Joshua Roberts-Bloomberg News
Damn…I was hoping I’d wake up this morning to some brilliant, erudite post on President Obama’s latest stroke of his executive pen, keyboarded by MataHarley, Mike, Scott, Skye, Rob, or Curt…..
….but no.
So…… DISCUSS!
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Portugal, Spain, France and Switzerland have already offered to take in Gitmo prisoners. Other countries are still considering it.
Fit, the last I saw was Jan 5th where Portugual was writing it’s fellow EU members, asking them to help resettle the Gitmo homeless. By Jan 15th, the EU said their nations will not accept the prisoners. And according to statements there by the French Interior Minister, France does not appear to be accepting them.
So how about a link to what you purport, guy? Doesn’t jive with the news I’ve seen. And quite swamped right now to do your homework.
Such as Pennsylvania.
I’ve been too fascinated by the early squabbles Obama and Co. are having with the press:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17833.html
But back on topic:
You know, I tried manfully to prepare myself mentally and emotionally for the the day of Obama presidency. I swore to myself that I would not engage in ODS as so many libs engaged in BDS.
So, I have to admit I am getting a bit Obama desensitized already… Gitmo, Geithner, racsist comments by preacher at inaug, large foreign contribution to the SecState family, etc.
The Republic is dying from the Death of a Thousand Cuts…. 🙁
Do you see that as the fault of the Bush Administration for releasing him?
blast, you’re twisted!
Who does your See Thru President think he is by thinking he can end the war on terror with a flick of his wrist?
@Mike’s America:
That bullet we put in his head in compliance with the Geneva Conventions was guaranteed to prevent recidivism.
Oh, wait.
I actually on Guantanamo there were many former (flag) military officials who were lobbying Obama to take the action to close that place. There is no doubt that I want to hear what the plan is on those who remain before I have an opinion about if it is a good idea.
My comment was in response of learning that one of the detainees released by the Bush Administration who later committed a terrible act of terror against the US Embassy in Yemen. Was that the Bush Administration’s fault for releasing him was my question.
@MataHarley:
Heh.
You know, Fit fit finds facts and truth to be elusive vapors.
Easy to talk about.
Extremely difficult to get a grasp on.
@blast:
Yeah, I read the whole post. I stand by my comment. Do you not see that GW tried and therein lies the example of what not to do? Intelligent adults learn from other’s missteps. GW paved the way to fight this Jihad widely proclaimed against us and oBama would rather machete his way through even more unchartered territory for political payback for the Democrat Party than walk softly and lead this Country safely.
Wordsmith,
When I saw your post, I was certain that it was going to be about these pictures that I found yesterday evening:
Do Gitmo detainees routinely get access to computers in military trials?
I wonder, do they prefer Solitaire or Mine Sweeper?
I am looking forward to adding this guy to my friends list on MySpace.
He and I can exchange e-mails with one another now.
It’ll be great.
Really it will.
McCain had promised to close Gitmo. Discuss.
McCain was wrong too.
Your point?
doesn’t anyone watch 24? Granted, jack will stick a pen in someones eye/ear/heart/leg etc.. to get them to talk, but the point is, they tell him what he needs to know. They don’t talk until he starts cutting off fingers/ears/noses/shooting their spouse/kid/and kicking their grandma down a flight of stairs. I think it is quite effective. I really would like to know what the one will do to get information from these people? Oh thats right, hes just letting them go. I am a firm believer that if you ask nicely, people will usually tell you the truth. I do that with my kids and they have never lied to me. Ever. I am sure if we just reason with terrorists, they will start to understand where we are coming from. Just sit down, and have a discussion with no preconditions. I take that back, there is one precondition, everyone has to hug before and after the meeting. Its the only way we’ll get the truth.
Hah….that’s great, Aye.
@Fit fit: Didn’t Bush also mention a desire to close Gitmo? Discuss!
McCain also believes in global warming alarmism. ’nuff said.
@liam:
You just made a bizarre thought pop into my brain: Sell t-shirts to the Code Pink whackos: “Have you hugged a terrorist today?” And those boring orange jump suits the detainees wear should have cute sayings like: “I need a hug”.
Even more awesome in Arabic and in English.
Actually many flag officers, men above my pay grade, say that Guantanamo is counter productive and is used as a recruiting tool for more terrorists. So maybe an intelligent adult would change that policy? I am waiting on more details on what they do with the remaining detainees.
I just find it interesting, mikeA’s post that Bush actually released someone who then attacked a US Embassy… I guess we need to give George a mulligan on that one.
You needn’t wait, blast. As I posted on this back on Nov 10th, Obama and company have been planning to create a new court system.
This has been criticized quite thoroughly (example here and here.)
And, of course, the creation of a new court system is against the regulations in the Geneva Convention, which requires trials in *constituted* (already in existance) courts. You can’t nab the enemy combatants, then create something to deal with them after the fact.
Obama and his legal team will find themselves up against the ACLU on this one. And frankly, the details on how this shadow court system are worrisome. How are the judges appointed? What is the criteria for those that go into this 2nd court system vs our existing court system? Are they answerable to SCOTUS, or no one?
This creation of a new court system was deftly avoided by using what we already have in place… our federal courts, and our military tribunals. I’ve been watching this, and surprised that Obama is attempting to embark on this considering the speed bumps in the way. It is no good answer to what is in place now.
And souvenir prison-garb: “I went to Gitmo and all I got was this lousy jump-suit…and a koran…and a free prayer rug…and honey-glazed chicken with rice pilaf…free dental care…”
Wordsmith, we need to combine your ideas.
Make the shirts out of orange! Kill two birds with one stone. Code Orange! That pink reminds me of Pepto Bismol and bad hangovers.
Front of shirt – “Hug Me”
Back of shirt – الله أكبر (Allāhu Akbar)
@blast:
I think one problem we have is on the propaganda front. We’re just lousy at defending our own motives, interests, and in framing the debate. Because of that, I’d agree Guantanamo is “counter-productive”, at least in terms of “world perception” and “world opinion” which does and doesn’t matter.
President Bush went out of his way, much to the consternation of some Islam-bashing conservatives, to not make this war on terror perceived as a war against Islam. Yet, amongst many in the Middle East and around the world, that’s exactly how it’s perceived: That we’re persecuting Muslims, rather than zeroing in on Islamic terrorists who threaten us all.
abu Ghraib was a recruitment bonanza for the jihad movement.
The war in Iraq became perceived as an unjustified invasion and against Muslims.
The “war on terror”: against Muslims, rather than characterized rightly as a war against Islamic terrorists who threaten us all, Muslims and non-Muslims.
All of this can be deemed as “counter-productive” as well. Is it just easier to concede the debate and appease? Rather than defend actions that have saved lives?
@Wordsmith: haha. all I got was this lousy jumpsuit.
What we need to do, is make lemonade out of lemons. Put the terrorists to good use. Since they obviously love making bombs so much, they should start making them for us. Turn gitmo into a labor camp of arts and crafts (arab arts and crafts of course, because they don’t have art supplies over there.. just ak-47’s and old artillery shells). They can decorate the bombs with cool designs from their home country and even write passages from the koran on them. Some of the terrorists could paste fake beards on the bombs (kind of like a terrorist-labor-camp joke). But the real joke will be on them. In the mean time while they are building them, we are tracking down their family and friends. We take Akbars bombs that he built, and plant them in all of their houses (while we film it of course so they don’t think we’re lying), and then we ask them questions about what they know. Of course code pink will flip out, but we can honestly answer them with, “hey, we sat down, had a great conversation, I didn’t touch Akbar and he told me everything”. And then we can show them pictures of the cool bombs they made at arts and crafts time. Its foolproof.
We agree.
It does not have to be concession, but things that don’t work for us anymore, but work against us, they should be changed or modified for our benefit.
I suppose the core difference here is, most of us here are assuming these detainees are terrorists; guilt by default of having been picked off the battlefield; and the fact that unlike others initially imprisoned, these last ones still detained must be the most rotten of the rotten apples.
Others who inexplicably find themselves supposedly “defending terrorists” and enemies of America, believe in “innocent until proven guilty” in a fair court of law. Of course, they are also hampered by being aligned with those whose hearts still bleed for the detainees even if they are proven guilty as murderous, irredeemable terrorist nutjobs.
@blast:
I actually agree.
thus, a detainee camp where they make bombs for us. When you get handed a bunch of lemons, you make a bunch of lemon bombs. Its simple math.
MataHarley, where does Obama speak of creating a new court system?
I see the link to the Fox news story is broken. Here’s the same article appearing Nov 11 in the Kuwait Times.
I’ll fix the link in the original post. Thanks for the heads up, blast.
ADDED: Also, from another Nov 11th article from UK’s Independent:
Don’t hear much about this in the MSM, eh? Seems few want to talk about it.
Closing Guantanamo Bay and bringing the terrorist to the US may not be a bad idea if they place them in the right prisons. I worked five years in maximum security in one of the toughest prisons in the country, the Penitentiary of New Mexico, and I have no doubt that a secure setting like this would be an ideal place for these prisoners. This would also help the economy of New Mexico.
I suggest they place these detaines in the maximum security general population. These “virgin seekers” would soon find that “water boarding” would be a day in Mecca compared to the reception they would receive from the “Hom boyez/gangbangers”. Who knows, they might enjoy being the wife of a “hairy Bubba”.
Hahahahaha….. they got in mixed up! They will loose their virginity to 70 gangbangers!
Now that is a direct quote and paraphrase from Obama (above), the other part… is not quoting Obama so I am not sure what to make of it.
I am not sure what “could require” means and am waiting to hear what the actual plan is. In a similar vein, isn’t there already a Federal Court set up for cases that involve classified information?
Here’s more from the original story, which seems to have disappeared from many sites in it’s original form… including the Fox News article. This version from San Diego’s SignOnSanDiego has stuff I remember but is now MIA.
Ah yes… that “transparency” on creating a shadow court is very impressive….
You may not want to know what to make of it, but as I quoted in the more thorough original article from the SignOnSanDiego version, he says:
That pretty much sounds like he’s set on that path to me. No “not sure what to make of it” about that, blast.
Mata
Like I said, it does not really lay out anything substantial. It conflicts itself in the same paragraph. I am not trying to judge it one way or another until more details become available. That is why I am not sure what to make of it.
Mata/Word: Setting out a moonbat buffet today?
Stopped a little too soon in your selected partial quote of the paragraph, don’t you think, blast? I shall repeat it one more time for you…
You deliberately decided to ignore that “third group of detainees” bit in order to justify your “not sure” status…. why is that?
And of course it doesn’t lay out anything “substantial”. Obama and his legal advisors have said over and over, they speak on condition of anonymity, and this is all being done in private behind the scenes. Transparency, my ass.
So if you’re waiting to see something “substantial” handed to the US John Doe, don’t hold your breath. Looks like this is one of those issues where the “details” are to be kept under wraps. You are correct to be “not sure” of what he’s doing in light of this secrecy. But you should be entirely sure it’s not going to be the choice between release/resettle and a trial the US federal courts.
What remains to be seen is, with this new Obama “hybrid” court, just what class of citizens (and combatants enjoying citizen rights) will be funneled into this system? And who decides that?
There have been legislative courts (as opposed to Constitutional courts) set up under Article III. These are created by Congress, judges appointed by the President, and some dissention on whether the SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction of their decisions and administrative procedures. Interesting analysis by The Constitutional Project last June discusses the problem the national security or hybrid court that Obama’s legal team is suggesting, and also more about Article III legislative courts and it’s inherent problems INRE enemy combatants. It’s “Conclusion”?
What I find curious is all those screaming about habeas corpus for enemy combatants held in Cuba. One would think that they either have Constitutional rights to the US court system… or not. They didn’t like Bush’s attempt via the Congressional act for detainees and the military tribunal system as it was a third system of justice for the Gitmo group. Obama is trying to reinvent the wheel, except that it compounds the already mentioned problems in that it’s not a “regularly constituted court” via Geneva Convention or Red Cross treatises.
Apparently even a President Obama realizes that what appeared so clear cut when he was a Jr. Senator for a few years, isn’t now that he occupies the Oval Office and gets the full scope of the situation.
Worse yet, there are some arenas where he’s not willing to be so “transparent” afterall. All we get is a fawning media saying legal scholars hail support of his hybrid court system. Really? They have an odd concept of consensus…
blast, I see no one’s commented on your question:
Bush’s fault for releasing him? Damned if he held on to him based on the file, and now damned because he let him go. You’re a tough room, blast.
His release is likely the result of the public outcry by liberal nanny-heads and the ACLU. His “story” as to why he was in there is included in the IHT article Mike linked. He’s one of those who would most likely be tried in a US court system, and ultimately let go for lack of evidence or a smoking gun.
Since everyone was whining that we couldn’t treat them as enemy combatants, and hold them until cessation of hostilities, this guy was released based on his stated intentions in Afghanistan to provide “relief effort” or to buy “carpets” for his store. This despite his urban warfare tactics and training received in Afghanistan earlier. But noooooo… he wasn’t a bad guy. Just another innocent abused by the US system.
Obviously he is a perfect example one who *should* have been held, as well as about 60 some odd others that have rejoined the battle. But place that same detainee in a US federal court, with the same dossier, and he’s likely to be sent on his way with an apology. Worse yet, he may come back and sue for recompensation for his ordeal… which he can then funnel to the terrorists.
Putting these guys thru the US courts is a nightmare in the making. Period.
Have to take a real close look at the printed document and the signature on the Gitmo Executive order. Appears to be a lot of (TBD) inserts in a lot of the sentences. Probably find out what all those (TBD)s mean when the first attack comes our way.:<)
Haha… I would never heckle you though! It was really a rhetorical question. To me, I don’t blame the Bush Administration based upon what I have read about it thus far.
LOL, Mike…. of course, all I could visualize was Donald O’Connor in Singing in the Rain and his fabulous dance routine to the same.
Give me a break mata, you have tossed up several comments and we have overlapped parts of them. I read the article from the Kuwait which you complain I am being selective about . I was not trying to excise bits I like or don’t like. They directly quoted Obama, I referenced that (33). On my other comment (36) which I mention the paragraph conflicted itself, it does.
Your evidence about what the new administration will or will not do is based upon a few very thin articles without many sources on the record. It would be nice to actually be dealing with facts instead of conjecture. He has been in office like 3 days, I can wait a few more to learn what the next steps will be.
I really love that MikesDumbamerica site.
Well okay, then blast. Consider my snippy remark about selective editing… snipped. And my apologies with the overlap of info. Should have realized there were a few there in a row, with more info in each to compile.
The “evidence” is “thin” because they aren’t offering up details… and apparently deliberately. That’s no less a concern for me. And hang yeah, I’ll be waiting to learn details. This has been on my radar for months now. However I’d like to learn those “details” before he just up and sets it into motion.
That I agree with 100%. It is a vexing problem that needs attention. I know he stated a one year for closing Guantanamo, but I think the military tribunals are only on hold for 30 days and we will learn more soon.
On the snippy snips, hey, no problem. I have a ton of respect for you Mata.
Mata, there is a subliminal message in the audio.
as for the ass who said “I really love that MikesDumbamerica site.”
You belong there. Two peas in a pod. Perhaps we can arrange for you to take up residency there on a permanent basis?
Mata: Just for you:
MataHarley:
Elektra:
?
Sorry, Elektra… but didn’t see how that answered blast’s question of whether the release of al-Shihri was the fault of the Bush administration. Thought it was just INRE something else…. especially since you made a point to say you read the “whole post”…. huh?
So perhaps you might clarify your answer to blast for me.
Is that your response INRE Bush’s culpability in Shihri’s release? That he made a “misstep”?
Yeah, you did a much better job than I, but my statement does include that it is indeed Bush’s fault. Like you said, though, damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. He had to try, imo, as it was unchartered territory. oBama is ignoring history and making his own way. He reminds me of drivers who think they are the only ones with a place to be and would rather cause an accident than change their pace or course for a fellow traveler.
I made the point that I had read it all because blast asked the question again as if I hadn’t or hadn’t understood what I read.
Thanks for responding, Mata.
Well thanks for clarifying it, Elektra
Mata: here is something new on the EU, I tend to think they are now in a box. They will have to repatriate (and deal with) their own citizens if they are going to support Obama’s closure of Gitmo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090126/wl_afp/usattacksguantanamoeudiplomacy_20090126183100
I was just reading about the issue at Bottom Line Upfront.
Yeah, I liked this quote:
Checkmate.