0zl3ms are terrorists. Don't you know how it works?

But; http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2934491720070330

:confused:

But; http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2934491720070330

:confused:

He lied about being tortured just like most of the others are lying:

"He had previously claimed he was abused by the U.S. military but said in his plea agreement that he has "never been illegally treated while in U.S. custody."

He lied about being tortured just like most of the others are lying:

"He had previously claimed he was abused by the U.S. military but said in his plea agreement that he has "never been illegally treated while in U.S. custody."
Plea agreement, being the key word there.

Wtf? Holding people indefinitely, torturing them etc is Bad Thing, even if they are Muslim terrorists, which a lot aren't.

Who said anything about bringing back torture? What the Afghans want to do with enemy terrorists is up to them. We won't be the ones doing the interrogating.

Bagram being a US base under US jurisdiction, the prisoners wouldn't go there but rather to a prison run by the Afghans.

Plea agreement, being the key word there.

Plea agreement means he's guilty of everything he was accused of. His statement that he was never mistreated is an admission that he lied about being mistreated.

*Starts singing that song from the movie "Jackie Brown"*

#Well 99 years is a long long time...#

C'mon! Everybody sing! :tongue:

Plea agreement means he's guilty of everything he was accused of. His statement that he was never mistreated is an admission that he lied about being mistreated.

His plea agreement is agreeing to whatever he can so he isn't water boarded and treated god-awfully even longer. It's sacrificing the greater good for one's own sanity.

Now that's the kind of change we can believe in. I'm personally glad he's simply reforming and strengthening the system to make it more effective.

Plea agreement means he's guilty of everything he was accused of. His statement that he was never mistreated is an admission that he lied about being mistreated.

You're like some sort of comic book villain.

But; http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2934491720070330

:confused:

That's just libruhl media slander.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356

"Obama restarting Bush-era terror tribunals"

This officially makes Obama the best President on the planet at this moment. J/K.

I'd like to know your thoughts are Obama restarting the Bush terror tribunals.

Change we can believe in huh?

Change we can believe in huh?

Yup, as this would be changing to actually giving them trials and not torturing them for info.

Change we can believe in huh?

Hopefully, yes. They're changing the rules, in case you haven't heard.

I'm not in favour of these kinds of military tribunals being restarted, but I'll reserve my judgement for the time when the changes to the rules are clear.

So, let me see if I've got this straight:

Obama is proposing to actually do something about the detainees, rather than just keep holding them indefinitely with no action like the previous admin did...

And all the rightwingers are hatin' on him for it and crowing about how he's doing just what Bush did (as if it makes Bush look right somehow), even though we don't yet know exactly WHAT he will do -- i.e. how the tribunals will be run.

That about sum it up?

Also, as to the supposed foolishness of closing GITMO, no lesser light of rightwing propaganda than George "Ban the Jeans" Will himself said just this morning on the television machine that max. security prisons in the US are full of people who have killed Americans and would love to do so again, and yet the nation is safe. There is, according to Mr. Will, no reason to think such prisons could not safely house the very small number of GITMO detainees who are actually dangerous, and therefore, there is no reason not to close GITMO.

So, let me see if I've got this straight:

Obama is proposing to actually do something about the detainees, rather than just keep holding them indefinitely with no action like the previous admin did...

And all the rightwingers are hatin' on him for it and crowing about how he's doing just what Bush did (as if it makes Bush look right somehow), even though we don't yet know exactly WHAT he will do -- i.e. how the tribunals will be run.

That about sum it up?
Sounds about right.

... George "Ban the Jeans" Will...
Say what? :confused:

Sounds about right.


Say what? :confused:
Oh, a few weeks ago, Will...I don't know, forgot to take his pill or something... and went off on a rant on "This Week" about how people wearing jeans causes a coarsening of the culture and that's what's wrong with America today, or some such old fogey nonsense. There was a thread about it recently.

Oh, a few weeks ago, Will...I don't know, forgot to take his pill or something... and went off on a rant on "This Week" about how people wearing jeans causes a coarsening of the culture and that's what's wrong with America today, or some such old fogey nonsense. There was a thread about it recently.

Ah, I see. I've missed that particular display of insanity.

I can see where the criticism is coming from. A Military Tribunal is still a Military Tribunal, even if it is a nicer, softer version. Being bathed in shit is still being bathed in shit, even if it has bubbles in it.

The only constitutional thing to do would be either treat them as POWs, or give them a civilian trial. And a civilian trial would have its own major headaches.

I can see where the criticism is coming from. A Military Tribunal is still a Military Tribunal, even if it is a nicer, softer version. Being bathed in shit is still being bathed in shit, even if it has bubbles in it.

The only constitutional thing to do would be either treat them as POWs, or give them a civilian trial. And a civilian trial would have its own major headaches.

Well, yes, and what do you do with PoWs? You give them military trials. There's nothing particularly wrong with that. I fail to see why military tribunals are, on their face, a particularly bad thing.

Well, yes, and what do you do with PoWs? You give them military trials. There's nothing particularly wrong with that. I fail to see why military tribunals are, on their face, a particularly bad thing.

We never gave POWs in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, or the first gulf war trials for simply fighting as ordered against the United States. If we did try POWs, it was for something above and beyond the standard conduct of war, like inhumane acts and the like.

There are two reasons why I really don't like military tribunals. One, it seems to exist on rather shaky constitutional and legal footing (although I am no expert, feel free to correct me). Two, its like the fox guarding the henhouse. You're asking the military, as people that fight against these "enemy combatants" to be impartial in determining weather a combatant is indeed guilty of some crime. There is no civilian oversight, to my knowledge.

I want to see either them treated as POWs (and eventually returned to their homes), or tried for crimes in a civilian court.

We never gave POWs in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, or the first gulf war trials for simply fighting as ordered against the United States. If we did try POWs, it was for something above and beyond the standard conduct of war, like inhumane acts and the like.

There are two reasons why I really don't like military tribunals. One, it seems to exist on rather shaky constitutional and legal footing (although I am no expert, feel free to correct me). Two, its like the fox guarding the henhouse. You're asking the military, as people that fight against these "enemy combatants" to be impartial in determining weather a combatant is indeed guilty of some crime. There is no civilian oversight, to my knowledge.

I want to see either them treated as POWs (and eventually returned to their homes), or tried for crimes in a civilian court.

You are aware that Nuremburg was originally a military commission. The first war crimes trials were military trials.
You had the military, not civilian courts, trying the suspects. The insistence that people who are combatants be only tried in civilian court has no foundation in history.