NationStates Jolt Archive

"And so going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime, that our efforts are consistent with all values and our Constitution."


Constructing a legal framework that makes non-constitutional treatment (appear to) assume a form of legitimacy.

Why does that sound so familiar?


Okay - it's not torture, but it IS creating an artifice to excuse ongoing suspension of habeus corpus.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/21/Transcript-of-Obamas-remarks-on-security/UPI-12271242924426/


EDIT: Try to ignore the apparent missing 't' in the title. I can't be bothered to get it fixed.

" it IS creating an artifice to excuse ongoing suspension of habeus corpus.

How so?

i do so hate to have to wait to find out just what he means by what he said.

at least we still have the supreme court that might strike down unconstitutional plans.

How so?

Did you read the transcript I linked to?

The 'appropriate legal regime' is going to be the framework that houses the new approach to the indefinite suspension of rights for those (currently) held without charge at Guantanamo.

Did you read the transcript I linked to?

The 'appropriate legal regime' is going to be the framework that houses the new approach to the indefinite suspension of rights for those (currently) held without charge at Guantanamo.

yes it's one hell of a mess. Some of those released while Bush was president became terrorists. (14% was what they said on CBS news tonight) One case sited where they are sure it was Gitmo that drove on man to rage and carried out a successful suicide bombing. (saying if never arrested, he would have been harmless) If they have been driven insane it would not be in anyone's best interest to let them go.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/21/eveningnews/main5032237.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/21/politics/main5031187.shtml

This is not going to be pretty but at least there is now a light at the end of the tunnel.

yes it's one hell of a mess. Some of those released while Bush was president became terrorists. (14% was what they said on CBS news tonight) One case sited where they are sure it was Gitmo that drove on man to rage and carried out a successful suicide bombing. (saying if never arrested, he would have been harmless) If they have been driven insane it would not be in anyone's best interest to let them go.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/21/eveningnews/main5032237.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/21/politics/main5031187.shtml

This is not going to be pretty but at least there is now a light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm dubious of the figures about those who were released 'going back to terrorism' (I've seen several dozen figures so far, changed each time) for how many - and if you've ever looked at the lists of people relased? They're included things like 'appeared in documentary about Gunatanamo' as returning to terrorism?

Seriously, what the fuck?

Given that we're holding all these people on NO CHARGES... 'going back' to terrorism is a hell of a claim, even if it was true. We haven't proved they WERE terrorists, how can we claim they're 'going back' to something we've yet to prove they've come from?


More to the point - how can there be 'light at the end of the tunnel'... when the big announcement we've just got is 'more of the same'?

If he says it is needed I am willing to let this slide.

I'm dubious of the figures about those who were released 'going back to terrorism' (I've seen several dozen figures so far, changed each time) for how many - and if you've ever looked at the lists of people relased? They're included things like 'appeared in documentary about Gunatanamo' as returning to terrorism?

Seriously, what the fuck?

Given that we're holding all these people on NO CHARGES... 'going back' to terrorism is a hell of a claim, even if it was true. We haven't proved they WERE terrorists, how can we claim they're 'going back' to something we've yet to prove they've come from?


Some going back to terrorism. Some were monsters created by the Bush admisistration. (the ones with their hands in the cookie jar when dealing out defense contracts) If you want to spend a LOT of money on defense, you will need enemies to convince congress you need that much money

More to the point - how can there be 'light at the end of the tunnel'... when the big announcement we've just got is 'more of the same'?

If there are no more added to Gitmo, how can the problem get worse?

If only it were true. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the Obamunist regime is dominated by weaklings and fools, starting at the top.

Instead of growing a pair and resolving to do what needs to be done to crush the enemy, the Dark Lord obsesses over giving Constitutional rights to terrorists who should be considered outside the protection of any law.

We need more EIT's and more Gitmo's, not fewer. I am afraid that the Obamunist regime will continue to live in denial even after the next time we are hit and more Americans are killed. And we will be hit. Obama's weakness guarantees it.

If only it were true. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the Obamunist regime is dominated by weaklings and fools, starting at the top.


We can only hope you're right in spirit.


Instead of growing a pair and resolving to do what needs to be done to crush the enemy, the Dark Lord obsesses over giving Constitutional rights to terrorists who should be considered outside the protection of any law.


You have to show that someone is a criminal before you treat them as such.

I'm not necessarily arguing that the entire way of the constitution has to stand behind US interactions with every single person on the planet - but we DO need to both observe our own laws and - more importantly - be SEEn to observe our own laws.

Your worry is that we extend rights to people that (you feel) do not deserve them - MY worry is that we are making the EXACT same mistake we saw in the last regime.


We need more EIT's and more Gitmo's, not fewer. I am afraid that the Obamunist regime will continue to live in denial even after the next time we are hit and more Americans are killed. And we will be hit. Obama's weakness guarantees it.

You're just another fear-monger. That's weakness, and I'm not going to embrace it as virtue.

If only it were true. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the Obamunist regime is dominated by weaklings and fools, starting at the top.

Instead of growing a pair and resolving to do what needs to be done to crush the enemy, the Dark Lord obsesses over giving Constitutional rights to terrorists who should be considered outside the protection of any law.

We need more EIT's and more Gitmo's, not fewer. I am afraid that the Obamunist regime will continue to live in denial even after the next time we are hit and more Americans are killed. And we will be hit. Obama's weakness guarantees it.

:D

I no longer submit inflammatory posts, nor do I respond to them.

So much for that one.

-----

Anyways, as you might have read on the news the Senate overwhelmingly rejected Obama's plans to close Gitmo by cutting off the funds needed to do that. A sad combination of the administration not coming up with a specific plan, along with the typical Not My Backyard mentality of just about every Senator.

I'm dubious of the figures about those who were released 'going back to terrorism' (I've seen several dozen figures so far, changed each time) for how many - and if you've ever looked at the lists of people relased? They're included things like 'appeared in documentary about Gunatanamo' as returning to terrorism?

Seriously, what the fuck?

Given that we're holding all these people on NO CHARGES... 'going back' to terrorism is a hell of a claim, even if it was true. We haven't proved they WERE terrorists, how can we claim they're 'going back' to something we've yet to prove they've come from?


More to the point - how can there be 'light at the end of the tunnel'... when the big announcement we've just got is 'more of the same'?
More importantly, how they hell are they able to ascertain that xx% of releasees have 'returned' to 'terrorism' when they didn't know wtf they were doing before being picked up?

More importantly, how they hell are they able to ascertain that xx% of releasees have 'returned' to 'terrorism' when they didn't know wtf they were doing before being picked up?

Ummmm....Investigations?

yes it's one hell of a mess. Some of those released while Bush was president became terrorists. (14% was what they said on CBS news tonight)

You are a farmer in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. You are picked up by US forces/bounty hunters/people who hate you. You are thrown away into an extralegal prison half-way across the world for 4 years, likely tortured, for being a "terrorist." You get released, what do you do? Become a terrorist. The prisons create what they try to get rid of.

Ummmm....Investigations?

Which also sounds like bullshit. It's likely they just ended up killing some of the people they have caught before and then called them terrorists.

You are a farmer in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. You are picked up by US forces/bounty hunters/people who hate you. You are thrown away into an extralegal prison half-way across the world for 4 years, likely tortured, for being a "terrorist." You get released, what do you do? Become a terrorist. The prisons create what they try to get rid of.



Which also sounds like bullshit. It's likely they just ended up killing some of the people they have caught before and then called them terrorists.

Billions upon billions of dollars for extra defense contracts as a result of Donald, Dick & W's actions. You have to factor that in as a quite possible reason for those actions. In Iraq, our soldiers were ordered to allow looting until the looting was able to become organized enough for there to be more enemies to fight. The attempts to squash the Talaiban were practicly non-existant. No! The Bush administration created those monsters at Gitmto give our enemies a stronger rally cry! (which WAS the end result)

Ummmm....Investigations?

As two people have pointed out now, if we haven't even CHARGED them with terrorism, how can they be 'returning' to it?

Are you going to 'return to' raping puppies?

As two people have pointed out now, if we haven't even CHARGED them with terrorism, how can they be 'returning' to it?

Are you going to 'return to' raping puppies?

Well some of them could have been charged if their rights had not been violated. Bush didn't care anything about that. Just the money.

Well some of them could have been charged if their rights had not been violated.

Eh?

Their 'rights' were violated BY their not being charged, and you're saying they could have been charged if their rights had not been violated?

Captain Obvious, is that you?

Eh?

Their 'rights' were violated BY their not being charged, and you're saying they could have been charged if their rights had not been violated?

Captain Obvious, is that you?

Your almost there Scot! Have a glass of water, relax and think a minute.....You ready?..... If they had been charged and treated as normal criminals, there would be less of a rally cry from the enemy. The safety of America an/or seeking justice for 9-11 was NEVER the issue when opening Gitmo. Just the money.

Your almost there Scot! Have a glass of water, relax and think a minute.....You ready?..... If they had been charged and treated as normal criminals, there would be less of a rally cry from the enemy. The safety of America an/or seeking justice for 9-11 was NEVER the issue when opening Gitmo. Just the money.

I don't care about your conspiracy theories.

It's cute that you exist on NSG - it's good that there's at least one person who thinks that the American government has the capacity to organize grandiose conspiracies, while most of the rest of us doubt that the entire government could manage to get laid in a whorehouse, with $500 stuck in their asses.

So - don't think I'm complaining about your endearing obsession with the mystical power-behind-the-throne storylines.

But, what I'm talking about here is serious - I'm talking about one administration withholding constitutional rights, and being rightly attacked for it by their opposition... who are now close to following the same path.

I don't want to talk about the gray aliens probing you over the weekend, which type opf tinfoil makes the best hat, or whether the Jews and Lizard people are competing factions or the same thing - I want to talk about the Constitution, and whether or not it is a living entity (which makes it's current abuse, rape) or an anachronistic relic (which makes it's current treatment something more akin to necropheliac masochism).

Thank you Scot for giving me credit thinking those are my theories. But the credit goes to great minds like Chalmers Johnson, the makers of the films "No End in Sight" "Why We Fight" and the like. You see a lot of folks calling bullshit when watching Michael Moore films. The opposition did nothing but hide their heads in the sand when Johnson started writing his books and those 2 films came out. You should check them out.

Thank you Scot for giving me credit thinking those are my theories. But the credit goes to great minds like Chalmers Johnson, the makers of the films "No End in Sight" "Why We Fight" and the like. You see a lot of folks calling bullshit when watching Michael Moore films. The opposition did nothing but hide their heads in the sand when Johnson started writing his books and those 2 films came out. You should check them out.

I see a lot of people calling bullshit when Moore makes films, but I think the difference is that people have actually HEARD of Moore. :p

I didn't say you originate the mythology you so embrace, I'm afraid - I just said you give the government a lot more credit than most of us. I adhere more to the 'never blame on conspiracy, that which can be at least as easily explained by humans being a stupid, greedy, shit-head species'.

I see a lot of people calling bullshit when Moore makes films, but I think the difference is that people have actually HEARD of Moore. :p

I didn't say you originate the mythology you so embrace, I'm afraid - I just said you give the government a lot more credit than most of us. I adhere more to the 'never blame on conspiracy, that which can be at least as easily explained by humans being a stupid, greedy, shit-head species'.

I grant that it's a bit hard to swallow and I cannot present the whole picture they way the originators do. But if you ever have the time, have a listen to them. In 1961 Eisenhower warned us about major problems that could develop from our new (then) Military-Industrial Complex. They developed I'm afraid. No two ways about that. The Bush administration took it to a whole new level though.

EDIT: Oh 1 more film "The Pentagon Wars" is worth a look.

I grant that it's a bit hard to swallow and I cannot present the whole picture they way the originators do. But if you ever have the time, have a listen to them. In 1961 Eisenhower warned us about major problems that could develop from our new (then) Military-Industrial Complex. They developed I'm afraid. No two ways about that. The Bush administration took it to a whole new level though.

EDIT: Oh 1 more film "The Pentagon Wars" is worth a look.

It's okay. Thanks, but i just don't have the appetite for conspiracy theories, any more.

I lack the faith in the abilities of people to do much of ANYTHING in prolonged secrecy, to be able to digest the ideas of inept governments playing mind games with anything above a mouse.

It's okay. Thanks, but i just don't have the appetite for conspiracy theories, any more.

I lack the faith in the abilities of people to do much of ANYTHING in prolonged secrecy, to be able to digest the ideas of inept governments playing mind games with anything above a mouse.

I understand. It's the same story all over. Can't prove it wrong so just give it a label and write it off as a conspiracy theory.

I understand. It's the same story all over. Can't prove it wrong so just give it a label and write it off as a conspiracy theory.

No, you miss the point.

People are fundamentally stupid. They are bad liars, and they find it hard to execute even the simplest plans flawlessly. That's the default setting for humans.

Given the limitations of the design, I need more than a good story to believe that ANY group of people has put ANY plan into operation, and the more convoluted and secretive it's supposed to be, the more evidence I'm going to need to overcome my intrinsic doubt.

You want me to believe that every government in the world is working together to hide some collection of super sensitive data? I don't want to hear 'you can't prove they aren't' - I want some reason to believe masses of people with no shared interest and conflicted ideologies are willing to embrace the same agenda.

But it's off topic - I was talking about the Constitution, and the abuses of two consecutive administrations - not your sub-X-Files paranoia.

I understand. It's the same story all over. Can't prove it wrong so just give it a label and write it off as a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories by nature are impossible to prove wrong because they use the lack of evidence as "evidence" that the conspiracy is happening and effective.

"What there's a huge gaping hole in my theory? That's what they WANT you to believe."

EDIT: Incidentally, my problem with him isn't that he brings to the forefront issues with the military industrial complex, but that's not all he does. He's pushing a political agenda and he speaks as if he's omniscient. He doesn't simply make an argument. He's very much like Moore. He skews the evidence or just plain out fills in the gap with fantasies. Listeninng to him talk on Kerry is just ridiculous. Apparently, Kerry, who supported many of the Bush policies was suddenly going to reverse the policies he voted for. We were supposed to ignore all of Kerry's actual votes because he's a liberal and thus he's going to fix everything. Anyone who is always the good guy fighting for right according to their own evaluation is not credible. Johnson falls in that category, as does Moore and O'Reilly and various other fanatics.

Conspiracy theories by nature are impossible to prove wrong because they use the lack of evidence as "evidence" that the conspiracy is happening and effective.

"What there's a huge gaping hole in my theory? That's what they WANT you to believe."

LMAO. Exactly.

You can tell it's a conspiracy, because all the evidence points to it not happening.

*broken brain*

No, you miss the point.

People are fundamentally stupid. They are bad liars, and they find it hard to execute even the simplest plans flawlessly. That's the default setting for humans.

Given the limitations of the design, I need more than a good story to believe that ANY group of people has put ANY plan into operation, and the more convoluted and secretive it's supposed to be, the more evidence I'm going to need to overcome my intrinsic doubt.

You want me to believe that every government in the world is working together to hide some collection of super sensitive data? I don't want to hear 'you can't prove they aren't' - I want some reason to believe masses of people with no shared interest and conflicted ideologies are willing to embrace the same agenda.

But it's off topic - I was talking about the Constitution, and the abuses of two consecutive administrations - not your sub-X-Files paranoia.

People are fundamentally stupid. X-Files paranoia. Yup. Like I said. They ALL bury their heads in the sand on this one.

Sorry if you thought I was off topic. I have been trying to explain to you how I actually was.

People are fundamentally stupid. X-Files paranoia. Yup. Like I said. They ALL bury their heads in the sand on this one.

Sorry if you thought I was off topic. I have been trying to explain to you how I actually was.

No, really, it's very convincing. It is. He's definitely omniscient. I mean, the things he pointed to did really happen, sort of. He paints what we know as the tip of the iceberg, pretends like all the stuff we don't know isn't more of the same, but actually the worst stuff they REALLY want to hide. And it doesn't really work that way. The bad stuff does come out. Tons of it. Eventually. And we do know that some of what he talks about is true. Unfortunately, the rest of it is just made up.

People are fundamentally stupid. X-Files paranoia. Yup. Like I said. They ALL bury their heads in the sand on this one.


Come now, don't be nonsensical.

Asking for some kind of evidence is not 'burying your head'.


Sorry if you thought I was off topic. I have been trying to explain to you how I actually was.

At best, you're arguing that Obama's administration is repeating the sins of Bush's administration because they are both part of the same industiral military complex, and thus, are both serving the same master.

Okay - so there's a secret conspiracy motivating them. Righteous.

But not the topic. The topic is what they are doing, and whether they should, and maybe, whether they'll get away with it.



Um... just me... or does everyone know the secret conspiracies?

Come now, don't be nonsensical.

Asking for some kind of evidence is not 'burying your head'.

Tsk tsk tsk.

Now, we all know

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Come, get your hat.

Come now, don't be nonsensical.

Asking for some kind of evidence is not 'burying your head'.


Just the Iraq war is pretty solid evidence.


At best, you're arguing that Obama's administration is repeating the sins of Bush's administration because they are both part of the same industiral military complex, and thus, are both serving the same master.


No not even close. Obama is trying to neutralize the problem. (he was one of the few that voted against Iraq all along)

But not the topic. The topic is what they are doing, and whether they should, and maybe, whether they'll get away with it.


It really is hard to predict the outcome. Democrats now voting against Obama's plan. (even though no one has EVER escaped a US federax max prison) A LOT of different possibilities at this point.

It really is hard to predict the outcome. Democrats now voting against Obama's plan. (even though no one has EVER escaped a US federax max prison) A LOT of different possibilities at this point.

It took me five seconds to google this:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/28/us/six-escape-from-maximum-security-prison.html

EDIT: Five more seconds on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lee_McNair)

It took me five seconds to google this:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/28/us/six-escape-from-maximum-security-prison.html

EDIT: Five more seconds on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lee_McNair)

That's a "State" prison. Not federal.

EDIT: Ahh my bad. they are called supermax prisons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax

That was Obama's plan.

That's a "State" prison. Not federal.

First one doesn't say, but look at the second one.

He escaped custody in April 2006 from a federal maximum-security prison facility in Pollock, Louisiana. Federal officials said he escaped by burying himself under mail bags and escaping from a mail processing facility.

EDIT: Ahh my bad. they are called supermax prisons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax

That was Obama's plan.

It's true, no one's ever escaped from a federal supermax prison. However, there is actually only one, no matter what Obama implies by using the indefinite article 'a'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/21/barack-obama/obama-correct-no-inmate-has-ever-escaped-supermax-/

It's true, no one's ever escaped from a federal supermax prison. However, there is actually only one, no matter what Obama implies by using the indefinite article 'a'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/21/barack-obama/obama-correct-no-inmate-has-ever-escaped-supermax-/

Well we are not talking about all that many prisoners.

Well we are not talking about all that many prisoners.

I know, but now we're talking about putting them all in one place, in Colorado.

Just want to make sure you guys all know what you're talking about.

I know, but now we're talking about putting them all in one place, in Colorado.

Just want to make sure you guys all know what you're talking about.

But they will only leave that place in a box. (well I suspect at least one more fed supermax will be built. Even some state prisons are going supermax)

If only it were true. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the Obamunist regime is dominated by weaklings and fools, starting at the top.

Instead of growing a pair and resolving to do what needs to be done to crush the enemy, the Dark Lord obsesses over giving Constitutional rights to terrorists who should be considered outside the protection of any law.

It seems as if the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#June_12.2C_2008_Supreme_Court_ruling) think that they should have at least some protections (if I'm reading that wrong, someone please correct me).

We need more EIT's and more Gitmo's, not fewer. I am afraid that the Obamunist regime will continue to live in denial even after the next time we are hit and more Americans are killed. And we will be hit. Obama's weakness guarantees it.

We need no Gitmos -- indefinite detention without trial is completely wrong. If, hypothetically, you were to be deemed to be a terrorist (not saying this is the case), would you like it to be possible for you to be spirited away and held for as long as the government liked without being given any rights?

Also, if you want to stick by your earlier thing abount not being inflammatory, I'd suggest avoiding terms like 'Dark Lord' and 'Obamunist' (or, if you can't resist, avoiding this kind of topic completely).

Just the Iraq war is pretty solid evidence.

Of course it is, provided you don't know what terms like 'solid' and 'evidence' mean. By 'solid evidence' in the conspiratorial world, you mean, if you already believe it to be true, it doesn't prove it wrong.

Of course it is, provided you don't know what terms like 'solid' and 'evidence' mean.

Or if you actually take the time to study the Iraq war but Nooooooooooo! Can't be bothered to watch a film, have a small look into one person. (Chalmers Johnson) Or must have missed it each time when several people have said some in the Bush administration could be labled as war criminals someday.

Or if you actually take the time to study the Iraq war but Nooooooooooo! Can't be bothered to watch a film, have a small look into one person. (Chalmers Johnson) Or must have missed it each time when several people have said some in the Bush administration could be labled as war criminals someday.

Can't even be bothered to watch a film, have a small look into a person...

Because, of course, being 'bothered' is the problem.

Seriously, you're pulling a frankly ridiculous ivory tower attitude here. Most of the NS regulars are pretty well read, pretty clued up on current affairs. Most of us have seen any number of 'films', read any number of books, and got clued up on any number of people.

You're giving no one any reason why they'd WANT to do the research you're suggesting, unless it was to back-up an conclusion you already had.

Something for people to think about. If the government have no problem holding suspected terrorist without due process of law, or suspend Habeas corpus for those suspected terrorist. What's to stop them from doing it to US citizens?

Something for people to think about. If the government have no problem holding suspected terrorist without due process of law, or suspend Habeas corpus for those suspected terrorist. What's to stop them from doing it to US citizens?

Nothing.

Nothing.

Which is why we should give these suspected terrorist the right to due process and the right to Habeas corpus. Because if we won't stand up for them, then why would we stand up for ourselves?

Which is why we should give these suspected terrorist the right to due process and the right to Habeas corpus. Because if we won't stand up for them, then why would we stand up for ourselves?

Far more importantly, this is a testing ground for how seriously twenty-first century Americans take their Constitution... and how ferociously we're going to fight to make sure our government(s) adhere to it.

We might well still be under Bush's last 'state of emergency' (I haven't checked), so, theoretically, any of our Constitutional rights can be suspended at will... but that's okay, because America doersn't seem to give a shit about Constitutionality right now.

Far more importantly, this is a testing ground for how seriously twenty-first century Americans take their Constitution... and how ferociously we're going to fight to make sure our government(s) adhere to it.

We might well still be under Bush's last 'state of emergency' (I haven't checked), so, theoretically, any of our Constitutional rights can be suspended at will... but that's okay, because America doersn't seem to give a shit about Constitutionality right now.

Why would they be, American Idol is over, it's Summer so it's Baseball and beach season.

America, as a country has a serious ADD problem.

Why would they be, American Idol is over, it's Summer so it's Baseball and beach season.

America, as a country has a serious ADD problem.

That, and America has a propaganda machine the like of which is rarely seen outside of the North Koreas and Cubas of the world.

Far more importantly, this is a testing ground for how seriously twenty-first century Americans take their Constitution... and how ferociously we're going to fight to make sure our government(s) adhere to it.

We might well still be under Bush's last 'state of emergency' (I haven't checked), so, theoretically, any of our Constitutional rights can be suspended at will... but that's okay, because America doersn't seem to give a shit about Constitutionality right now.

Americans don't know shit about the Constitution except what talking heads tell them.

Eh?

Their 'rights' were violated BY their not being charged, and you're saying they could have been charged if their rights had not been violated?

Captain Obvious, is that you?

I took what he said to mean, because we extracted information from the detainees by torture and other illegal means,and by doing so violated their rights, this made the evidence against them unusable in court and they would have to be released. This in essence makes the detainees unchargable if they want to keep them in detention.

The US is in a problem of its own making. The real and honest thing to do is to release everyone. There must be some evidence that wasnt derived by torture to prosecute the worst of the worst (eye witnesses to their crimes, videos of planting roadside bombs or whatever) and if their isnt, we simply have to let them go and build new cases against them should they decide to plot again. The US releases killers all the time because of procedural errors, why should this be any different? Its the American way.

I took what he said to mean, because we extracted information from the detainees by torture and other illegal means,and by doing so violated their rights, this made the evidence against them unusable in court and they would have to be released. This in essence makes the detainees unchargable if they want to keep them in detention.

The US is in a problem of its own making. The real and honest thing to do is to release everyone. There must be some evidence that wasnt derived by torture to prosecute the worst of the worst (eye witnesses to their crimes, videos of planting roadside bombs or whatever) and if their isnt, we simply have to let them go and build new cases against them should they decide to plot again. The US releases killers all the time because of procedural errors, why should this be any different? Its the American way.

I got a solution. Put them on a boat. set sail for a secret location to release the prisoners. Then if the boat happens to sink with no survivors except the crew who were air lifted off the boat an hour before the explosion. This way Obama does both release them and keeps them from terrorizing again.