Let's be clear: President Obama gives us only one single reason why the detention facility at Guatanamo Bay needs to be closed: because it makes us look bad. Because it is a negative symbol.
That's it. There's literally no other reason that he gives us. You might think that's reason enough, but we've never really had that debate, and Obama throws in sufficient fallacious arguments around it to ensure we won't.
He spent a significant amount of time talking about how Gitmo is bad because torture is bad, but by all accounts we have not tortured (by either his, or Vice President Cheney's, definition) there for years. This was perhaps the most dishonest part of his speech: taking credit for banning techniques that had been banned and were not in use.
Obama also spent a significant amount of time showing that we can put these detainees into a legal framework without Gitmo, but that's no reason why we need to do so. Why incur the costs of shutting down Gitmo if there's no need? He doesn't say, of course.
Insofar as his arguments that a Gitmo-less system can work, Obama did a fair job. I accept that we can deal with these prisoners through our federal system if necessary. But he did not give us any reason beyond symbolism why it's necessary. He never has, and I suspect he never will.
He sought to defend his positions using red herrings, straw men, and dissembling. He continued to attack Bush (often falsely, such as the entirely unproven and partisan line about covering up facts to fit the agenda) to distract from his own policies, just like he did during his campaign: he sets up the false dichotomy that if you disagree with Bush, then Obama's way is the only alternative. Bush is to blame for bad things, so therefore, you must agree with Obama. Nevermind that Obama cannot connect the dots, or explain his own positions (Obama to this day has never told us just how Bush's policies caused the recession; but nevermind that, Bush is to blame, so we must do the opposite of Bush to fix the problems!). All you need to remember is that Bush is Bad, so Obama is Good.
Obama claimed to be all about transparency, despite the huge number of fallacies he threw into this speech in order to cover up true examination of his actual arguments, which are, at root, extremely weak.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 21, 2009 08:12 AM | Email ThisWhy doesn't ABC,NBC,CBS come out and point out the errors and fallacies in these assertions. But sadly, it appears those organizations are not interested in holding leaders accountable....
Posted by: erich on May 21, 2009 08:55 AMOnce these scumbags land in the federal system on US soil, they will be more lavishly served by the ACLU. Squishy judges of like mind will find all kinds of constitutional entitlements for them. Al-Jazeera in the lunch room, anyone?
And of course, there is the Jose Padilla effect -- the twisted power hierarchy of prisoners which idolizes the most violent, the most depraved and the most destructive among them. In other words, recruitment, baby.
IMHO, this requires a covert "Ron Brown" operation. Arrange for the transport plane to be lost at sea, or something. Problem solved.
Posted by: Fritz on May 21, 2009 10:07 AMIt's a strange world they live in. The enemy claims to be mad at us because we have some of them in our prisons, and therefore the liberals want to do what the enemy wants.
Comrade Obama you are a TRAITOR and will go down in history as such.
Posted by: hellpig on May 21, 2009 11:02 AMNo if we do the same thing as our enemies do that doesn't make us just like them. Some would argue otherwise, but one thing it sure doesn't make us is stupid. If you an enemy is hell bent at destroying you at any cost its only so much you can do. Its only so many times you could turn the other cheek.
Have you ever tried cutting an block of steel with a soft cloth? Try it. It doest' work. You need another sharp steel blade to do it. Oh yes you can also use water but at extremely high pressure.
If someone threatens your loved ones, you try to evade them. If they harm someone you look for justice. You want them to be locked away, if not hanged at the gallos. SO how is this any different? Someone is intent on harming our loved ones and they should be put to death and if we can't be so straight forward and BOLD with our dispension of Justice then YES they should be locked in a solitary confinement and the key should be thrown away! PERIOD!
Posted by: Free Ringtones on May 21, 2009 11:05 AMTime and again you read about, and the local law enforcement is MUCH more concerned with prosecuting the homeowner than they ever would have been about prosecuting the thief.
Posted by: johnny on May 21, 2009 11:27 AMThis is the way of the left. They are of the belief that if a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, it does not make a sound. The whole of leftist philosophy puts ideology ahead of pragmatism.
Lots of feel good intentions about everything. Save the earth. Recycle, Make Love Not War. It goes on and on. In the real world, the rest of us adults know that we still need electricity, fuel, and that hard work is still the way to create value. And we know that bad guys really do exist.
When the Compassionate Conservatives of the Bush era and the Socialist Progressives children of the Obama era get done wrecking everything, we'll put it all back together. Until then sit back and watch as Obama and the State Governments under people like Schwarzenegger and Gregoire bankrupt us and make us all less secure.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 21, 2009 12:00 PMhttp://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/text_of_cheneys_aei_speech.asp
and see if Obama's oh-so-eloquent speech can match it in conveying a sense of purpose or concern for the welfare of Americans.
Obama's for his party, right or wrong. Cheney acted as Vice-President for all Americans.
And check out the Seattle Times tomorrow. See if it accurately reports what Cheney had to say. My bet is that they'll extensively quote Obama, and paraphrase Cheney to make him look as bad as possible.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 21, 2009 12:17 PM1. Guantanamo Bay needs to be closed: because it makes us look bad
This is your interpretation, but is not as simple as you make it sound. It is a documented fact, backed up by the military, that because of actions taken at GITMO, Al Quada has been able to recruit some who would have normally not been swayed by standard Al Quada propaganda. GITMO and Abu Grab have become the standard recruiting poster for Al Quada (as documented by the Defense department). By your stance then, there was no reason to close Abu Grab, either. By your stance, wartime actions justify the means and no corrections are warranted.
2. but by all accounts we have not tortured
This is a false statement, simply from the fact that you used the word "all." This might have been a slip on your part. You usually are quite careful with the use of overgeneralizations. There are rulings that actions at GITMO are torture. There is the ruling by the judge overseeing GITMO that the actions taken on Padilla (I believe) (in her mind) do meet the Geneva Convention's definition of torture. There is the Red Cross report. There is the Senate Report that came out recently that outlines the fact that the actions taken there are equivalent to ones outlined in the SERE program that are direct reflection of torture actions taken on US Soldiers in the Far East (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia), including direct relation to actions taken on John McCain (like stress positions) that have readily been called torture by many, including Bush and Cheney, themselves. This is three examples that nullify your statement. Whether you agree with the reports or not does not make your statement true. The fact is there are published reports calling actions at GITMO torture.
3. taking credit for banning techniques that had been banned and were not in use.
The problem is the techniques in question were used and it is documented that they were used. In fact, every day, Cheney is writing his own conviction by proudly boasting about the techniques used. The techniques include: waterboarding, stress positions, and a few other specific actions. These are outlined in the Geneva Conventions document that Reagan signed and has been abided by the US, until Cheney decided they were not good enough for his purpose. Make no mistake, I feel it is Cheney and Rumsfeld at the heart of the decision. Bush, whether he was directly involved, is implicit in allowing the actions to occur (Buck stops at the top). The Senate report outlines the smoking gun that it was not some lower level isolated cases, but a top-down driven policy implemented at both GITMO and Abu Grab. It is Nuremburg. It is a policy directed action. If it wasn't wrong, then why do the Abu Grab underlings still reside in prison for their offenses?
4. but that's no reason why we need to do so
The reason is implicit. It is because we consider ourselves a nation of moral beings. Are you stating that you do not consider us a nation of morals? Are you stating we are a nation that chooses to classify one set of human beings as less than human and thus justify in-human treatment of them? Where is the line drawn? If the actions taken were torture, then is that okay with you (I understand you don't agree that they were torture)?
I understand that you want to defend the conservative cause. This is a difficult issue to wrestle with and for me, I for one would not want to see Bush tried as a war criminal if these actions occurred. My opinion is they did occur, and were orchestrated by Cheney and Rumsfeld, not Bush. Cheney and Rumsfeld only involved Bush when he asked about the situation, or when it was necessary (e.g., actually signing of something). I believe Obama is playing it right by not calling for a special prosecutor, but allowing the Justice department to research and collect all the information first. There is still much information that needs to be sifted through. Of what has been published, I believe the only current action that should be pursued is a disbarment of Bybee and Yoo for not performing due diligence when drafting their legal cover documents for the program. This is an ethics violation that they do need to be held accountable for. To not research the background on the SERE program and the techniques being taught, to not research past prosecutions for the very actions being undertaken, is poor lawyering. It is up to there state's bar associations to address this issue.
I also think that Bush is correct in remaining silent. Each day that Cheney flaps his yak, he is digging himself a deeper hole.
OBTW, a question for you and the other SP's here that want to defend the program. If were were getting valuable intel from the operatives using normal techniques, then why was it necessary to go to the enhanced techniques? The answer is in the Senate report (e.g., they weren't getting the confirmation of a theory they were trying to prove). Torture's history is one for soliciting false confessions out of suspects, not the truth. Cheney and Rumsfeld were looking for a link between Iraq and Al Quada, and since they couldn't come up with one, they decided the only way to prove it was to have the suspects prove it for them. Look at the timing of the actions. They paint the story. It wasn't a ticking time-bomb scenario. Cheney and Rumsfeld were trying to justify the Iraq war as a war on terror through any means. To them the end justified the means. Just as there were no WMD's in Iraq, there was no pre-existing tie before the war between Iraq and Al Quada. The so-called evidence Cheney is alluding to that the techniques worked is that they got the prisonor in question to admit to the link that wasn't there. Remember torture's history.
#1 You're lying.
#2 You're standing
#3 You're sitting
#4 You're lying again.
;)
Ah, so does attending a church that preaches worship of "a god who must hate white people and only love black people otherwise we must reject his love" (I didn't say it; James Cone--founder of black liberation theology--did), calling terrorist Bill Ayres just a normal guy, and being directly involved with a corrupt knee-deep-in-voter-registration-fraud radical leftist group like ACORN and giving them $800,000 to help O get elected.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Michele on May 21, 2009 12:30 PMThe problem is Cheney forgets two words in his oath. Time and time again, Cheney repeats his mistake. The two words are: "US Constitution." He is to protect the US Constitution from all attacks, not the US. To Cheney, the constitution is irrelevant. To Cheney, it doesn't matter the means, the only result he is interested in is that we are not attacked. He doesn't realize in carrying out his philosophy gives victory to the terrorists.
Posted by: tc on May 21, 2009 12:56 PMIn today's latest edition, Cheney schedules a speech for today, so the TOTUS calls up Obama and orders him to have his own presser. Cheney comes off dignified and serious while Obama comes off as the candidate for high school president instead of POTUS (thanks to you TOTUS).
Hey, Bill Gates is the Secretary of Defense? Wow, Quayle-like is right.
Posted by: swatter on May 21, 2009 01:53 PMMost of the detainees are from the mideast, why didn't we just build the prison in Afghanistan? Why GITMO?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2009 01:58 PMFor over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.
There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.
So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year."
In 2004, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) accused the U.S. military of using tactics "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay.
Seems pretty clear cut. GITMO ain't working.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2009 02:11 PMThere is nothing wrong with Gitmo.
Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2009 02:13 PMWe have and had a base in Diego Garcia. Whole lot closer. Just as secure as an island in the middle of no where.
Why GITMO, half a world away?
He is to protect the US Constitution from all attacks, not the US.
If you mean the U.S., then it kind of goes without saying doesn't it?
To Cheney, the constitution is irrelevant.
Emotional argument not based in fact.
To Cheney, it doesn't matter the means, the only result he is interested in is that we are not attacked. He doesn't realize in carrying out his philosophy gives victory to the terrorists.
Nice talking points from the Daily KOS, but you can't backup any of the above opinions with facts.
His main reason is that gitmo was created for the purpose of operating outside of our normal legal system. Creating gitmo allowed -- at least temporarily -- Bush and Cheney to avoid the inconvenience of having to deal with the detainees as prisoners of war or as criminals. Obama's argument is that it is counter to our founding principles to choose expediency over the rule of law, and that doing so weakens us.
Obama has also said that the controversial and unusual aspects of gitmo forces government officials to waste unnecessary time and resources defending a system that deals with a problem that could be handled by our existing legal system. This waste squanders resources that could better be used on other security issues, so eliminating the waste enhances our security.
Another reason he has offered is that he campaigned on the promise of closing gitmo. He owes it to the people who elected him to follow through on that promise.
So there are three other reasons he's offered for closing the place. What are the reasons for not doing so?
Posted by: scottd on May 21, 2009 03:03 PMSecond, "symbols" do matter particularly if they have led to Supreme Court cases, us losing our moral high ground, damaged relations with our allies, and incited the Islamic world. Gitmo also represents a "symbol" of a past administration that is held in low world esteem. We need to shut the place down because defeating terrorists shouldn't just have a military prong, it needs to have a diplomatic prong as well. Reaching out to the moderate Islamic world (or developing one in Iraq, as Bush believed was possible) is just as good at preventing terrorist attacks. Drain that area some of its anger and resentment, and we'll have less attacks and a smaller need/want to wage wars in places like Afghanistan or Iraq. For this reason and others, we need to get rid of Gitmo.
Bush wanted to close Gitmo. McCain wanted to close Gitmo. Is it really a surprise that Obama wants to close Gitmo as well? Some folks are criticizing Obama for not having all the details worked out before signing his executive order. Government too often works too slow: signing the executive order put the government's foot on gas pedal.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 21, 2009 03:23 PMThe only thing I know of coming to a mall near me is an exhibit of artifacts from the Titanic.
Posted by: scottd on May 21, 2009 03:29 PMI get so tired of this. You do realize anything and everything 'incites' the Muslim world. They rioted over freaking cartoons, for gawd's sake. They rioted when Newsweek falsely claimed somebody flushed a Koran down the toilet.
Heck. They riot because KFC now serves grilled chicken.
But fine. Let's close Gitmo. Let's pretend that being nice is going to calm those restless Muslims.
And when - not if, but when - more innocent Americans are killed as a result of your willful naivete, be fully prepared to be on the receiving end of a beat down by those of us who will hold you personally responsible.
Posted by: jimg on May 21, 2009 03:33 PMOnly problem is...these people aren't "prisoners of war" according to the qualifications set forth in the Geneva convention.
His other problem in the statement above is when he accurately refers to them initially as "terrorists", and then in his usual rhetorical doublespeak, morphs them into "prisoners of war".
There is nothing wrong with Gitmo.
Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2009 03:52 PMThere is NOTHING wrong with GITMO?
Tell me, what is right with it? What is its purpose?
Here is his most recent time:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/10/interview_with_fmr_vice_president_cheney_96430.html
In the interview, he states:
"Now, if you'd look at it from the perspective of a senior government official, somebody like myself, who stood up and took the oath of office on January 20th of ‘01 and raised their right hand and said we're going to protect and defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, this was exactly, exactly what was needed to do it."
the line "protect and defend the United States against all enemies..." is the standard phrasing Cheney uses over and over again. Go back and google, you will see that Cheney believes this wording.
The wording is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. "
Think what you may Rick. Defending the constitution from attack was not in Cheney's vocabulary. He is a smart man. To repeat the mistake time and time again means either he doesn't know what the actual oath states, or worse, he knowingly choses to ignore these words. It isn't enough to defend the U.S. from attack, you must also defend (abide) by the Constitution. To run "roughshod" over the Constitution and institute an imperial presidency is not defending the Constitution.
Here are some other links debunking the Cheney alternate reality tour facts:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/68315.html
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/top-fbi-agent-will-detail-failures-of-enhanced-interrotation-contradict-claim-that-it-worked/
And if you really want to know who Dick Cheney is and see his contempt for Americans, go to this article that outlines Cheney's legislative history.
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/05/20/the-contemptible-cheney%E2%80%99s-contempt-for-america/
There is nothing wrong with Gitmo.
Do you just not like prison in general?
Dick Cheney 21 May 2008:
"The ones that were considered low-risk WERE RELEASE A LONG TIME AGO. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work AND HAVE CONDUCTED MURDEROUS ATTACKS in the Middle East."
Yeah, GITMO and the processes supporting it worked great. WHOSE administration RELEASED THE MURDERERS? WHOSE policy ALLOWED MURDERERS to be released?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2009 04:09 PMI'm entirely FOR prisons and executions of convicted murdering terrorists.
I'm entirely for detainment of prisoners of war.
Neither you, nor the previous administration and its apologists can define what the heck "unlawful enemy combatants" are. Because if it could be defined the UNLAWFUL conduct would be prosecuted.
The result of an unconstitutional (IN!)justice system is abuse and F-UPs resulting in MURDERING TERRORISTS being set free. Don't ask me. Ask Dick Cheney why MURDERERS were released from his jewel of GITMO.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2009 04:16 PMIf Gitmo existed within the United States which would be an entirely different discussion.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 21, 2009 04:17 PM#44. I think an unlawful enemy combatant is one who fights against a nation (in this case the United States) while operating under no sovereign flag, and while choosing to not wear a uniform, and while hiding among civilian populations.
Therefore they are also not Prisoners Of War. They operate more like spies, and we can detain them as long as we choose, and for as long as the conflict persists. And President Obama agrees with that.
What are you talking about? John McCain wanted to close Gitmo -- how exactly was McCain proposing to put anyone at risk? And are you threatening to physically assault me if there is a terrorist attack?
Look, all of Islam is not our enemy. Your use of "they" and "them" is quite telling. It's a religion of billions, the fastest growing religion in the world, with a large population in the United States. There is no unified theory of "get pissed off at everything." But things like Abu Gharab, Gitmo, and Iraq in general are recruitment tools for terrorist organizations. We will deal with potential attacks, and we must stop them, but the prison in Cuba does more harm to our national security than it has ever done good.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 21, 2009 04:23 PMOmar Abdel-Rahman, master mind of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was captured, tried and convicted and is serving a life sentence. He'll never see the outside of a jail again, and will never be in a position to murder. Amazing how that justice system works vice the ???? GITMO.
...and no. we don't need to close all the prisons. That is just an asinine conclusion.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2009 04:24 PMGary, I am referring to the the United States Constitution and specifically due process.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 21, 2009 04:26 PM
As for due process, how does it apply to a enemy soldier captured in a war? How has the Constitution ever applied to enemies captured by our armed forces during a war?
Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2009 04:32 PMI don't care what Obama thinks. I don't care what Cheney thinks. And what you think an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" is doesn't mean much either.
Here's what you and i can agree upon, a convicted murderer is a criminal deserving incarceration, and when the situation is aggrievous enough, death.
Very simple. Very straight forward.
And it brings the added benefit of not being tied in knots about when to be "lenient" because you don't know what they did. Murderers get the chair!
"when the army captures an enemy on a foreign battlefield, what do you want to do with that person?"
1) That's a prisoner of war, and you hold them in accordance with the Geneva convention (just like you'd expect and demand be done if one of our Soldiers was captured).
2) You do understand MANY of the detainees were not caught on any "battlefield", don't you?
For example, the MOST notorious detainee, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was not caught on a battlefield, but in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI.
And that rat b_____d has yet to be tried for the crimes he's accused of. Planning the death of over 3,000 Americans.
You should become familiar with this decision from the Supreme Court. It wouldn't have been a question if the prisoners were on US soil, since Rasul v. Bush stated that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 21, 2009 04:44 PMIt isn't enough to defend the U.S. from attack, you must also defend (abide) by the Constitution. To run "roughshod" over the Constitution and institute an imperial presidency is not defending the Constitution.
That's your opinion of course, but Cheney acted under the color of legal authority and that's not "running roughshod" over the U.S. Constitution. Our current president however, is entertaining joining International treaties which would in effect supercede our existing founding document, the Constitution. Your feelings?
And if you really want to know who Dick Cheney is and see his contempt for Americans...
Apparently you haven't seen this piece on V.P. charitable donations. Care to point out the disparity in charitable giving by each current and prior V.P.? Some contempt he has huh?
Your blind hatred for Cheney, like most leftists, is irrational and unfounded, tc.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2009 04:45 PMAnd when the leftists do unto you "under the color of legal authority", you'll be just fine with that?
"blind" is an adequate adjective for some thinking here.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2009 04:50 PMIn 2008, Bob Barr - Libertarian, John McCain - Republican, and Obama - Democrat all ran for President and each and everyone of them stated they intended to shut down GITMO, and that it should be shut down.
Where were you?
Where was uber patriot Dick Cheney?
Is it that you, like Dick Cheney when he was asked to serve his country, had more important things to do?
And, once again, when Dick Cheney saw that each and every candidate for President disagreed with what he ostensibly believes to be a vital national security interest, did he say anything? do anything? No. We can conclude he had more important things to do.
Say what you want, but the advice of warriors like Powell and McCain on this topic mean more than that of cowards like Cheney.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2009 05:03 PMYeah I'm laughing at you libs saying we should have the POW (as you call them) here.
If Bush had done that, you would be screaming about the dangers.
You fools have NO strong views. Your opinion blows with the wind.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on May 21, 2009 05:55 PMGITMO doesn't belong to the USA either.
So, what is your point about Diego Garcia not belonging to the US?
@62 Medic/Vet on May 21, 2009 05:55 PM,
Who said the POWs should be here?
FYI - American captured so-called unlawful combatants, (a.k.a.POWs) of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq are kept in those countries (e.g. Bagram) Additionally, the British and Canadians have treated captives in Afghanistan as POWs since the beginning.
(2)Not enough room shouldn't need an explaination.
Posted by: Gil on May 21, 2009 06:49 PM(2)Not enough room shouldn't need an explaination.
Posted by: Gil on May 21, 2009 06:50 PMOn point 1, you're just arguing that Obama's point is sufficient. This does not disagree with my point, which is that this is Obama's only point.
On point 2, you're wrong. There is NO account of any kind that we've tortured for the last few years. You're right that some people believe we tortured years ago. But that changed. Those interrogation methods have not been in use for years.
On point 3, the context of "were not in use" was when Obama took office. See rebuttal to point 2.
On point 4, you're not giving an argument here. Why do we need to shut down Gitmo? EVEN IF we were still using those methods TODAY at Gitmo, that's still not a reason to shut Gitmo down: just stop using those methods. There, problem solved.
It still boils down to shutting down Gitmo only because Gitmo makes us look bad.
Jensen: First of all, I disagree with your assertion about Obama's reasoning.
Show me how I am wrong by showing ANY OTHER reason he gives for why Gitmo needs to be shut down. Just one.
That's an interesting quote in the title of the post, but of course not an actual quote at all.
It is accepted practice in headlines to summarize in quotes, and certainly you won't tell me that he didn't give that sense.
No, he didn't. I asked for reasons why we NEED to close Gitmo. scottd did not address this at all. Instead, he gave reasons why Gitmo is not as good as something else. Different case. Again, if anyone can come up with a single other reason beyond symbolism why we NEED to close Gitmo, let me know.
Second, "symbols" do matter
Irrelevant to my point, so you are not arguing against me here. My point is only that a. this is his only reason given and b. we aren't really engaging in that national debate, and instead going off on tangents about whether torture is good or bad, or what constitutes torture.
Bush wanted to close Gitmo. McCain wanted to close Gitmo.
Yes, and they gave the same basic reason he did. And I criticized them at the time for it, too. Again, I am not saying symbolism -- the only reason given -- isn't a good enough reason, but in order to have that discussion, we need to stop talking about torture instead of its effects, and we need to have a real cost/benefit discussion: what are the costs of leaving it open, versus the costs of closing it. Then we can add in the other benefits of closing it versus leaving it open, and discuss those too.
Scottd addressed your question. You are simply the type of person that gets your question answered and roundly repeated, "Well, no, that didn't answer me." That game is something we've done to death and it's boring. Even though there are many reasons, its symbolism is justification enough.
Your headline is silly. Not only does Gitmo look bad, it is bad. It is a foreign policy nightmare (that is, it doesn't "look like" a foreign policy nightmare). The Supreme Court cases surrounding detention there show that the executive overstepped its bounds multiple times.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 21, 2009 07:45 PMObama said we did, and he gave only "symbolism" as a reason.
Scottd addressed your question
Obviously, no, he didn't, since he did not address need, and I was explicitly referring to need.
Your headline is silly.
It's true.
Not only does Gitmo look bad, it is bad.
... because it LOOKS bad.
The Supreme Court cases surrounding detention there show that the executive overstepped its bounds multiple times.
So? By your logic, that means we should also get rid of the executive itself.
Obviously, no, he didn't, since he did not address need, and I was explicitly referring to need.
Pudge, I'll try to make this simple for you.
You wrote a post saying that Obama has only given one reason for closing gitmo. Here's what you said:
"There's literally no other reason that he gives us."
I listed several other reasons Obama's given justifying the closing of gitmo -- so you are literally wrong.
I don't expect you to admit it, so don't expect me to waste my time arguing with you. Your attempt to weasel out based on the word "need" is childish. You might not think Obama's reasons indicate a need to close the place, but that's immaterial. Obama thinks there's a need to close gitmo, and he's offered multiple reasons.
Posted by: scottd on May 21, 2009 08:03 PMThe treasonous president cares more about the far left opinion then he does abbout America's security PERIOD he is a TRAITOR...and when the terrorsits attack AMERICA during his term he will own it all....not like clinton and sandy burglar stealing the evidence shwing negligence ...Obama will own the next slaughter of Americans..with or without club gitmo
Posted by: hellpig on May 21, 2009 10:01 PMI responded directly to this each of these points before you even made them. Why don't you reply to what I said instead of just repeating yourself?
... because it LOOKS bad.
No, that is not what I said. Please do not put words in my mouth.
So? By your logic, that means we should also get rid of the executive itself.
Presidential elections occur every four years. What would happen if we had a vote on Gitmo?
scottd: I don't expect you to admit it, so don't expect me to waste my time arguing with you. Your attempt to weasel out based on the word "need" is childish. You might not think Obama's reasons indicate a need to close the place, but that's immaterial. Obama thinks there's a need to close gitmo, and he's offered multiple reasons.
You're spot on: pudge finds some words to attack in a very childish way, such as "need." Often he uses prove-ably wrong "truisms" (such as "literally") but ignores all alternative evidence. Pudge doesn't respond to your points, he just pretends they were never presented. Then he quote you in a truncated way to find a wiggle or weasel word.
Pudge is capable of discussing things in a far more serious, intellectually honest way. Instead he treats people who disagree with him like trolls. That is at his own detriment.
hellpig: The main point is they are TERRORISTS...and the left and Comrade Obama love terrorists so much so they appease them and coddle them at every turn..
No one wants to appease or coddle terrorist suspects, but we don't want to torture them. Many fine people don't want to torture people. The law says that waterboarding is torture. John McCain says that waterboarding is torture. It's illegal, it's against our principles, and it doesn't produce good results.
The stupid and wrong statements about the KSM waterboardings are why we need a commission just like the 9/11 commission to find out the truth of what happened. Was it legal at the time? Did we gain any useful information from it? Could we have got it without "harsh interrogation techniques"? Did waterboarding directly save American lives? These are questions we might have some leaks to base our opinions on, but we need to know the facts.
Our commander-in-chief says that torture is ineffective and endangers our country. He has access to far more information, classified and not, than us. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this matter. Calling him a traitor is the best way possible to sound loony.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 01:10 AM"The main point is they are TERRORISTS..."
And how do you know all the detainees are terrorists? Are you a terrorist?
They are detainees.
For example, are you aware that there are some 15 Chineese Uyghurs who have been held without charge for 7 years, and 'cleared' by the Pentagon for release since 2003?
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_captives_in_Guantanamo
The main point is GITMO has not worked at convicting criminals (e.g. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), not worked at keeping enemies of the US off of the battlefield, and has given the US a black eye.
It doesn't work!
@65 Gil on May 21, 2009 06:50 PM,
The reason the US didn't go to Diego Garcia and went to GITMO is because the treaty with Britain is, as was pointed out, enforced. The treaty with Cuba is not. It was thought by the previous administration that Government officials could do whatever they damn well pleased in GITMO - a law unto themselves.
So define torture. Are you referencing "waterboarding", an enhanced interrogation technique that is called a training tool in the U.S. armed forces? It's been conducted nearly daily on our own military personnel for the past 35-40 years and there was no outcry by your or you ilk whether this practice should be banned from use on our fellow U.S. Citizens. A little consistency in your argument would go a long way towards establishing its credibility. In labeling this practice "torture", you don't have either.
The stupid and wrong statements about the KSM waterboardings are why we need a commission just like the 9/11 commission to find out the truth of what happened.
Agreed. The president is standing in the way of making this happen. Join me in writing to the president to release this information to the public. Simply releasing documents outlining the methods used without in turn releasing the usefullness of the information obtained from using said methods is wholly inconsistent and highly partisan. Obama needs to quit politicizing this issue and be as "transparent" as he claims to be.
Was it legal at the time? Did we gain any useful information from it? Could we have got it without "harsh interrogation techniques"? Did waterboarding directly save American lives? These are questions we might have some leaks to base our opinions on, but we need to know the facts.
www.whitehouse.gov is the website -or is that website number? (biden)- Join me in calling for a release of the information obtained and then the debate can rage over whether it was worth it.
Our commander-in-chief says that torture is ineffective and endangers our country.
Wrong. Obama has never used the word torture in describing the techniques we used.
He has access to far more information, classified and not, than us. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this matter.
Information he will not release even though it's likely neither classified nor a matter of national security to not release it. Again, he'd rather play politics with the information and run a smear campaign on the previous administration than actually allow the average American see the results of the measures taken shortly after 9/11.
So much for the "most transparent administration in history" claim.
You wrote a post saying that Obama has only given one reason for closing gitmo.
No, in fact, I did not.
Here's what you said: "There's literally no other reason that he gives us."
Don't be so transparently dishonest. Indeed, your quote does not even back up your case against me, since the sensible question any honest person would ask is: reason FOR WHAT? And the previous paragraph holds the answer: the reason why the detention facility at Guatanamo Bay needs to be closed.
Your attempt to weasel out based on the word "need" is childish.
Your lack of ability to read is pathetic. No one actually reading my post and understanding the clear language therein can be confused that I was explicitly making the point that Obama had only one reason why we NEED to close Gitmo. I used the words "need" and "necessary" a few times, so no one can be confused about my point. Stop feigning ignorance; it suits you, but it is not conducive to rational discussion.
You and Jensen are just sad. I state explicitly and in no uncertain terms that I am referring to Obama's case that we NEED to close Gitmo. In the fourth and fifth paragraphs, I even contrast a NEED to close Gitmo against reasons why closing Gitmo might be beneficial, and note that no NEED has been demonstrated, beyond "symbolism." And despite this clear evidence, you actually argue that this was never my intent: that I am trying to "weasel" out of something I DIDN'T say, by referring to what I DID say.
This is unsurprising, I suppose: you ignore the text of the Constitution and the law, so why shouldn't you ignore my own text?
Will that LOOK any better to Europeans?
One thing for sure, right now they are segregated from our regular criminals so they're not able to influence our own deadbeats into acts of terror, as in yesterday's 4 youths arrested for terrorism.
Everyone keep putting blinders on though, it's just a small, small world.
Posted by: dan on May 22, 2009 07:21 AMThe reason he doesn't release the photos of Gitmo torture is becasue it looks bad.
Posted by: Guy on May 22, 2009 07:46 AMI happen to think there are additional reasons, and so does Obama.
Posted by: scottd on May 22, 2009 07:51 AMWhy do you support terrorists?
Why do you feel that plotting to kill jews and Americans is OK?
Why do you call yourself a boyscout when in fact you hate America?
Why do you think terrorists deserve american civil rights?
Why should we shut down a state of the art 200 million dollar detention center?and where should they be sent?
Why are all liberals dhimmi's?
Posted by: hellpig on May 22, 2009 07:55 AMHis post is a prime example of his silliness.
Obama thinks we NEED to close gitmo. He has offered several reasons why he thinks we need to do this.
Pudge writes that Obama has only offered a single reason regarding the need to close gitmo. In his mind, the other reasons were never offered, simply because he does not agree with those reasons.
This is a stupid distinction -- the kind offered by a clever child who simply wants to argue.
Still, if you want to rely on that kind of semantic footwork, there are logical consequences. If pudge wants to say that a reason is only offered if he personally agrees with the premise of that reason, then I would note that pudge has agreed that Obama has offered one argument that demonstrates the need to close gitmo. By his own logic, this would imply that pudge agrees that gitmo should be closed.
Now, pudge hasn't actually said this. He'll probably argue that this doesn't follow, or he may say that one argument demonstrates a need to close gitmo, but it doesn't demonstrate a sufficient need. Or he may come up with something new and bizarre. Whatever.
I've learned that arguing with pudge is like mud wrestling a pig. You just get dirty -- and the pig likes it!
Posted by: scottd on May 22, 2009 08:25 AMThinking you need and actually needing are two different things. If I say "I think I need a million dollars a year in salary and compensation", is that an actual need or a want? on the same token, if your wife says "we need to get new drapes because they don't match the carpet", is that a need or a want?
Obama is simply stating his feelings that gitmo should close, not an actual need for closing Gitmo. No such need actually exists.
Pudge: So you agree that the symbolism argument demonstrates that we need to close gitmo.
I never stated or implied that. I said it was Obama's only reason.
I happen to think there are additional reasons, and so does Obama.
Neither you nor he offered any. I keep waiting for anyone to supply any other reasons why we need to close Gitmo. No one is giving any.
No: they actually were not given.
Well, he did give one other reason: torture. But he himself does not agree with this reason, since he said we are no longer torturing there (although he dishonestly implied that we HAD been torturing there until he came along).
All his other reasons -- as I noted from the outset -- were simply benefits we could have by closing Gitmo, or ways we could work around not having Gitmo. They were not presented as reasons we need to, or even should, close Gitmo.
You yourself gave three reasons, scottd. One of them was the question-begging fallacy (he promised to do it!), and two of them were simply false: they were both based on the notion of the wrongness of an alternative legal system (the military commissions) which Obama has already killed. That's just like saying we need to close Gitmo because of torture, even though there is no torture going on there.
It's not that I disagree with those reasons, it's that they logically are not actual arguments for closing Gitmo. Saying torture is wrong or the military commissions act was wrong is an argument for not torturing and not using the military commissions, not for closing Gitmo.
1) You don't know what you are talking about.
2) I don't subscribe to judgment solely based upon religious beliefs. Your anti-muslim rhetoric clearly implies you do.
3) FYI - It is a long understood principle of the Constitution, that the rights it enumerates belong to people, not only American citizens. The U.S. Constitution bestows authority and privileges to government from the people, not the other way around. Terrorists are people who commit terrorists acts - which are crimes. Crimes are charged against people and they are either convicted or not.
Labeling people as criminals as a class is expedient and convenient, until it is YOUR class which is labeled as criminal.
If you want to torture, just a) withdraw from the Geneva Conventions and b) change the U.S. constitution to allow torture on U.S. soil. If the security situation is that serious that you need to suspend fundamental human liberties, then do it. Don't sneak around to Cuba to circumvent the law and hide what you're doing like cowards. Release the photos that show what Americans did to these prisoners. Release the information they got through torture, and compare it to the information they got without it.
Please explain to me what has changed in the U.S.'s moral compass that allowed them to face powerful and vicious Nazi and Japanese war machines in WWII without torturing, and jettison the ideals on which the country was founded because of a small band of religious fanatics cowering in the Afghan mountains. It doesn't seem that they're worth it to me. Have Americans become so cowardly and weak that they'll abandon the foundation on which their country was founded?
Posted by: Guy on May 22, 2009 10:19 AM
The reason to close GITMO is that it never should have been "opened" to begin with.
The reason for opening itGITMO was to create some extra-judicial place to allow the Executive Branch to operate with out oversight or accountability. THAT is fundamentally wrong and unconstitutional.
Furthermore, even if we could accept the need for the Executive Branch to exercise extra-constitutional power in a time of war, GITMO and the processes that were invented for it have failed to provide this nation, its people and its soldiers the promised benefit.
- Convictable criminals have not been prosecuted.
- Innocents are being held for years without recourse.
- Enemy POWs have been released to maime and kill American soldiers and our allies.
Whatever good and righteous intentions existed to create GITMO, it has not born fruit. And as this President and all his viable election opponents have stated - GITMOs failures hurt the USA and its war effort.
GITMO should be closed because it is a FAILURE.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 10:29 AMIt's pathetic seeing you play rhetorical games all the time. Why not talk about policy and about what you believe, not the word "need" or showing how much you think you remember from freshman debate class? It's a waste of time to talk to you because you never say what you think, you just point out what you think other people aren't saying while ignoring most of what they do say.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 10:33 AMGitmo was set up expressly to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution so that POWs from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq could be tortured at the President's discretion. There is no other reason for Gitmo's existence. Arguing for Gitmo is arguing for the legality of torture.
Declare those left over as POWs and ship them to prisons in the U.S. until the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are over. That's what was done to Japanese and German POW's in World War II. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here. Al Qaida is not more dangerous than the Nazi's, the Soviets, or even the Chinese.
Posted by: guy on May 22, 2009 10:33 AMPudge wants us to understand that some of these points are not reasons why Obama thinks we need to close gitmo. He says they are benefits, as if a benefit of an action is not a reason for pursuing such an action.
Pudge is a silly person.
Posted by: scottd on May 22, 2009 10:38 AMPudge give the rest of us the opportunity to discuss with his posts. That is a good thing.
But he is fundamentally incapable of participating in the discussions he starts.
If there is reason other than being an attention whore to his "rhetorical games" (or as i like to refer to it - Bob&Weave),
it eludes me, and i guess eludes you too. :-D
Lives were saved (!!!) and extremely valuable info was gained. Libs like to say this doesn't work, but apparently it worked great. I'm open to hearing what they think SHOULD have been done instead to finally gain this same information.
"Lives were saved (!!!) and extremely valuable info was gained."
That is only your opinion or the opinion of others.
The only possible evidence you can point to is Cheney's assertion that there is a Top Secret memo that proves it. After leaving office with no authority to do anything about it, he wants it to be declassified (and it will be). When Cheney had the authority to declassify it, in the face of knowing that either McCain or Obama would stop the policies he advocates as being needed to save lives and prevent terrorist attacks - Cheney did nothing.
And if you are so damn sure that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sang like a canary when waterboarded - please explain why it was done 183 times?
Maybe if we did it for the 184th time we'd get something more????
A- Show the exact quote where President Obama has referred to the practice of waterboarding as "torture". I have him yet to see or hear him use that exact word in relation to our practice using this interrogation tool so I want the exact phrase with citation. If he's not using the word, maybe you shouldn't either.
-or-
B-If you consider waterboarding to be torture, please post or link to a site where you've written to your representative, Senator or President himself protesting the continued use of this technique on U.S. serice personnel aka U.S. Citizens as this practice is still being conducted nearly daily on military installations around the world.
Barring fulfilling one of these simple requests, you've just shown that this exercise in bedwetting temper tantrum is simply partisan politics rather than genuine and sincere outrage.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 10:59 AMNot according to National Obama's own Intelligence chief Amdiral Blair But who are we to believe, someone who's seen all of the evidence or some anonymous poster on an a blog named Mikeboyscout?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 11:14 AMNot according to National Obama's own Intelligence chief Amdiral Blair But who are we to believe, someone who's seen all of the evidence or some anonymous poster on an a blog named Mikeboyscout?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 11:14 AMI'll take your request as one honestly seeking confirmation that waterboarding is torture.
Most believe it is.
See: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/04/05/open-letter-attorney-general-alberto-gonzales
The US has prosecuted both US soldiers and enemy combatants for the practice of using the technique of simulated/threatened drowning.
FYI - a quick google about Obama and torture yields this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama
As far as bedwetting... :-)
I am equally against our use of torture on our enemies as I am against our enemies using torture on our troops. The value of abiding by the treaties and conventions against the use of torture is to inform our enemies that if they do it to us, we'll hunt the bastards down and hold them accountable as War Criminals.
That sounds about right to me. I am also thankful of the opportunity pudge gives us to discuss important issues. Almost always the comment threads delve into much deeper policy debates that are interesting and valuable to have.
Rick D: Not according to National Obama's own Intelligence chief Amdiral Blair But who are we to believe, someone who's seen all of the evidence or some anonymous poster on an a blog named Mikeboyscout?
Then why don't you believe Obama who has access to even more information on this subject?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 11:17 AMIf simulated drowning is not torture, then there should be no problem doing it on U.S. soil to U.S. citizens. It would hold up to the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution. It would not be necessary to circumvent U.S. and International to do it. One man (i.e. the President) should not have the authority to decide what is and is not torture. No President is above the law. Cheney is saying he is.
But it's not a question of Obama or Cheney says anyways; it's a question of the Rule of Law.
Posted by: Guy on May 22, 2009 11:18 AMI am unfamiliar with Admiral Blair's conclusions regarding the efficacy of torture.
Can you please post the citation? Thanks.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 11:20 AMhow the hell do you sleep at night knowing you support the killing of AMERICANS?
and I didnt label them ..it is a FACT that they are ISLAMIC and TERRORISTS...why do facts scare you?
and GITMO isnt a failure its a godsend..
well I will let you get back to defending the islamic terrorists boyscout you do it so well
Michele, Lives were saved (!!!) and extremely valuable info was gained. Libs like to say this doesn't work, but apparently it worked great. I'm open to hearing what they think SHOULD have been done instead to finally gain this same information.
How do you know what happened? We need a commission to discover the truth here. Maybe things shouldn't be declassified, but we need to find out what torture did for us and whether we could have used alternative means to get the same information.
I highly doubt waterboarding saved any lives. The LA plot was disrupted by the FBI long before we waterboarded KSM.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 11:23 AMyou are a terrorist lover you think that the ISLAMIC TERRORISTS at gitmo are innocent you believe they are to have rights that american citzens have when they are TERRORISTS hell bent on killing AMERICANS
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that Gitmo prisoners have the constitutional right to haebus corpus.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 11:27 AMboyscout the stench of anti-americanism spewing from your words are treasonous...
now get back to work at ACORN
Posted by: hellpig on May 22, 2009 11:28 AMI'd rather be insane then a terrorist loving anti-american piece of liberal crap
no get back to spreading your terrorist loving propaganda traitor
Posted by: hellpig on May 22, 2009 11:33 AM"I wonder what the proof is of saying that info obtained via waterboarding was unreliable"
There is none. There can be none. Example: Have you stopped beating your husband yet?
If you can offer where you think it was reliable (for example waterboading Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided information to thwart the Los Angeles attack) I can refute it.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 11:38 AMThen can you explain why, as the commander in chief, that this practice is still taking place within the U.S. armed services as a training technique and on his watch?
By yours and Obama's assertions then, torture is not only still being conducted, but it's also being conducted on U.S. Citizens. Where is your outrage, John? A little consistency goes a long way right?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 11:39 AMActually, it's Bush/Cheney that revised the definition of torture to allow simulated drowning. When the Soviet's developed the technique to be used on American prisoners in the Stalin era, it was considered torture under U.S. and International law, and could be prosecuted as a War Crime. That is why they needed to set up Gitmo to circumvent the existing law.
Posted by: Guy on May 22, 2009 11:41 AMThe President has ordered that torture be stopped as Commander in Chief. Someone practicing simulated drowning would be disobeying a direct order from the Commander in Chief. If you know of this happening, you need to report it. This is a very serious charge, and could get the perpetrator court martialed and possibly tried for War Crimes, so please carefully consider your actions. You'll have to be able to prove your accusation.
Posted by: Guy on May 22, 2009 11:48 AMRick, forgive me if you've been to SERE, but if not you should understand the purpose of the training is to prepare and train US Armed Forces personnel in the event of capture by the enemy.
There is a significant difference between our training and using the technique on the enemy.
It is not torture of our troops because the trainee is instructed how to stop the training evolution at his/her wish at any time.
Stopping for reasons of the victim's own choice is not an option under "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 11:53 AMAre you saying waterboarding works? If yes, when did it work?
If i say waterboarding people who post as Michele prevents crime and promotes the health and welfare of all, you are ok with that?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 11:58 AMI have yet to hear a press reporter ask if this practice that has been done on U.S. personnel by U.S. personnel for the past 40 years has ceased to be used as a training technique. Perhaps if the press corps were actually being journalists rather that fawning at the feet of the annointed one, this obvious question could be posed so as no confusion as to Obama's intentions to ban all use of this method.
Barring evidence to the contrary, or some citation in the training field manual of the Armed services, I can only surmise that this "torture" as you and Obama have termed it is still being used regularly on U.S. installations. Ergo, torture is still being conducted under the Obama administration, if only the label applied has changed from "torture on detainees" to "interrogation training on Servicemen".
I await your letter of protestation to the President, Mikeboyscout. Will it be forthcoming?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 12:00 PMI'm just sayin'....
Posted by: Michele on May 22, 2009 12:01 PMUh, no. First because this is some poor straw man on your part. Second, having been there done that, I think i have a better understanding of SERE than your hypothetical musings. thanks! :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 12:03 PMAs for SERE training, most that have undergone that level of training aren't running around blogs touting their days in the boy scouts so I'm fairly your understanding of it is limited to only wherever your imagination takes you...but thanks for the laugh.
Perhaps J.J. can provide a coherent reason for "torture" to continue on U.S. Citizens now that the practice has been banned from being used on international terrorists.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 12:09 PMPutting me down is your right, but it BS and anybody with an IQ of 100 can see that's all you've got.
Cuz you have no idea about those who have gone to SERE, so you don't know what they do.
Apparently you do since you're the one falsely imtimating that you've been through SERE training there, mike.
Second, having been there done that, I think i have a better understanding of SERE than your hypothetical musings. ~ Mikeboyscout @ 119
Apparently I've hurt Mikes feelings. Sorry Mike, I figured someone that claimed he's "been there, done that" could handle a simple question posed on a blog. My bad. I'll definately ask your advice if I have any questions on tying knots though.=)
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 12:20 PMYou said:
"'Information obtained via [enhanced interrogation techniques] is unreliable.'
Not according to National Obama's own Intelligence chief Amdiral Blair But who are we to believe, someone who's seen all of the evidence or some anonymous poster on an a blog named Mikeboyscout?"
Here's what Blair is quoted as saying in the citation you provided:
"Adml Blair said:
"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means.
"THE BOTTOM LINE IS is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
What was your point again Rick is referring to ADML Blair?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 12:21 PMWell, banning these questionable torture practices was the first things Obama signed into law when he took office. You don't need an obscure memo to prove that. It's why Dick Cheney is making such a fuss and scaring people about America being less safe. But maybe you weren't paying attention.
So in assuming that people on U.S. installations are disobeying this direct order from the Commander in Chief, signed into law in January, you are simply wrong.
It doesn't surprise me though. Bad assumptions about what constitutes torture is what brought about the Gitmo mess in the first place.
Why not stick to the issues rather than hiding behind longwinded dodges.
Evidence: 'been there done that'.
Musings: 'I can only surmise.'
Were you looking for evidence or just spewing?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 12:33 PMMy question for those unable to connect the dots is "have these techniques ceased being used within the U.S. military on U.S. Citizens"?
So in assuming that people on U.S. installations are disobeying this direct order from the Commander in Chief, signed into law in January, you are simply wrong.
So what you're saying is that you "assume" a practice in use in training for over 40 years has been done away with with a stroke of a pen. Will you be writing the whitehouse to ensure that this is the case? Or are you just satisfied that this training technique can no longer be used on international terrorists caught on the battlefied and held at a detention center in guantanomo bay, Cuba?
Why not stick to the issues rather than hiding behind longwinded dodges.
Because that is the president's style. Rhetorical doublespeak is his forte.
Do you have a point?
The training at the SERE schools is NOT torture.
Do you know the definition of torture?
EVERYONE at a SERE school is there voluntarily.
EVERYONE at SERE is briefed repeatedly upon how to interrupt and cease an interrogation training evolution at the trainee's discretion. Failure on the part of the instructor to do so is a violation of a lawful order and punishable by the UCMJ.
Perhaps this has changed, and I am unaware of it. Do you have any PROOF that the SERE policy is torture? If so, PLEASE offer it.
Else...
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 12:47 PMThe reason for the establishment of SERE was a result of the filmed FALSE confessions of North Korean/Chineese captured and TORTURED pilots during the Korean War.
The North Koreans used simulated drowning (formerly known as water torture) and other TORTURE techniques along with threat of more TORTURE to extract FALSE confessions for the purpose of propaganda.
SERE is used to prepare our Soldiers, Sailors and Marines for the hostile treatment they may encounter in the event of being caught behind enemy lines.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 01:00 PM"Cheney, he says, "believes that waterboarding doesn't fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it's not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition.""
SOURCE: http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/mccain_cheney_endorses_spanish.php
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 01:09 PMRick D,
You keep writing yourself into a hole trying to defend an undefendable position (just like Cheney). The fact that SERE (military) personnel goes through the training doesn't mean they were tortured. Like stated, the purpose of the training is to condition the personnel on what they could expect. They are not inflicted with the action repeatedly. They also are not inflicted with multiple actions at the same time. Part of the Judge's decision to call Padilla's interrogation "torture" under the Geneva Convention guidelines was the fact that multiple actions were taken in concert together (e.g., stress-positions, sleep deprevation, etc.). The psychologists for the SERE program stated that the actions, individually taken could be performed on military personnel, without long term harm, but did not address when the actions were taken in concert with other actions. This is a big key and one that gets lost in the discussion. The "torture" wasn't just an individual action, it was repeated infliction of multiple actions that deprave the subject of their human status (when repeated multiple times and when combined with multiple factors). This is what the judge wrote up on what happened to Padilla.
John Jensen @92
I agree that one cannot think of Al Qaeda in terms of a conventional military foe. I read a good analogy the other day comparing them to the Mafia.
That's not exactly correct.
Survival, EVASION, RESISTENCE and ESCAPE.
The most important lesson learned at SERE are on how to avoid being captured and to escape. The reason being, you cannot trust the enemy - enforced by the resistance training.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 01:24 PMThen tc digs the hole he speaks of in the following sentence:
The fact that SERE (military) personnel goes through the training doesn't mean they were tortured.
I see, tc. It's "the training" when done to military personnel and "torture" when done to international terrorists caught on the battlefield. Thanks for clarifying your position.
Having said that, it would appear from that assessment that it is you, not I with the shovel in a hole up to your shouders in inconsistencies. My pointing it out is mere amusement as you guys twist in your pretzel logic.
Feel silly yet?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 01:30 PMWhen are you going to either SHUT UP and STOP accusing our Troops of torturing our troops or offer PROOF?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 01:35 PMYeah, that's real amusing Rick D.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 01:47 PM
@96- I guarantee you that if we used the SERE TORTURE techniques on you, we'd get you to confess ... Information obtained via TORTURE is unreliable.~ Mkeboyscout
As you can see above, I didn't, but you did. Take your meds, Mike. You're just embarrassing yourself here in your current mental state.
Back on topic: Obama's wish to close Gitmo is merely his "want" and not a "need". I think this thread has at least highlighted this reality for most.
In the event you don't get it, the techniques in resistance and survival training used at SERE are TORTURE techniques. The way they are used are NOT torture, because:
- EVERYONE at a SERE school is there voluntarily.
- EVERYONE at SERE is briefed repeatedly upon how to interrupt and cease an interrogation training evolution at the trainee's discretion. Failure on the part of the instructor to do so is a violation of a lawful order and punishable by the UCMJ.
The way these techniques were employed at GITMO is TORTURE.
And ... If President Obama, or a President McCain, or a President Barr wants to shut down GITMO why shouldn't he? What was the NEED to open it? And, if there was a need, was the need met?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 02:12 PM"our Nation’s policy decision to use so-called “harsh” interrogation
techniques during the War on Terror was a mistake of massive proportions. It damaged
and continues to damage our Nation in ways that appear never to have been considered or
imagined by its architects and supporters, whose policy focus seems to have been
narrowly confined to the four corners of the interrogation room. This interrogation policy
– which may aptly be labeled a “policy of cruelty” – violated our founding values, our
constitutional system and the fabric of our laws, our over-arching foreign policy interests,
and our national security."
"First, there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and
second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their
effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols
of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."
SOURCE: http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/June/Mora%2006-17-08.pdf
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 02:19 PMMs Rice repeated the expressed wish of US President George W Bush's administration to shut the camp.
"Of course we would like to see Guantanamo close"
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7155142.stm
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 02:50 PM"Guantanamo has become a major, major problem ... in the way the world perceives America and if it were up to me I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow but this afternoon ... and I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system,"
SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1043646920070610
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 02:57 PM"Yes. I would close Guantanamo Bay. And I would move those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. And I would proceed with the tribunals."
"Guantanamo Bay has become an image throughout the world which has hurt our reputation. Whether we deserve it or not, the reality is Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have harmed our reputation in the world, thereby harming our ability to win the psychological part of the war against radical Islamic extremism."
SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2658405_page5.shtml
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 03:02 PM"But he (Obama) did not give us any reason beyond symbolism why it's (closing GITMO) necessary."
SOURCE: http://soundpolitics.com/archives/012954.html
Maybe because a whole slew of others have provided reasons for 3+ years?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 03:10 PMThe Bush people believed they were operating within the law but they did things most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive.~ David Brooks
mmm yes, nothing like an armchair clairvoyant like Mr. Brooks to write this revisionist history 8 years later after everything has played out. Had the interrogations not been undertaken and a subsequent attack occurred, this same Mr.Brooks 6+ years later may have written the following excerpt instead:
The Bush people, [even thought they were by most accounts] operating within the law [decided not do do anything to extract further information that may have prevented the subsequent attacks of March,15 2003] but they did [the]thing most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive[,they did nothing to possibly obtain information from detainees at their disposal]. ~ David BrooksPosted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 03:24 PM
"Had the interrogations not been undertaken and a subsequent attack occurred, ..."
But subsequent attacks have occurred since the opening of GITMO.
- The 2002 Bali bombings occurred on 12 October 2002
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings
- The 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
- The 7 July 2005 London bombings.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
....
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 03:34 PMThere are FACTS and EXPERT opinion that GITMO and the use of TORTURE have been used against the US, its allies and its Armed Forces as tools to recruit insurgent fighters into combat - in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan....
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 03:53 PMA couple of additional links regarding this weeks attacks that were adverted by good police work, and how silly the so-called major threats were that Cheney constantly wants to throw around were.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/05/this_weeks_terr.html
and
http://www.schneier.com/essay-174.html
Only if Madrid, Bali and London are now on U.S. soil...
Also, excellent follow-up @138. Way to stay on point and not let Rick D's lunatic ramblings and insults throw you off.
Yeah, ramblings like my contention that the same method/technique applied to 2 different groups yet being called 2 distinctly different things is, afterall, a simple matter of semantics that shouldn't be pointed out to those that are logic impaired.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 04:08 PM"Only if Madrid, Bali and London are now on U.S. soil..."
What is your point?
In your statement critiquing Brooks at #145, you seemed to be saying GITMO and the TORTURE policies were not counterproductive and attacks didn't occur. Brooks would be singing a different tune if they did.
Are you saying now that ONLY attacks on US soil count? TELL US D_Obtuse_One!
Inquiring minds want to know.
And speaking of logic impaired...
"my contention that the same method/technique applied to 2 different groups yet being called 2 distinctly different things"
Your "contention" is flawed as i have pointed out several times. TORTURE is not only about the technique, but how it is employed.
Are you not smart enough to figure that out, or are you just avoiding the argument?
psst - we already know the answer. :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 04:19 PMNot a reason we NEED to, of course.
The reason for opening itGITMO was to create some extra-judicial place to allow the Executive Branch to operate with out oversight or accountability.
False; but even if true, irrelevant, because it doesn't tell us that Gitmo cannot be put to good use now.
GITMO and the processes that were invented for it have failed to provide this nation, its people and its soldiers the promised benefit.
Even if true, irrelevant, since we can simply stop using those processes while still using Gitmo. Indeed, we HAVE ceased using those processes, according to Obama, so they are no longer an issue.
Maybe because a whole slew of others have provided reasons for 3+ years?
Such as?
Jensen: Pudge, is your point that Obama is a stupid fool who simply makes rash decisions
No, I never implied or stated any such thing.
Is your point that we need to keep operating Gitmo as a prison?
No, I never implied or stated any such thing.
what is the policy you are trying to criticize or advocate for?
None at all. If there were one, I'd have said so.
My point -- as I have clearly stated -- is that Obama has told us we need to shut down Gitmo and has never given us a reason why beyond pure symbolism; and further, that he throws out many red herrings like "we tortured there years ago" as an apparent attempt to prevent people recognizing that this is his only reason.
If you do not care about this point, then you have no reason to discuss the issue with me. If you do, and you disagree with me, then you should present reasons why (you've not yet done so).
But for you to say that my point is pointless, well, why the hell do you care what I care about? You have done this many times. You seem to have a pathological need to encourage everyone to only care about what you care about. I care about Obama's dishonest rhetoric. So I write about that. If you don't care, then that's fine; but don't tell me that I shouldn't, because you're objectively wrong, as there's no such thing as "should" in such matters.
Why not talk ... about what you believe
I am. I believe Obama should use more honest and straightforward rhetoric; that he should say what he means instead of making things up to bolster his case.
not the word "need"
Yes, now you're telling me that I should not listen to what the President said, or at most, ignore it. How dare I try to evaluate what he says based on his prepared statements as presented to the nation.
showing how much you think you remember from freshman debate class
Please do not lie about me. I have never taken a debate class.
It's a waste of time to talk to you because you never say what you think
Please do not lie about me. I said precisely what I think. You just don't deem what I think worthy of being said, so you pretend that I had some ulterior motive. I had none.
you just point out what you think other people aren't saying while ignoring most of what they do say.
Wow, Jensen. That is EXACTLY what YOU are doing to ME. You're unbelievable ...
tc: I think the "image" issue is a significant and important factor. Do you feel that the "image" issue is unimportant, or that it isn't an important enough factor?
Neither. I do not have an opinion on whether we should or should not close Gitmo. I think that it is the only real reason offered why we need to close Gitmo and that we've not really had a serious debate about that issue. Instead we have a back-and-forth between people who believe we should or shouldn't waterboard, which is completely unrelated to whether Gitmo should remain open.
As I said at the very beginning, there are other potential benefits to closing Gitmo. But these are pretty much all practical matters, and there's pros and cons both ways (i.e.: ease of access to legal counsel, vs. putting dangerous terrorists in someone's backyard). None of them are reasons we need to close Gitmo, or keep it open: they are all things we can deal with one way or another.
The symbolism ("image") issue is something we probably cannot overcome easily. It may be a sufficient reason to close Gitmo. We should have this discussion nationally, instead of Obama basically just saying "waterboarding is un-American so we need to close Gitmo!"
As to the rest of your questions, those are all the questions I'd like to see being addressed by Obama and the Congress. Obama touched a little bit on some of them, such as saying we can put them in a Supermax. But is it that simple? Would we need increased security? Military personnel? New facilities?
Basically, this is what I want to see: a laying out of the financial costs of each option, and the other costs (increased risks of moving them to the U.S., harm to due process by keeping them in Gitmo, etc.). And then after you do that, even if Gitmo comes out as the cheaper option, then you can say, "but is that decreased cost worth keeping open this negative symbol which is used to recruit terrorists?"
"Yeah, ramblings like my contention"... of accusing US Armed Forces personnel of using TORTURE on their own brothers and sisters" for
"My ....mere amusement".
This is a person who we should take seriously; whose opinions and "ramblings" are sharper and better reasoned than those who wear and have worn the uniform of their country to defend the right of D_Obtuse_One to post here.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 04:33 PM"Maybe because a whole slew of others have provided reasons for 3+ years?
Such as?"
Ctrl F - SOURCE and you'll find at least 4.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 04:40 PMWhere?
TORTURE is not only about the technique, but how it is employed.
Do tell us then. Is this the "it's got to be applied for an extended period of time" bit? That's just plain retarded, Mike. Which is why I'm not surprised why you'd use it to obfuscate from the obvious answer that :
A- 1 method employed on
B- 2 different groups can't be called
C- 2 different things- one torture/one training.
Maybe breaking it down in the alphabet is easier for you to process.It's just plain insane of you and your ilk to pursue this semantic masterbation tact. Obama will certainly reward you your "obama worship" merit badge though, so no worries dude.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 04:47 PMYou said:
"The symbolism ("image") issue is something we probably cannot overcome easily. It may be a sufficient reason to close Gitmo. We should have this discussion nationally, instead of Obama basically just saying "waterboarding is un-American so we need to close Gitmo!""
Uh, it has been debated/discussed. Where have you been? And as i pointed out on this post already, every single viable 2008 presidential candidate was committed to closing GITMO; Obama, McCain & Barr.
It would seem your main point is that you weren't paying attention, so national security policy should be re-debated?
Because the man, Dick Cheney, the man who stated on Aug. 26, 2002:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." says so in 2009????
quibble with Obama not having the details worked out 10 months in advance, but the reasoning for the decision has been well presented for years. Give the sob credit for taking the correct action - please.
"Do tell us then."
Ok, i will, and i won't comment on why i need to and assume you're just too darn stupid and dense to figure it out for yourself BEFORE YOU ACCUSE THE US ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL.
SOURCE: UN Convention Against Torture - http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. "
GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU ???? Or shall you continue to ACCUSE Men & Women of courage, honor and conviction for YOUR AMUSEMENT?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 05:02 PMNow, you want to explain to us HOW SERE training = TORTURE?
Or will you be a gentleman and apologize to the Soldiers, Sailors and Marines whom you've libeled with your accusation of crime?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 05:13 PMHaha, pudge, to your immense credit these two sentences are amazing and perfectly sum your personality.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 05:14 PMPatriots are waiting. Where are you???
Are you the kind of person who thinks it is ok to throw mud on the men & women who wear the uniform and take the risks to keep you safe?
Or maybe you are just a yellow bellied coward who slinks away?
WE'RE WAITING!
Explain to us HOW SERE training = TORTURE?
Or apologize to the Soldiers, Sailors and Marines whom you've libeled and smeared with your accusation of crime for YOUR AMUSEMENT!
@ 157- Now, you want to explain to us HOW SERE training = TORTURE? ~ Mikeboyscout
Mike, your meds obviously aren't working in their current dosage. I'll repost one of your mutterings above to show that you are who you're looking for for an apology:
@ 96. ...And Michele... I guarantee you that if we used the SERE TORTURE techniques on you...~ Mikeboyscout
Or will you be a gentleman and apologize to the Soldiers, Sailors and Marines whom you've libeled with your accusation of crime?
yes, Mike. We're waiting on that apology from you.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 05:34 PMGO TO HELL you OBTUSE COWARDLY SOB!
HOW DARE YOU POST ON THIS BOARD THAT OUR TROOPS COMMIT CRIMES OF TORTURE AGAINST THEIR BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND OFFER NO PROOF?
HOW DARE YOU!?!
YOU ARE A PUNK A__ SOB.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 05:39 PMEven if I were foolish enough to use Windows, that wouldn't work. I've looked and seen none, perhaps you can tell me there they are? Humor me. And no -- once again -- pointing to conditions that no longer exist at Gitmo logically cannot be reasons we need to close Gitmo. I hope that is obvious to you by now.
Uh, it has been debated/discussed.
No, it hasn't. Obama handwaves at it, but it has not been seriously discussed. A serious discussion would not just say "Gitmo makes us look bad so we should close it," it would discuss the overall costs and benefits of closing Gitmo, then look at the effect of the symbolism of keeping it open, and then ask if it's worth it. Obviously, since we've only NOW, this week, begun to discuss what to do in the wake of closing Gitmo, this debate/discussion has not been happening.
And as i pointed out on this post already, every single viable 2008 presidential candidate was committed to closing GITMO; Obama, McCain & Barr.
For the record, Barr was not viable. Regardless, this does not in any way bolster your argument. How could it possibly do so? McCain saying it should be closed does not give any logical weight to any argument for the closing of Gitmo. This is obvious fact.
the reasoning for the decision has been well presented for years
Fine. So give me one reason that Gitmo needs to be closed other than symbolism. You've not yet done so.
Jensen: yawn. To your credit, you're not as completely dense as Mike is. However, you still insist on telling me what I should spend time talking about, and dishonestly arguing against me as though I am talking about those things. My original post is very clear: I was commenting on the fact that Obama said we "need" to close Gitmo. Yet you still insist that I was not doing that at all. Even though I clearly, unequivocally, was doing precisely that.
You're pathetic, Jensen. You're a lot like Pelosi. You make outrageous and self-evidently false claims and then when you get called on it you just make personal attacks and try to change the subject.
Typing in all caps doesn't make your point for you mike and despite what John Jensen said, you're the troll here and don't even realize it.
Now that's one for the irony file.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 06:24 PMIt is because of posturing morons like him that it became such a symbol in the first place. He has created this problem which he now needs to solve, and will likely threaten our security (hopefully in a relatively minor way) to do so.
Whether he's learned anything from the whole experience -- I doubt it. The fact that he's still criticizing Bush would seem to indicate otherwise.
Posted by: jvon on May 22, 2009 06:39 PMAs usual, Pudge makes some outrageously insensitive comments and gets his head handed to him by the more rational thinkers who come to this forum.
Good job guys. Well done.
Pudge! A challenge…. Perhaps you’d like to undergo water boarding like many other brave souls. Then you could pronounce with authority as to whether it is torture or just and “enhanced interrogation technique”.
Look, I don't want to focus on your nitpicky, narrow interpretation of Obama's rhetoric. What you are arguing about is a waste of my time. And yeah, I'm being critical of what you choose to talk about because when I or scottd try to move the ball with you you just stay put with it.
You don't follow through and you don't pursue your positions toward a conclusion. You just want to win on a very narrow set of terms constructed such you cannot be disproven -- and when that threat does present itself your replies simply lose even more content and depth and become one-line "you're wrong"s or calling people liars; usually focused on the most irreverent part of their comment.
So I'm being frank and really kind of rude to you. Why do I analyze you in-depth and not someone like Rick D? Well, frankly, because you are obviously very intellectually capable and you don't often try to provoke those who you disagree with just for the sake of it. In other words, you can do a lot better and make these conversations more valuable in the process.
If everyone here accepted your delusional and partisan view that Obama's sole reason for closing GTMO is "symbolism" then we're still at the same exact place: Should we close it or not? You don't even have an opinion on it.
I see little benefit in attacking the personality of Obama or how he chooses to frame his rhetoric. It's partisan politics, not real policy. You obviously enjoy constructing arguments, but I'm not sure why you bother participating in these comment threads if you have no wish to be intellectually honest or talk about the policy that surrounds these threads.
then when you get called on it you just make personal attacks and try to change the subject.
You never called me out on anything, because you don't talk about anything important. You focus on stupid shit, and insert wiggle and weasel words into every comment. You address nothing with specificity since it may allow the discussion to develop which may put you at threat of no longer holding the narrow frame that may allow you to "win."
The ideas surrounding Gitmo and its closure are so much more important than how persuasive Obama's speech was. Obama will never convince you of anything because you don't trust the man -- does that mean we have to sit through four years of your banal analysis of his speeches? It would surely be more fascinating to disagree with his policy positions in detail than with his speeches in no detail. By that I mean for an entire post about a man's speech, don't you think a quote should be brought into the fold?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 06:48 PMFirst of all, you stopped replying to me in that thread. Second, that is not what "irony" means.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 22, 2009 06:49 PMYou asked (again!)
"the reasoning for the decision has been well presented for years
Fine. So give me one reason that Gitmo needs to be closed other than symbolism. You've not yet done so."
Former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora,
"our Nation’s policy decision to use so-called “harsh” interrogation
techniques during the War on Terror was a mistake of massive proportions. It damaged
and continues to damage our Nation in ways that appear never to have been considered or
imagined by its architects and supporters, whose policy focus seems to have been
narrowly confined to the four corners of the interrogation room. This interrogation policy
– which may aptly be labeled a “policy of cruelty” – violated our founding values, our
constitutional system and the fabric of our laws, our over-arching foreign policy interests,
and our national security."
"First, there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and
second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their
effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols
of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."
SOURCE: http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/June/Mora%2006-17-08.pdf
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 07:05 PMI hope to meet you some day.
In the mean time, the family and I are off to place flags for this weekend.
In this debate/discussion over Memorial Day weekend, please try to keep in mind the thousands of brave, self sacrificing men and women who are doing the real fighting against terrorism.
And remember the thousands of families whose empty place at the table is the real cost of the fight.
If you can, do something for them.
http://www.uso.org/
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2009 07:12 PMOn the first count, guilty. Apparently I figured that since your idea of "fairness" was one person paying more for the same services that a second person receives at a much reduced rate, it was pointless to continue to highlighting the illogic in your statement. But time permitting, John, I may get back to that thread. By the way John, shouldn't we all pay for all services comparable to our incomes with your "progressive taxation" Theorem? Address it on the thread not here as it's off topic.
On count two, you're wrong.
Irony-
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
Sure you do Mike. My e-mail works so nothing's stopping you from making a meeting arrangement.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2009 07:17 PMyou worthless pieces of shit do not even deserve to call yourselves American....I hope the next terrorist attack brought about by the treasonous POTUS effects one of you personally..you deserve no less...traitors all
fucking dhimmi's rot in hell
Posted by: EagleScout on May 22, 2009 07:21 PMPudge, I believe I argue in a very intellectually honest and fair way
Considering that you continue to maintain that I didn't mean what I said, and that I was deceptive to insist that I did mean what I said ... no. You've not been honest or fair at all.
What you are arguing about is a waste of my time.
Then don't read what I write, or comment on it. Problem solved.
I'm being critical of what you choose to talk about because when I or scottd try to move the ball with you you just stay put with it.
Funny, you said "because" but then you just restated your position without actually giving a reason. You're just affirming that you're criticizing me for finding something interesting and important that you find to be neither. In other words, you're being an idiot.
You don't follow through and you don't pursue your positions toward a conclusion.
False on both counts. See my comments to tc@151, which utterly prove you wrong.
So I'm being frank and really kind of rude to you
Yes, because -- as I've demonstrated -- you are trying to force me to talk about something I am not talking about. And when I don't, you get annoyed with me, as if I have any obligation to talk about something I am not talking about.
Why do I analyze you in-depth
You don't. Instead, you just make things up, pretending that I am not talking about what I clearly am talking about.
you can ... make these conversations more valuable
If you think what I write is not valuable, don't read it or comment on it.
If everyone here accepted your delusional and partisan view that Obama's sole reason for closing GTMO is "symbolism"
Please do not lie about me. As I've said many times -- as I said from the very beginning -- this was his sole reason that we NEED to close Gitmo.
then we're still at the same exact place: Should we close it or not? You don't even have an opinion on it.
So? Why must I?
I see little benefit in attacking the personality of Obama or how he chooses to frame his rhetoric.
I did not attack his personality, and I do find significant value in attacking his rhetorical methods. If you don't, then don't read or comment on my posts.
It's partisan politics, not real policy.
No, it's not partisan politics at all; I've made many similar criticisms of Bush (including in the leadup to the Iraq War, where I heavily criticized the way he was framing his arguments for the war).
But yes, it's not policy either: so what? Much of what interests me isn't about policy. Obviously, you're only interested in policy, as you keep reminding us. So, once again: don't bother commenting if you're not interested.
I'm not sure why you bother participating in these comment threads if you have no wish to be intellectually honest or talk about the policy that surrounds these threads.
First, you've not given a shred of evidence that I've been dishonest in any way whatsoever. Second, why should I talk about the policy, when what interested me enough to write about this topic -- as clearly noted in the post -- was about Obama's rhetoric and reasons behind the policy, rather than the policy itself?
Again, you are being a complete idiot: attacking me because I am interested in having a discussion you're not interested in. That's pathologically stupid.
You never called me out on anything, because you don't talk about anything important.
This sentence frames your idiotic view in a nutshell. In your view, what I say only matters if it is something you care about ... even if the topic before us came from me, and is something you admitted you don't care about.
The ideas surrounding Gitmo and its closure are so much more important than how persuasive Obama's speech was.
Then start your own discussion about it.
does that mean we have to sit through four years of your banal analysis of his speeches?
Nope. You can simply not read what I write.
It would surely be more fascinating to disagree with his policy positions in detail than with his speeches in no detail.
Then don't read it.
Jensen, let me be clear: you have several times before criticized me for what I have chosen to write about, saying it is unimportant and wasteful. You've also attacked me for how I choose to spend my time. Neither of these criticisms is in any way rational or valid. I can deal with this occasional nonsensical criticism, but you've not only made it a habit, but it's apparently become your mission. If you use these arguments toward me again, I will take my own advice to you, and stop reading what you write, as I no longer read the comments of other wastes of time like Unkl Witz.
Are you really this dense?
Posted by: pudge on May 22, 2009 10:17 PMI am not accusing you of being dishonest, because you do not lie. I think you are sometimes intellectually dishonest because I believe you intentionally omit things to gain the upper-hand. This extends further than simply not talking about what interests me.
The Alito post showed to me that you were less interested in delivering the most agreed-upon history about that matter than calling Leahy -- a democrat -- a liar. A post like that deserved mention that the vast majority detected no filibuster. A post like this OP deserved a quote from the person you're summarizing. These omissions are hard for me to justify. I believe this pattern of omissions follows in your comments.
Given the limited ability to discuss things online, things like this crop into a frustrating pattern. A handful of the progressive commenters seem to represent a decent portion of the commenters here who try to exercise intellectual capacity (rather than just one-liners or attacks) -- and almost roundly we note the difficulty in having a progressing conversation with you. That conversation doesn't have to shift from rhetoric to policy based on my wants, but shouldn't a lively discussion at least evolve? Perhaps it already does and I am just ignoring that.
Those of us that do earn your response often present good points that I think you should do more than just construe to illustrate that your OP was correct or that we have not sufficiently disproven your OP. You being the arbiter on what sort of statements disprove yourself is an impossible barrier for us to climb -- so why even make claims like, "you've yet to disprove me"? To you, we never will!
I'm not attacking you for how you choose to spend your time, and I apologize for that implication. I am making an assumption that the reason you post about politics is because you strongly care about being informed about these issues. I can admit that I've learned a great deal from speaking with you. I'm not saying you're uninformed, but I don't think you're going to learn anything from those that disagree with you if you continue to present your own rhetoric in this way. And wouldn't we all want to learn how to be more persuasive to those who disagree with us? But, you're right, it's your call and I need to back off. :)
It is nothing personal, you are easily the best blogger here. And it's interesting that you're more interested in, for example, preciseness in rhetoric than policy, thanks for letting me know. I apologize for trivializing your interest, that wasn't my intent. I have been very critical of you, and I respect that you are willing to directly respond to that criticism.
---
Moving on from that, like most political nerds you seem to have opinions on everything (me too, of course). How did GTMO slip through the cracks? Is it an illustration of some internal conflict about the place? Or the acknowledgment that it is an awkward question in general about where to store "enemy combatants" who represent no flag?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 23, 2009 02:03 AMI don't, and you have no example of it.
The Alito post showed to me that you were less interested in delivering the most agreed-upon history about that matter than calling Leahy -- a democrat -- a liar
Of course I don't care what is "the most agreed-upon history." As it is irrelevant, why should I care about it?
A post like this OP deserved a quote from the person you're summarizing.
I was in a hotel room listening to the speech live when I wrote what I did. And I had no DVR to pause/rewind. So sorry: no exact quotes. I don't apologize, especially since no one seriously argued that I was misrepresenting him: despite many opportunities, no one here offered any other reasons why Obama said Gitmo needed to be closed. Everything he said either was not a reason to close Gitmo (but was, rather, just about possible benefits to closing it) or was unrelated to Gitmo (such as "no more torture," as there already is no torture at Gitmo).
But now I am home, and here is a quote:
"... instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year."
He cites several examples of how Gitmo harms us as a symbol, and then says THIS IS WHY he is closing it. No other reasons: that alone. It makes us look bad. It's a negative symbol.
(Arguably when he said it "has weakened national security" he was referring to the low conviction rate; but if so, then that's dishonest of Obama, since the use of the military commissions and keeping the detainees at Gitmo are two separate issues: we can have either without the other. So I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume he is talking about symbolism there, too.)
And unfortunately, Obama never engaged in an actual discussion of these "costs," except in terms of symbolism which cannot be well-quantified.
These omissions are hard for me to justify.
I don't care.
I believe this pattern of omissions follows in your comments.
Shrug. Once again, it's just about you trying to make up things that aren't there in the first place, just like you -- and your favorite justices -- invent law that doesn't exist.
A handful of the progressive commenters seem to represent a decent portion of the commenters here who try to exercise intellectual capacity (rather than just one-liners or attacks) -- and almost roundly we note the difficulty in having a progressing conversation with you.
I don't care at all. Sorry. I am only interested in talking about what I am interested in talking about. If you want that discussion to "progress" into something I am uninterested in talking about, then that's your problem, not mine.
shouldn't a lively discussion at least evolve?
No, I see no reason it should. It may, it may not. There's no rule here, and no obligation of any sort on the participants.
You being the arbiter on what sort of statements disprove yourself is an impossible barrier for us to climb
Each of us is our own arbiter. How else could that possibly work? Maybe a government-funded mediator? Colin Powell thinks we want more government in our lives; perhaps this is a good place to start.
so why even make claims like, "you've yet to disprove me"? To you, we never will!
Shrug. I rarely make points that are disprovable. That doesn't mean it's impossible to do. But you need to actually address what I say and make points against what I say in order to disprove me, and you usually don't.
I'm not attacking you for how you choose to spend your time
You did, and you have in the past.
I am making an assumption that the reason you post about politics is because you strongly care about being informed about these issues.
That doesn't imply I want to discuss them here or with you.
And wouldn't we all want to learn how to be more persuasive to those who disagree with us?
I was not trying to persuade anyone to agree with my views. I almost never do.
it's interesting that you're more interested in, for example, preciseness in rhetoric than policy, thanks for letting me know
That's not true, and I never said that. I said rhetoric interests me, not that it interests me more.
And ironically, you have been engaging on attacks against my rhetoric, which is itself arguing about rhetoric rather than policy. Presumably you do so because you find my use of rhetoric to be an obstacle to some larger goal of understanding and progress on issues; this is, of course, why I am criticizing Obama's rhetoric.
Moving on from that, like most political nerds you seem to have opinions on everything
I don't. One big example is the death penalty. I really don't have an opinion on whether we should, or should not, execute criminals. I am happy to leave it up to the democratic will of the people. I do believe it is flat-out wrong to claim that the death penalty is constitutionally forbidden; I think for most crimes it would represent "cruel and unusal," but not all; I think it is justified and proper to have significant checks in place (including temporary moratoria where the checks are not trusted). But I have no opinion whether we should or should not actually execute people.
How did GTMO slip through the cracks?
I already explained this to tc@151. I have no opinion on whether Gitmo should be closed because holding such an opinion for me qould require a cost-benefit analysis that does not, to my knowledge, exist.
We need to identify the actual financial costs of each plan (do we need to build new facilities? how much does it cost to move them? do we need new personnel? what are the current costs?); then throw in the other direct costs (such as risks of moving prisoners to, and holding them in, a Supermax facility; the cost to liberty of keeping prisoners in places that lawyers have problems getting to; etc.).
Then we ask ourselves -- if Gitmo comes out on top -- whether the negative symbol Gitmo represents is worth maintaining in order to keep Gitmo open for the lower costs. Of course, if Gitmo comes out losing the cost-benefit analysis, then perhaps there's no reason to keep it open.
180 posts and it all comes down to covering their ears and singing lalalalalala.
Posted by: dan on May 23, 2009 09:22 AMThis is a thoughtful and meritorious argument that must be taken seriously. I say this as a prior supporter of Bush and Cheney.
But my question is, how is Obama acting substantively differently than Bush? What I heard Obama say was:
"--When feasible, try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts.
--When necessary, try those who violate the rules of war through Military Commissions.
--When possible, transfer to third countries those detainees who can be safely transferred."
Did I miss it, or is Obama sidestepping the due process issue? Words like "feasible", "necessary", and "possible" sound alot like choosing the means to fit a desired end. The President devoted a lot of time to moral posturing and whining about his predessors, but he seems no more concerned about fairness and due process than those whom he accusses of moral defiencies.
Obama may have been right in that Bush and Cheney may have indeed lost their war somewhat in their ardent desire to protect the country. But for Obama to close Gitmo merely as a symbolic gesture and while behaving substantively the same way is moral hypocrisy.
Posted by: northwestdoug on May 23, 2009 09:52 AMI disagree. We are no longer withholding "due process" from anyone at Gitmo, so therefore, this cannot be a reason why Gitmo should be closed. This is an important by itself, but it is not an argument for closing Gitmo.
Did I miss it, or is Obama sidestepping the due process issue? Words like "feasible", "necessary", and "possible" sound alot like choosing the means to fit a desired end.
No, not really. Sometimes people cannot be tried in federal courts, because the evidence against them is classified and cannot fit the rules of evidence. Such people could then be subject to military commissions, framed in such a way that due process is still followed.
[Obama] seems no more concerned about fairness and due process than those whom he accusses of moral defiencies.
There is no serious link between "fairness and due process" and "trying terrorists in federal courts." Even the Supreme Court case that overturned the Military Commissions Act explicitly suggested that a parallel commissions system COULD exist that respected habeas corpus and due process: they merely said that the implemented one did not do so sufficiently.
The world is a nasty place, just because we as Americans are so spoiled doesn't change that. We can stamp our feet all we want.
That would mean that John Jensen, not privy to any evidence to back up his ridiculous assertion, is directly challenging Obama's own National Intelligence chief Adm. Blair (whom is privy to all of the evidence) as to the value of the intelligence obtained. Stick to the blogs, John. Let the experts like Blair comment on the value of the intelligence gathered from international terrorists through enhanced interrogation measures.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2009 11:43 AMObama Worried Born Alive Infants' Protection Act Would Be Too Burdensome on Abortionists, 2002 Transcript Shows
How any human being can argue against saving the life, especially of a born alive child and then claim they are against torture is beyond me.
Posted by: pagar on May 24, 2009 05:11 PMThat's not true, and I never said that. I said rhetoric interests me, not that it interests me more.
And ironically, you have been engaging on attacks against my rhetoric, which is itself arguing about rhetoric rather than policy. Presumably you do so because you find my use of rhetoric to be an obstacle to some larger goal of understanding and progress on issues; this is, of course, why I am criticizing Obama's rhetoric.
I was being totally sincere not critical.=. (The "for example" was inserted because I'm sure it's not a universal preference for each day). btw, you make a great point in your last paragraph of this quote.
One big example is the death penalty. I really don't have an opinion on whether we should, or should not, execute criminals. I am happy to leave it up to the democratic will of the people. I do believe it is flat-out wrong to claim that the death penalty is constitutionally forbidden; I think for most crimes it would represent "cruel and unusal," but not all; I think it is justified and proper to have significant checks in place (including temporary moratoria where the checks are not trusted). But I have no opinion whether we should or should not actually execute people.
Well, we admit that a majority of issues are left up to the will of the people (of the states) -- it surprises me as one of the those who represents that "will" you don't have an opinion on the death penalty. I'm not arguing you must form an opinion, but it seems idiosyncratic but I must admit that it is interesting to hear.
I do not support the death penalty in any criminal case, but share your same position on the constitutionality.
We need to identify the actual financial costs of each plan (do we need to build new facilities? how much does it cost to move them? do we need new personnel? what are the current costs?); then throw in the other direct costs (such as risks of moving prisoners to, and holding them in, a Supermax facility; the cost to liberty of keeping prisoners in places that lawyers have problems getting to; etc.).
Then we ask ourselves -- if Gitmo comes out on top -- whether the negative symbol Gitmo represents is worth maintaining in order to keep Gitmo open for the lower costs. Of course, if Gitmo comes out losing the cost-benefit analysis, then perhaps there's no reason to keep it open.
Social cost is a large problem in economics, wouldn't it be a problem here too? There are potential costs in keeping Gitmo open that can't be quantified. If we accept that it is a recruitment tool to some extent as many other people have argued, the "costs" could be potentially disastrous to our long-term national security. It may be less of a problem now that Obama is in office, but of the world perceives us in a certain way that can have more than symbolic consequences.
Further, I disagree with the whole concept -- I want the government to be in my image of a good government, not always the image that is cheapest to operate in the short-term. If I feel that GTMO is a moral wrong in many ways -- or, at least, was -- then I want no continuing association with it as long as the cost is marginal in the spectrum of things.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 25, 2009 08:53 PMThere's no objective way to answer it because it can't be quantified, which is why you add the direct costs up first, and then add the indirect and less-quantifiable costs. Once you've come to a conclusion there, then you ask, is it worth closing it in order to get rid of this symbol?
This is what the Iraqis did, for example, with Abu Ghraib. Many people wanted it closed. But the cost of building a new prison was so great, they decided to keep it, even though it meant maintaining an negative symbol.
If we accept that it is a recruitment tool to some extent as many other people have argued, the "costs" could be potentially disastrous to our long-term national security.
I can't accept that Gitmo is somehow a worse symbol for the United States than Hollywood is, to most of these people. Gay marriage, Quentin Tarantino, and Britney Spears all have a much worse impact on our national security than Gitmo does.
"I can't accept that Gitmo is somehow a worse symbol for the United States than Hollywood is, to most of these people. Gay marriage, Quentin Tarantino, and Britney Spears all have a much worse impact on our national security than Gitmo does."
Well, that's it then i guess.
Even though the Bush administration disagreed with you on this, Colon Powell disagreed, McCain disagrees, and many, many more - You disagree with their assessment.
So, it is not a matter of Obama or anyone else citing a reason - you think it should be left open unless and until there is some economic assessment. Which, no one on any side of this issue has called for.
thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 08:54 AMEven though the Bush administration disagreed with you on this, Colon (sic) Powell disagreed, McCain disagrees, and many, many more - You disagree with their assessment.
Quote for me ANY of those people disagreeing with me. Just one quote. You cannot.
you think it should be left open unless and until there is some economic assessment
I do not believe the obviously nonsensical notion that keeping Gitmo open will necessarily lead to catastrophic destruction. Jensen also does not believe this. Neither does Obama or anyone else you mention. You apparently do.
Which, no one on any side of this issue has called for.
False.
I find that incredibly difficult to believe. People around the world are not fools -- they do not hate us for our freedoms or any euphemisms toward us. The middle east in particular dislikes America mostly for its intervention in Israel as well as our recent invasion of a sovereign, middle-eastern country that had nothing to do with 9/11 which we occupy to this day. A third reason is that most of these people live in societies where free media is not available and the anti-American propaganda is strident.
I do not mean to start a debate about Israel or Iraq, but men are not fools who hate America because of Prop. 8 or MC Hammer. That's surely a superficial view of our important foreign policy decisions: No matter what we do on the main stage, we'll still have a pop culture that'll get us bombed.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 26, 2009 09:47 AMthey do not hate us for our freedoms
No, but they DO hate us for the various EXPRESSIONS of our freedoms and the influence those expressions have on other cultures, including their own.
The middle east in particular dislikes America mostly for its intervention in Israel
Another good example. Ron Paul and others say our support of Israel has made us less safe. He's probably right. Does that mean we should stop supporting Israel? Of course not. No moreso should we shut down Gitmo just because it "makes us less safe." We need to evaluate the whole picture.
our recent invasion of a sovereign, middle-eastern country that had nothing to do with 9/11
If by that you mean Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, right. No one ever said it was. So what's that got to do with anything?
... which we occupy to this day.
It's beside the point, as Iraq-9/11 is, but we have not occupied -- in the common sense of the word -- Iraq for years. We occupy Iraq only in the same basic sense in which we occupy South Korea and Germany.
A third reason is that most of these people live in societies where free media is not available and the anti-American propaganda is strident.
Yep. And what are some of the elements of that propaganda? Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, gay marriage, Britney Spears ...
Would this alone be enough to create a significant number of terrorists? Nope. Not Gitmo, not Spears. But they do add fuel to the fire.
U.S. Central Command Chief, General David Petraeus:
"I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward.
But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
SOURCE: http://www.rferl.org/content/transcript_RFERL_Interviews_US_Central_Command_Chief_General_David_Petraeus/1738626.html
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 10:16 AMFirst, Petraeus just agrees there that THE reason to close Gitmo is symbolism. You keep giving quotes that simply back up my claim.
Second, no one disagrees that the U.S. should follow the Geneva Convention. Straw man.
Third, you have yet to provide a quote disagreeing with my claim that our culture is worse for our national security than Gitmo is. Will you?
No, "THE" reason is not JUST symbolism per the numerous military, judiciary, diplomacy, political experts I have cited. You need to read what they say. The effect of the symbolism of torture at GITMO is the increased ability of the enemy to recruit combatants in to the field. For the experts I have cited, this is not an academic blogging exercise.
Also, as I cited at #27 days ago, symbolism was NOT the ONLY reason Obama cited last week:
"Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system."
So - the other reason cited by Obama (and others prior to last week) is that the GITMO system failed to bring terrorists to justice.
(there's more there too, if you care to read it.)
Second, no one where disagrees that detainees should be held in accordance with the Geneva Convention? On this thread?
As you should understand by now, the establishment of a facility at GITMO for "unlawful combatants" was expressly for the purpose of holding and processing outside the Geneva Convention. That the detainees were outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention was specifically argued by the Bush Administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Third - no. Not unless and until you provide citations of American military, judiciary, diplomacy or political experts that allege our "culture" is worse for our national security than GITMO, AND unlike GITMO, changing our "culture" is something we should undertake to improve our national security.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 10:43 AMAt least in Israel we can argue our intervention is protecting a democracy within the middle east. With GTMO I do not see the moral claim. Further, our allies can recognize that Israel is an independent government with its own missteps. We own Gitmo and we own the missteps that have occurred there.
If by that you mean Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, right. No one ever said it was. So what's that got to do with anything?
Well, we're not going to argue the past here, but there was a clear attempt to muddy the waters about a link. Particularly, 9/11 ringleader Atta meeting with Iraqi forces in the Czech Republic -- a claim that Cheney's office leaked to the NY Times so that Cheney himself could cite the Times story on Meet the Press. This meeting never occurred according to the 9/11 commission.
However, what I meant is that people in the middle east know that the drumbeat for Iraq started after 9/11 even though there was no connection. They may interpret it as us lashing out at the middle east. I find it hard to disagree: we almost certainly wouldn't have invaded Iraq without a terrorist attack on American soil.
Third, you have yet to provide a quote disagreeing with my claim that our culture is worse for our national security than Gitmo is. Will you?
It is impossible to prove that claim one way or the other without inventing a machine to determine one's motives.
However, it is quite manipulative for you to say that something like "gay marriage" is more responsible passion against America than a tangible place where the rights of people were summarily denied: GTMO. We didn't deserve 9/11 in any way, but it is not difficult to document that our strong interventionist foreign policy has created lasting resentment in the middle east. bin Laden's jihad began when we launched our first Gulf War from Saudi Arabia, not because he predicted that 14 years in the future Massachusetts would allow gay marriage. Is the middle east more focused on Iraqi, Israel and GTMO or Britney, Tom Cruise, and gay marriage? I don't think we need to commission research to find that out.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 26, 2009 10:52 AMPudge asserts in his lead line
"Let's be clear: President Obama gives us only one single reason why the detention facility at Guatanamo Bay needs to be closed: because it makes us look bad. Because it is a negative symbol."
That is FALSE.
Obama identified 3 reasons to close GITMO in his speech at the National Archives on Thursday, May 21, 2009.
SOURCE: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/21/obama_guantanamo_speech_transcript_96610.html
1. Constitutional Values.
2. GITMO's ineffectiveness in bringing terrorists to justice
3. GITMO's ineffective process of releasing detainees resulting in putting combatants back in the field against the US Armed Forces.
The first two points are agreed upon by the former Administration (except Cheney), by McCain and many other.
The third point was cited by Cheney in his speech at the AEI on Thursday, May 21.
CHENEY: "The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East."
SOURCE: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/21/cheney_obama_keeping_america_safe_96615.html
LET'S BE CLEAR,
there is more than one reason to close GITMO, and the President and his political opponents agree. There are but a handful of people who don't agree that shutting down GITMO is the right decision at this time.
No, "THE" reason is not JUST symbolism per the numerous military, judiciary, diplomacy, political experts I have cited
Such as whom? Petraeus cited only symbolism in your most recent quote, for example.
The effect of the symbolism of torture at GITMO is the increased ability of the enemy to recruit combatants in to the field.
Right. Like I said: symbolism.
Also, as I cited at #27 days ago, symbolism was NOT the ONLY reason Obama cited last week
Yes, it was.
"Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system."
Again: that has NOTHING to do with Gitmo, but with the system of justice being used, which is irrespective of whether we have these people in Gitmo or somewhere else. Obama even said this in his own speech! Just a few minutes later, he said, "Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo."
That the detainees were outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention was specifically argued by the Bush Administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
That's different from what I said, and what you said. You said we should "treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention." Detainees not covered by the Geneva Convention ARE, by definition, being held in accordance with it. If baseball rules say, "any baseball bat that is green or yellow must have latitudinal stripes of one each thick, every four inches," and you have a BLUE bat with no stripes ... your bat is in accordance with the rules.
Third - no. Not unless and until you provide citations of American military, judiciary, diplomacy or political experts that allege our "culture" is worse for our national security than GITMO ...
Please don't be so blatantly dishonest. YOU said they disagree with me when I said that, so YOU have to provide the citations.
... AND unlike GITMO, changing our "culture" is something we should undertake to improve our national security.
And more dishonesty. This is completely unrelated to anything I said, and no quotes would be required to address it.
Obama identified 3 reasons to close GITMO in his speech at the National Archives on Thursday, May 21, 2009.
No, he did not.
1. Constitutional Values.
Which Constitutional values did he say leaving Gitmo open would violate? He offered none. He did offer such arguments against the military commissions system, however.
2. GITMO's ineffectiveness in bringing terrorists to justice
Again, those are -- and by Obama's own words -- not arguments against Gitmo, but against the military commissions system.
3. GITMO's ineffective process of releasing detainees resulting in putting combatants back in the field against the US Armed Forces.
Ibid.
At least in Israel we can argue our intervention is protecting a democracy within the middle east. With GTMO I do not see the moral claim.
Irrelevant. The point is -- and you concede it -- that you must balance the pros and cons ... which obviously requires we find out what they are.
Well, we're not going to argue the past here, but there was a clear attempt to muddy the waters about a link.
False.
Particularly, 9/11 ringleader Atta meeting with Iraqi forces in the Czech Republic -- a claim that Cheney's office leaked to the NY Times so that Cheney himself could cite the Times story on Meet the Press. This meeting never occurred according to the 9/11 commission.
But it DID occur according to the Czech government. I agree that the claim is dubious, but there's also apparently some evidence for it that we didn't make up. Further, Bush said -- in no uncertain terms -- that there was no evidence that Hussein's Iraq was in any way involved with 9/11.
However, what I meant is that people in the middle east know that the drumbeat for Iraq started after 9/11 even though there was no connection.
Also, the drumbeat for Iraq started after I started my new job, even though there was no connection.
I find it hard to disagree: we almost certainly wouldn't have invaded Iraq without a terrorist attack on American soil.
I don't agree. I've never agreed with that. It certainly increased the liklihood of invasion by us, but Bush had seen -- before he took office -- Hussein as a destabilizing threat in the Middle East that should be neutralized. Indeed, it could be that 9/11 delayed an invasion of Iraq.
It is impossible to prove that claim ...
I was asking Mike, who said that many people disagree with my claim. Therefore I presumed he could provide a quote of those people saying so.
However, it is quite manipulative for you to say that something like "gay marriage" ...
I don't see how.
bin Laden's jihad began when we launched our first Gulf War from Saudi Arabia, not because he predicted that 14 years in the future Massachusetts would allow gay marriage
And I would not say that our presence in Saudi Arabia was less important that our culture. I am saying Gitmo is less important than our culture.
Regardless, we can't know which is "worse." We know both have a negative effect. And we should not go about trying to change any of it simply because of how others view us: we should, rather, look at the big picture.
You wrote: "Regardless, we can't know which (GITMO or our 'Culture')is "worse.""
Maybe, but there is testimony available regarding the impact of GITMO. I've cited some in this thread already. Here's another:
Matthew Alexander - a 14-year military interrogator who oversaw more than a thousand interrogations and conducted more than 300 in Iraq himself.
"At the prison where I conducted interrogations, we heard day in and day out, foreign fighters who had been captured state that the number one reason that they had come to fight in Iraq was because of torture and abuse, what had happened at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib."
SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfYov5o5_2s
Can you cite any source that asserts the recruiting power of our "culture" (gay marriage, Britney Spears is equal to that of GITMO? I asked you before, but you passed on that.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 12:33 PMYou are impossible to discuss with!
"Obama identified 3 reasons to close GITMO in his speech at the National Archives on Thursday, May 21, 2009.
No, he did not."
That's the best you got????
Never mind the title of the speech was "Protecting Our Security and Our Values"
Never mind the specific items of the speech.
Never mind the word "symbol" is used once,
and the word value is used 10 times in the speech.
Never mind the facts.... cuz Pudge (a.k.a. Bob&Weave) says "No, he did not.".
ok, you win again. Now, for your next trick - pull a rabbit out of a hat. :-p
and pudge....
Your title....
"Obama's Reason for Closing Gitmo: "It Looks Bad""
Who said "It Looks Bad"?
Obama?
or
only YOU? :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 01:05 PMTypically, the Office of the Vice President of the United States isn't in the business of leaking intelligence from other nations to the press such that he can cite news reports later in the week. The fact that the intelligence is wrong is one thing. The fact that is was used as justification for war is something entirely different. The former happens, the latter is a disgrace on the executive. The administration repeatedly hinted that al Queda and Hussein were linked in some way as one of the justifications for war.
I do not believe a peaceful America could have possibly invaded Iraq. Congress wouldn't have gone for it, the media wouldn't have gone for it, and the country wouldn't have gone for it.
The tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who died will leave a lasting impression of America that is hard to overcome for our great nation. Closing GTMO and safely withdrawing from Iraq are first good steps. To say they hate us for our culture of excess is just like saying they hate us for our freedoms: it just doesn't comport. We have had serious interventionist policies across the world for nearly a century, with Iraq being the latest example. Iraq, Israel, and Gitmo are substantial reasons why some folks resent America -- to discourage analysis of those foreign policy decisions based on the red herring of "we shouldn't change our culture for them" is misguided.
Our allies have significant misgivings about GTMO and Iraq, as well, and I think we can understand that fact and empathize why without blaming gay marriage.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 26, 2009 01:34 PMJohn in addition to all you said, an interventionist foreign policy with its attending large standing army and military industrial complex are at odds with the conservative principles of a small government.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 01:47 PMYes, all of it focusing on the negative symbol that Gitmo has become, including your newest one from Alexander.
Can you cite any source that asserts the recruiting power of our "culture" (gay marriage, Britney Spears is equal to that of GITMO? I asked you before, but you passed on that.
Please stop being dishonest. Once again: YOU said many people disagreed with me. YOU are the one required to cite sources here.
Never mind the specific items of the speech.
Which? You've yet to supply any. In your last post you mentioned three things: all of them applied to the military commissions, not to Gitmo.
Who said "It Looks Bad"? Obama? or only YOU?
Obama, and everyone you quoted in this discussion, including Alexander.
@209 pudge (a.k.a. Bob&Weave) responded to the question
"Who said 'It Looks Bad'? Obama or only YOU?"
with
"Obama, and everyone you quoted in this discussion, including Alexander."
Ok Bob&Weave, please cite where Obama said "It looks bad".
And pudge, i'm done with your straw man 'symbol only' argument. Nobody has said that the symbolism of American misconduct at GITMO is the reason to close it. Obama, Bush, Rice, Powell, McCain, Barr, Petraeus, Mora ... have all identified how GITMO's processes and misconduct have hurt us in the war effort and that we need to move on. If you CHOOSE to believe otherwise, well that's you.
Please continue to ignore the request for the Obama citation "It looks bad". :-p
Typically, the Office of the Vice President of the United States isn't in the business of leaking intelligence from other nations to the press such that he can cite news reports later in the week.
Irrelevant.
The fact that the intelligence is wrong is one thing. The fact that is was used as justification for war is something entirely different.
Oh please. NO ONE thinks that this was in any way a significant part of the case for war. Long before we invaded, it was a given that there was no serious link between Hussein and 9/11. Almost a year before we invaded, the Atta/Prague story was debunked. Enough with the revisionism.
The administration repeatedly hinted that al Queda and Hussein were linked in some way as one of the justifications for war.
Yes, but NOT in regards to 9/11. The larger point -- which was true -- was that Iraq was aiding (directly and indirectly) multiple terrorist organizations, e.g., Abu Nidal.
I do not believe a peaceful America could have possibly invaded Iraq. Congress wouldn't have gone for it, the media wouldn't have gone for it, and the country wouldn't have gone for it.
I don't have any idea what you mean by "a peaceful America," as we are no more oe less peaceful now than we have ever been. Regardless, I did and do support the invasion of Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with contemporaneously existing WMD capability or links to 9/11, but everything to do with the facts that Hussein continued to assault American forces in the no-fly zone; supported terrorists; and ultimately continued to defy UN Security Council Resolution 687, which guaranteed that the UN Security Council would force compliance if Iraq did not comply on its own.
Add to this the fact that Iraq did not immediately and fully cooperate with Resolution 1441 as required -- as Hans Blix said in January 2003, Iraq was resisting compliance in some areas -- and we were left with a known bad actor that helped terrorists that had WMD in the past, and due to noncompliance, could not be known to not have WMD in the present.
This case -- all true -- would have, in my view, been sufficient to justify invasion.
The tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who died will leave a lasting impression of America that is hard to overcome for our great nation.
As will the many great things we have done for Iraq.
Closing GTMO and safely withdrawing from Iraq are first good steps.
I've been pushing for withdrawal from Iraq since ... late 2003. I don't want us there. As soon as leaving won't cause the country to fall apart, we should leave, and we should do what we can to hasten that day.
As to closing Gitmo ... again, I don't have an opinion on that, because I don't have enough information about the costs. All I know is that the only serious reason anyone's given -- including you and Obama -- for closing it is the symbol it's become. Which was my main point.
To say they hate us for our culture of excess is just like saying they hate us for our freedoms: it just doesn't comport.
Except that it is entirely true, unless you mean "they hate us only" or "primarily" for those reasons, which is a straw man.
We have had serious interventionist policies across the world for nearly a century, with Iraq being the latest example. Iraq, Israel, and Gitmo are substantial reasons why some folks resent America -- to discourage analysis of those foreign policy decisions
I never engaged in any such discouragement. Ever. You're just making up things to argue about.
You're entirely right. This was a liberal (Wilsonian) policy from beginning to end, which is why so many liberals supported it until it became unpopular to do so.
That said, I supported it because we already ARE involved. I don't see the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a separate incident. It's a continuation of a struggle we've been engaged in for years. In a legal sense, it's -- from our perspective -- just a continuation of the war of 1991, which was the outgrowth of interventionist policies in Iraq and Iran for decades prior.
If I could go back and remove us from that fight, I'd gladly have done so (modulo space-time continuum disruptions). But since we found ourselves where we did in 2003, I believe it was right to continue our attempts to enforce the cease fire agreement of 1991, culminating in the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
As Colin Powell said: you break it, you buy it. Well, we bought it many years ago, and it's still ours. Hopefully not for much longer.
i'm done with your straw man 'symbol only' argument
Please look up "straw man" in the dictionary.
Nobody has said that the symbolism of American misconduct at GITMO is the reason to close it.
Except for everyone you quoted!
Petraeus: "[Closing Gitmo] in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world." Alexander: "the number one reason that they had come to fight in Iraq was because of torture and abuse, what had happened at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib." Mora: "the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq ... are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." Powell: "Guantanamo has become a major, major problem ... in the way the world perceives America." McCain: "Guantanamo Bay has become an image throughout the world which has hurt our reputation."
EVERY quote you provided, Mike, that gave a reason -- e.g., you quoted Condi Rice, without a reason, just saying she wanted to see it closed -- cited the SYMBOL of Gitmo as the reason. Petraeus, Alexander, Mora, Powell, McCain.
[they] have all identified how GITMO's processes and misconduct have hurt us in the war effort
Yes ... by becoming a negative symbol. Unless you're referring to the ineffectiveness of the military commissions, which -- as I noted previously and you've failed to recognize repeatedly, let alone even attempt to rebut -- is a separate issue, as we can keep Gitmo open while changing those processes.
Please continue to ignore the request for the Obama citation "It looks bad".
Um. I already fulfilled it, @182.
Again: "... instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year."
Obviously, Obama said himself that Gitmo should be closed because it is a negative symbol.
If you mean those exact three words "it looks bad," I never implied he used them. It has been common practice in journalism, since long before we were born, to summarize in quotations in headlines. And obviously, "Guantanamo became a symbol ... it is a rallying cry" is reasonably similar to "it looks bad."
Perhaps you can make that argument in ten years, but to state that today is more like jingoism than real analysis. A lot of people died -- American and Iraqi -- while our strategies changed.
Except that it is entirely true, unless you mean "they hate us only" or "primarily" for those reasons, which is a straw man.
You wrote earlier that Gay marriage, Quentin Tarantino, and Britney Spears all have a much worse impact on our national security than Gitmo does.
I'm saying that this simply isn't true. The expanded and related argument that "it really isn't about our institutions or actions but our culture/way of life/freedoms" can be dismissed out of hand, and I feel the same of your limited argument. Your argument itself I find hard to believe without any data which certainly won't be presented.
The fact that GTMO has risen to the level of disdain that Gates, McCain, Bush, Rice, and Obama all support shuttering it while this is the first time I've heard "gay marriage" be brought up as any way related to middle east resentment.
It's funny you bring up "straw man." It seems like you're quoting the millions of straw men in the middle east who say they're more pissed off at "Kill Bill 2" than GTMO.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 26, 2009 03:03 PM"Guantanamo became a symbol; a rallying cry for terrorists" contains a more serious analysis than the obvious sarcastic utterance "Guantanamo looks bad."
Posted by: John Jensen on May 26, 2009 03:08 PMShrug. You were the one who was talking about "lasting impressions." Ten years seems reasonable in that context, to me.
The expanded and related argument that "it really isn't about our institutions or actions but our culture/way of life/freedoms" ...
... is not an argument I made in any way.
"Guantanamo became a symbol; a rallying cry for terrorists" contains a more serious analysis than the obvious sarcastic utterance "Guantanamo looks bad."
No sane person looks for "serious analysis" in headlines.
"If you mean those exact three words "it looks bad," I never implied he used them. It has been common practice in journalism, since long before we were born, to summarize in quotations in headlines."
ROTFLMAO!!! :-D
The Bob&Weave School Of Journalism!!
PUDGE - what you just admitted to is called Reverse Plagiarism. LOL!!!!
Please tell us in 'your own words', what else does someone else say. :-p
Pudge's Reason for Writing this Post: "It Looks Bad"
too funny dude. too funny. :-D
Still Bobbing & Weaving?
SHOW US a newspaper that quotes an official using the author's synopsis in quotation marks.
ps - nearly every newspaper in the US is on-line now pudge, so finding an example of this "common" practice should take you no time at all.
pps - Here's another journalist's synopsis of the Obama / Cheney speeches:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/05/26/obamas-and-cheneys-dueling-realities-on-national-security.html
funny how Walsh sees it like those who disagree with you
"The immediate topic was Obama's plan to close the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which has become an international symbol for abuse of detainees. But the Obama-Cheney "debate" had a much wider focus: the terrorist threat and how to combat it."
pps - the quotes i use are the actual words, not my interpretation. still LOL! :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 03:52 PMfunny how Walsh sees it like those who disagree with you
Where?
"The immediate topic was Obama's plan to close the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which has become an international symbol for abuse of detainees."
Funny how you quote him agreeing with me and claim he's disagreeing with me.
yeah, i'm still waiting for an example of that common practice, but while we wait...
""The immediate topic was Obama's plan to close the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which has become an international symbol for abuse of detainees."
Funny how you quote him agreeing with me and claim he's disagreeing with me."
What's funny is you using a partial quote.
Here (AGAIN) is the rest,
"But the Obama-Cheney "debate" had a much wider focus: the terrorist threat and how to combat it."
Here is what YOU said "President Obama gives us ONLY ONE SINGLE REASON why the detention facility at Guatanamo Bay needs to be closed"
I am beginning to see you have a reading comprehension issue,
but what Walsh says is that the issue Obama is addressing is the terrorist threat and how to combat it. And as Obama identified in his speech, GITMO and its failed processes are hindering that fight. And in that speech, Obama uses the word symbol ONCE, and values TEN TIMES.
see! i took pity on your diffently abled approach to reading. LOL! :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 04:18 PMGITMO's being bad is WHY it LOOKS bad.
Get it????
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 04:28 PMThe reason for closing GITMO, as Obama, McCain, et al have reasoned, is not JUST because it looks bad.
Yes it is. That is, inf act, what they reasoned: that it should be closed because it looks bad. You quoted them saying it.
It looks bad, because it IS BAD.
In what way?
GITMO's being bad is WHY it LOOKS bad.
That's certainly not what Obama said. Obama said it DID look bad, because of allegations of torture and so on. But all of those problems have been fixed. Even according to Obama, Gitmo NO LONGER IS BAD.
So once again: nope, you're wrong.
"Again: "... instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security."
You see, he never said "It looks bad". He said GITMO became a symbol. He said in his reasoning that GITMO has weakened our fight.
And this is the same line of reasoning of many others.
ps - STILL waiting on that example of a US newspaper using an author's synopsis of an official in quotation marks. Can't find it?
pps - AFTER you find it, you may want to contact these folks, cuz they write this:
"Note: Do not set off with quotation marks an indirect quotation (when the speaker's meaning is repeated but not the exact words.)"
SOURCE: http://www.su.edu/writing_center/resources/handouts/setiv/prints/setiv15p.html
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 26, 2009 04:41 PMyeah, i'm still waiting for an example of that common practice
Feel free to wait. I am not even going to look for an example for you. You are not worth that effort. It's common knowledge, it's common practice, and I feel no need to spend time proving it to you.
What's funny is you using a partial quote.
... which showed he agreed with me.
"But the Obama-Cheney "debate" had a much wider focus: the terrorist threat and how to combat it."
That is unrelated to anything I said. The "debate" is a wide one, much broader than a discussion of Gitmo. But, as I was talking only about Gitmo, I didn't respond to this quote, which is about a much broader debate.
what Walsh says is that the issue Obama is addressing is the terrorist threat and how to combat it
Yes, of course Obama is doing that. I never said otherwise. However, again, there was no direct tie to that, and Gitmo, other than the negative symbol Gitmo has become.
You seem to think that just saying Obama used a certain word a certain number of times in a speech, or saying he talked about X Y and Z, means he actually gave all those things as reasons to close Gitmo. What are you, 12?
Oops, I take that back, it's insulting to 12-year-olds, who are capable of seeing how illogical your argument is.
And as Obama identified in his speech, GITMO and its failed processes are hindering that fight.
Please stop lying about these "failed processes." I've already, many times, showed how you're wrong. And you've not even tried to respond. Those processes are NOT IN USE anymore, and Obama himself said those issues are irrespective of whether Gitmo is closed.
In fact, in light of this repeated nonsense -- saying Gitmo should be closed because of processes that are not in use -- i am just going to ignore you henceforth. It's not just that, of course, but it is the final straw. You have given many quotes, and ALL of them support me, and yet you act like you are proving me wrong somehow.
As I said at the outset of this comment, you're not worth my time.
Try taking your time in reading Obama's speech.
You wrote "Please stop lying about these "failed processes." I've already, many times, showed how you're wrong."
No Bob&Weave, you have repeatedly used selective quotations and mis-characterizations. Read again.
"For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. INSTEAD OF BRINGING TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the ENTIRE SYSTEM." ..."Instead of building a durable FRAMEWORK for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was DEFENDING POSITIONS THAT UNDERMINED THE RULE OF LAW. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that A PRISON THERE WOULD BE BEYOND THE RULE OF LAW - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected."
"Those processes are NOT IN USE anymore" uh, yeah. That's what Obama is saying. There is no process in GITMO. GITMO HAS FAILED.
ps - still waiting for an example of that "common" practice of attributing your own words as someone's in quotation marks.
pps - "You have given many quotes, and ALL of them support me, and yet you act like you are proving me wrong somehow."
Well, they do prove you wrong. And they are all actual quotes
{unlike your use of the "common" practice of making quotes up :-D},
with identified sources - I guess you are just not used to an argument with supported facts.
"i am just going to ignore you henceforth. It's not just that, of course, but it is the final straw."
Bob&Weave's Plan A: Make up quotes and argue against them.
Bob&Weave's Plan B: Ignore those who call Bob&Weave on Plan A.
There aren't different rules to quoting in headlines compared quoting in text. You misused quotation marks -- it is a technical error that you shouldn't duplicate, but it's also an error that has nothing to do with your argument of substance.
The media doesn't do summarized, 'fake' or mock quotes like you did in your headline. You cannot quote something with obvious editorializing present. When you include something in quotation marks you are attributing it as an exact quote. Your headline should have read, Obama's Reason for Closing Gitmo: It Looks Bad.
There is a different between "Ford to City: Drop Dead" and "Ford to City: 'Drop Dead'". The first editorializes on Ford's position, the second is Ford saying the phrase, "Drop dead." While it practically irrelevant to your point -- and everyone understands that you weren't actually quoting Obama -- it is bewildering that you're acting so absurd on this matter.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 27, 2009 11:45 AMFalse.
You misused quotation marks
False.
"Jensen: There aren't different rules to quoting in headlines compared quoting in text.
False.
You misused quotation marks
False."
Bob&Weave's Plan A: Make up quotes and argue against them.
Bob&Weave's Plan B: Ignore those who call Bob&Weave on Plan A.
Good Job on Plan B, Bob&Weave!! :-D
"Jensen: false."
Bobbing & Weaving! :-D
Claiming it is "common" practice to use quotes in a headline, but utterly unable to support your claim.
Well, you know there are sources you could consult, pudge, if you wanted to sincerely argue your point.
For example, there is the old Wikipedia. What does it say?
"It is generally considered INCORRECT TO USE QUOTATION MARKS for PARAPHRASED SPEECH where they may give the impression that the paraphrasing represents the actual words used."
No need to respond with anything other than fallacious appeal to authority reply of "false", cuz . . . .
Bob&Weave's Plan A: Make up quotes and argue against them.
Bob&Weave's Plan B: Ignore those who call Bob&Weave on Plan A.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 27, 2009 07:49 PM