Obama Flip Flops

[Dos Equis]

yeah...Thats how i feel. I dont give a shit about What Bush did...its over... we gotta move foward. Thats all i didnt like about Obamas administration before he got elected...Im like "man fuck all that retro shit."

I agree.  Time to move on. 

[Dos Equis]

So you are a radical. 

Torture is not in our country's traditions.  Our very Constitution addresses it.  It's outlawed by Federal Statute.

But you think torture is the way to go.  That's radical.

Obama's attorney general pick calls waterboarding torture
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59760.html

I'm not convinced waterboarding is torture.  And I don't care if we waterboard the heck out of terrorists, particularly if it saves American lives. 

[Soul Crusher]

I'm not convinced waterboarding is torture.  And I don't care if we waterboard the heck out of terrorists, particularly if it saves American lives. 

By the liberal definition we torture our own recruits in boot camp.  If its good enough for our recruits, its good enough for suspected terrorists.

[Dos Equis]

By the liberal definition we torture our own recruits in boot camp.  If its good enough for our recruits, its good enough for suspected terrorists.

Yep.  True, although they have been trying to sissy up boot camp for years. 

[War-Horse]

That is because you agree with him. 

One does not have to write an essay to get a good point across. 

True.    I was just teasing.   You guys run circles around me on some of these subjects.    Makes for good reading tho.

[War-Horse]

By the liberal definition we torture our own recruits in boot camp.  If its good enough for our recruits, its good enough for suspected terrorists.

Volunteering for bootcamp is different than drowning......its not a "lib" thing.    Is waterboarding part of the camaraderie of the military now?

[Decker]

I am not going to engage you in an essay contest on the torture versus non torture debate. Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court has been granting Habeas to Gunatanamo detainees for quite a while now. Your assertion that "Habeas is a bedrock to any moral system of justice" is confusing. We grant them Habeas now. The petition's go to the DC Circuit court. I am well aware that there are no juries in Military Trials. That was my point. They should be tried by the military since they were captured by the military. Under the current law, the detainees recieve MORE rights than they would under the UCMJ and are entitled to almost as much due process as American Citizens [which is an absolute joke].

Confusing?  Habeas?  bedrock?  Confusing?  It wasn't confusing to Thomas Jefferson: “Freedom of the person under the protection of habeas corpus. I deem one of the essential principles of our government.”  Maybe he's talking about another habeas corpus.  I believe you were defending the notion of torture first and ...that's it.

What sort of rights do the detainees enjoy on par with Amercian Citizens (other than the due process mandated by the SCT)?

The rest of your argument is very misguided. I am not going to retype the holdings of the two aforementioned cases. Go on lexis or westlaw or do a google search if you are interested in the finer points of how the detainees are tried.

Due process delayed is due process denied.  There are still detainees who have not received a trial.  They've been held for years and years with nothing.  How do those evidentiary thresholds jibe with your idea of torture now and torture forever?

But beyond that, I am utterly clueless as to what kind of "trial" you think is appropriate. Will the standard of guilt or innocence be reasonable doubt? How will the discovery and evidentiary issues be handled? Jury trial or bench trial?

Calling an evidentiary proceeding a trial is a bit easier than calling it an evidentiary  proceeding.  Does that clear anything up for you? 

You seem to be stating a constant state of confusion when talking about this topic.  Clueless, confused etc.  Save it.  I don't need to see it and it does nothing to elucidate your pro-torture position.

I'm asking you how the evidentiary procedures are handled. YOu're the one citing the goddam law.  You tell me.  Cure me of my ignorance.

All you do is whine about torture, but you dont address any of these glaring problems that would make such a "trial" impossible.

Let's see, we could have a 3 judge panel review the sufficency of the evidence to determine whether there is enough evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.

Now how hard was that?  Is that an impossiblity?  Or are you just flapping your lips with legalese?

What I also can't fathom is this idea that our military is randomly deciding to arrest innocent people on the battlefield in Afghanistan or in terrorist training camps just for the hell of it. You have absolutely no evidence that our military randomly arrests innocent people and sends them to Guantanamo. You are also blind to the purpose of detaining these individuals in the first place, although I have written it about a dozen times in this thread.

Back in April of this year, The Times' David Rhode and Tim Golden reported on secret trials for Afghan detainees and, according to the international Red Cross in 2004, US intelligence officers admitted that 70-90 percent of tens of thousands of detainees were rounded up without evidence or by mistake.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Torture-Now-an-Afghanistan-by-Tom-Hayden-090127-417.html

There's your evidence and where's your apology?

My recurring inquiries in this thread have been related to alternatives. So far, you have only repeated that detainees should recieve habeas and a trial. Well, since they already recieve both, lets address a more relevant issue. How would you extract information from detainees without interogation? What would Decker do to fight terrorism, protect American interests and protect our troops on the ground in Afghanistan?

They have not received their hearings yet.  How would I extract information? 

Since torture doesn't work, I would not use torture, that's for sure.

[George Whorewell]

Confusing?  Habeas?  bedrock?  Confusing?  It wasn't confusing to Thomas Jefferson: “Freedom of the person under the protection of habeas corpus. I deem one of the essential principles of our government.”  Maybe he's talking about another habeas corpus.  I believe you were defending the notion of torture first and ...that's it.

What sort of rights do the detainees enjoy on par with Amercian Citizens (other than the due process mandated by the SCT)?
Due process delayed is due process denied.  There are still detainees who have not received a trial.  They've been held for years and years with nothing.  How do those evidentiary thresholds jibe with your idea of torture now and torture forever?
Calling an evidentiary proceeding a trial is a bit easier than calling it an evidentiary  proceeding.  Does that clear anything up for you? 

You seem to be stating a constant state of confusion when talking about this topic.  Clueless, confused etc.  Save it.  I don't need to see it and it does nothing to elucidate your pro-torture position.

I'm asking you how the evidentiary procedures are handled. YOu're the one citing the goddam law.  You tell me.  Cure me of my ignorance.
Let's see, we could have a 3 judge panel review the sufficency of the evidence to determine whether there is enough evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.

Now how hard was that?  Is that an impossiblity?  Or are you just flapping your lips with legalese?
 
Back in April of this year, The Times' David Rhode and Tim Golden reported on secret trials for Afghan detainees and, according to the international Red Cross in 2004, US intelligence officers admitted that 70-90 percent of tens of thousands of detainees were rounded up without evidence or by mistake.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Torture-Now-an-Afghanistan-by-Tom-Hayden-090127-417.html

There's your evidence and where's your apology?

 They have not received their hearings yet.  How would I extract information? 

Since torture doesn't work, I would not use torture, that's for sure.

I am not confused at all. I get my information on this topic from people who actually deal with National Security issues for a living, have prosecuted terrorists, defended terrorists and detainees alike ,have been to Guantanamo and know what they are talking about. I think you are confused. You said the detainees don't get habeas. THEY DO. You said the detainees are held for years and years without trial- WHICH IS NONSENSE. You said the detainees are tortured- I prefer the term interrogated. I provided two Supreme Court cases that illustrate quite plainly what due process the detainees are entitled to. So far in response, you have succeeded in comparing me with a Nazi, bellyached about torture and regurgitated a bunch of irrelevant long winded quotations that have no substance in law or fact to the discussion at hand-- THATS ALL. Isn't this debate supposed to be about law and facts? 

Your "source" is a single internet posting from an organization of devoid of impartiality and wrought with unverifiable statistics that at first glance appear to be vastly inflated, if not imaginary. Sorry- FAIL... If thats the best that you can come up with, don't quit your day job. I mean Decker- How many detainees are held at Guantanamo? Do you even know?  Do you believe there are "tens of thousands of wrongly detained Afghans at Guantanamo"--- LOLOLOLOL Come back to us Pal. Planet earth is this way------------>  We are discusing Guantanamo- You posted an article from a left wing blog that discusses holding cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. How is any of that relevant to this conversation?
 While your at it- Instead of taking 5 seconds to dig up this horseshit- Dig up the two cases I gave you and read them. Brief them if you'd like. I'm not here to educate you. When you bring more to the table besides random insults and immature emotionalism we can have a serious debate. If anyone owes an apology, you owe me one for fooling me into thinking your argument had any teeth. Next time save me the trouble and I'll post on the MMA board.

Your conclusion is equally hollow- "Well all I know is that torture doesn't work." WOW thank you for clearing that up. Your National Security policy is breath takingly brilliant. For someone who constantly insults conservatives and libertarians as "simplistic"- You should really look in the mirror. 

[Decker]

I'm not convinced waterboarding is torture.  And I don't care if we waterboard the heck out of terrorists, particularly if it saves American lives. 

Political radicalism or simply radicalism is adherence to radical views and principles in politics. The meaning of the term radical (from Latin radix, root) in a political context has changed since its first appearance in late 18th century. Nevertheless, it preserves its sense of a political orientation that favors fundamental, drastic, revolutionary changes in society, literally meaning "changes at the roots".

The US Constitutions outlaws cruel and unusual punishment.

The Japs of WWII were charged with crimes against humanity for waterboarding americans.  They were convicted and executed.

The current administration states plainly that waterboarding is torture.

If waterboarding was torture in WWII why has it's character changed for you?

Do you see why your position is considered 'radical'?  You are changing what has been in our traditions - ban of torture and waterboarding is torture.

Now for some reason, you think waterboarding might not be torture.  Why is that?  Our history and traditions hold it to be torture.  Yet for some reason, you've flipped on that history.

Why?

[Straw Man]

I didn't see or hear anything about the architects of the torture protocol being let off.

It seems they would need some cooperation from the people following orders if they have any chance of getting at the real story and the true criminals

[Decker]

I am not confused at all. I get my information on this topic from people who actually deal with National Security issues for a living, have prosecuted terrorists, defended terrorists and detainees alike ,have been to Guantanamo and know what they are talking about. I think you are confused. You said the detainees don't get habeas. THEY DO. You said the detainees are held for years and years without trial- WHICH IS NONSENSE. You said the detainees are tortured- I prefer the term interrogated. I provided two Supreme Court cases that illustrate quite plainly what due process the detainees are entitled to. So far in response, you have succeeded in comparing me with a Nazi, bellyached about torture and regurgitated a bunch of irrelevant long winded quotations that have no substance in law or fact to the discussion at hand-- THATS ALL. Isn't this debate supposed to be about law and facts? 

Wrong again George.  Is this nonsense?  Is this a lie?:

Federal Judge Rules That Some Detainees Held At Bagram Can Challenge Their Detention (4/2/2009)


U.S.-Run Prisons Cannot Be Used As "Other Gitmos," Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – A federal judge ruled today that three prisoners who are being held by the United States at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan can challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The prisoners, who were captured outside of Afghanistan and are not Afghan citizens, have been held at Bagram for more than six years without charge or access to counsel. The ruling came from Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/39258prs20090402.html

You criticize things you don't know about.

Your "source" is a single internet posting from an organization of devoid of impartiality and wrought with unverifiable statistics that at first glance appear to be vastly inflated, if not imaginary. Sorry- FAIL... If thats the best that you can come up with, don't quit your day job. I mean Decker- How many detainees are held at Guantanamo? Do you even know?  Do you believe there are "tens of thousands of wrongly detained Afghans at Guantanamo"--- LOLOLOLOL Come back to us Pal. Planet earth is this way------------>  We are discusing Guantanamo- You posted an article from a left wing blog that discusses holding cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. How is any of that relevant to this conversation?

  Misstating my position does nothing for you.  I mean I could not view you with any more disdain than I already do.  I like the way you latch on to Guantanamo and the way you decry impartiality.  This, from a guy who thinks Habeas Corpus is too burdensome, check that, an impossiblity when the US military is unleashing torture on its detainees.

You are what's wrong with this country.

While your at it- Instead of taking 5 seconds to dig up this horseshit- Dig up the two cases I gave you and read them. Brief them if you'd like. I'm not here to educate you. When you bring more to the table besides random insults and immature emotionalism we can have a serious debate. If anyone owes an apology, you owe me one for fooling me into thinking your argument had any teeth. Next time save me the trouble and I'll post on the MMA board.

Why don't you explain to everyone the caselaw you cite?  I'm not going to do your work for you.  I want you to do it so that I can pick apart your uninformed grasp of the issues.  I've already posted one federal decision that shows the lack of HC is still an issue.  Why would that be?  What did that SCT case say about HC anyways?

Your conclusion is equally hollow- "Well all I know is that torture doesn't work." WOW thank you for clearing that up. Your National Security policy is breath takingly brilliant. For someone who constantly insults conservatives and libertarians as "simplistic"- You should really look in the mirror. 

LIke I said, people like you are what's wrong with this country.  You guys are not only simplistic, you willingly adopt the perspective of scum like Nazis, mafia and terrorists when you advocate torture and shitcanning the things, like Habeas Corpus, which make the US what it is.

Again, you and your radicalism are what's wrong with this country.

You started this way:

You speak of torture as if it has never been part of our countries history.  Are you naive or joking? Officially all civilized countries are against "torture", just like all civilized countries have laws against "murder". And what is your definition of torture? Loud music? Shaving? Sense deprivation? Are you fucking kidding me? How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield? Do you have a suggestion?

You don't even what torture is, what outlaws torture and yet you're flapping your lips about my naivete on the matter?  Typical right winger.

Here's some educational resources for you:

U.S. Constitution: Eight Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm

United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html

Federal Statute:  18 U.S.C. §2340 (2) which

provides, inter alia:

"severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from--

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

* * *

(C) the threat of imminent death;

mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also

requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like

posttraumatic stress disorder. ...


Don't forget the domestic caselaw that has held waterboarding to be torture:  States v. Sawada, United States v. Parker et al, CR-H-83-66

Or INternational caselaw:  Tokyo War Crimes Trial

[George Whorewell]

Yawn...

This was a debate about Guantanmo. What the fuck does the Baghram air base have to do with this discussion?

THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES GET HABEAS. I think you have run too many circles around yourself in this thread and are starting to get dizzy. Please, refocus your argument, and quote some sources that have some merit or even a slight indicia of impartiality. The ACLU doesn't count. Sorry. 


I didn't misstate your position, you just argued it poorly. If it was comprehensible, I could respond more coherently, ( or at least in a manner you could understand).

I'm not going to waste my time re-writing case law to a lawyer. I'm sure you can afford to log into westlaw or lexis and get a full case summary. I know what both cases stand for, the problem is you dont- which is pretty embarassing imo.

We are not discussing international law- We are not discussing detainees in Afghanistan- We are discussing Guantanamo. That was the point of this thread. However, the fact that you believe 10,000 foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan should be entitled to habeas in the United States speaks volumes about how out of touch you are with reality. Please, send me a postcard from your star system.

Hey- Maybe they can all sue George Bush under the Alien Torts Statute? 

If I'm whats wrong with this country- God Bless America.
 

[The True Adonis]

Yawn...

This was a debate about Guantanmo. What the fuck does the Baghram air base have to do with this discussion?

THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES GET HABEAS. I think you have run too many circles around yourself in this thread and are starting to get dizzy. Please, refocus your argument, and quote some sources that have some merit or even a slight indicia of impartiality. The ACLU doesn't count. Sorry. 


I didn't misstate your position, you just argued it poorly. If it was comprehensible, I could respond more coherently, ( or at least in a manner you could understand).

I'm not going to waste my time re-writing case law to a lawyer. I'm sure you can afford to log into westlaw or lexis and get a full case summary. I know what both cases stand for, the problem is you dont- which is pretty embarassing imo.

We are not discussing international law- We are not discussing detainees in Afghanistan- We are discussing Guantanamo. That was the point of this thread. However, the fact that you believe 10,000 foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan should be entitled to habeas in the United States speaks volumes about how out of touch you are with reality. Please, send me a postcard from your star system.

Hey- Maybe they can all sue George Bush under the Alien Torts Statute? 

If I'm whats wrong with this country- God Bless America.
 

Psssssst,

George Orwell.  One of my favorite Socialists.

[The True Adonis]

From someone who has been the interrogator. Torture tends to have the opposite effect.

[Decker]

Yawn...

This was a debate about Guantanmo. What the fuck does the Baghram air base have to do with this discussion?

No, this was orginally a debate about Obama's flip flop on investigating the war crimes of the Bush administration.  Torture is part of that and now you seem to think the thread was started to discuss guantanamo.

I started the goddam thread.  I know what it's about.

THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES GET HABEAS. I think you have run too many circles around yourself in this thread and are starting to get dizzy. Please, refocus your argument, and quote some sources that have some merit or even a slight indicia of impartiality. The ACLU doesn't count. Sorry. 

Typical rightwing dive.  Are you asserting that b/c I posted the court case from an ACLU link that the case never happened?

What exactly are you trying to say?

I didn't misstate your position, you just argued it poorly. If it was comprehensible, I could respond more coherently, ( or at least in a manner you could understand).

You overestimate your intelligence.

I'm not going to waste my time re-writing case law to a lawyer. I'm sure you can afford to log into westlaw or lexis and get a full case summary. I know what both cases stand for, the problem is you dont- which is pretty embarassing imo.

Typical weak ass right winger.  "I'm going to state a conclusion but not support my argument..."   

Since you are such an authority and obviously versed in legal matters why don't you just summarize the holdings of the cases?

Or are you unable to do it b/c you have no grasp of what you are talking about?  I think that's a little closer to the truth.

We are not discussing international law- We are not discussing detainees in Afghanistan- We are discussing Guantanamo. That was the point of this thread. However, the fact that you believe 10,000 foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan should be entitled to habeas in the United States speaks volumes about how out of touch you are with reality. Please, send me a postcard from your star system.

I was wrong about you.  You are not versed in legal matters.  If you were, you wouldn't make an asinine statement like this:

Hey- Maybe they can all sue George Bush under the Alien Torts Statute? 

Torture is illegal under domestic and international law.  Bush can be charged under either for his crimes.

And again, I started the goddam thread.  I ought to know what the thread is about.  Obviously you missed that nugget, but like a typical rightwinger, here you are embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge and egotism to believe that you are correct...even when that belief flies in the face of facts:

Decker
Getbig V

Posts: 5305


     Obama Flip Flops
« on: April 09, 2009, 10:08:23 AM » Quote Modify Remove 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm already pissed at his handling of Wall Street and Health Care. . .now this.

Obama..."said months ago before he became president...that if he became president, he would have his attorney general investigate the Bush administration to see if things that they had done involved crimes or just merely bad policy.  He said if they involved crimes, he said no man is above the law, and the implication was that he would ask his attorney general to proceed forward, so he’s changed his position."

Now Obama is pushing this: that he has "a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards"  --President Obama's statement re the investigation of the Bush administration

According to a recent interview with Vincent Bugliosi, he is offended by Obama's flip flop.  The murder that Bush wrought as a corrupt president should not be allowed to go unchallenged.


Quote
When he (Obama) says that he intends to give Bush a free pass simply because whatever crime Bush may have committed was in the past, I would inform him of something he already knows:  that all criminal prosecutions, without exception and by definition, have to deal, obviously, with past criminal behavior.  Obviously we cannot prosecute someone for a crime that they may commit in the future.
http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.net/index.php/interviews/45-epm-interviews/230-murder-trumps-torture-says-bugliosi

"If we prosecute those in America who only commit one murder, under what theory don't we prosecute a president who is criminally responsible for over four thousand murders?"  Vincent Bugliosi

________________________ ________________________ ________________

See?  That's the first post.  Where's Guantanamo mentioned?

If I'm whats wrong with this country- God Bless America.
 

You are a rightwing radical.

I can think of no other statement that cuts to the quick and insults in a more devastating fashion than that.