Mother Jones: Obama Presidency Marred By Drone Legacy

[Green Arrow]

Jeremy Scahill: Obama presidency marred by legacy of drone program (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/obama-drone-counterterrorism-war-legacy)


On January 21, 2013, Barack Obama was inaugurated for his second term as president of the United States. Just as he had promised when he began his first campaign for president six years earlier, he pledged again to turn the page on history and take US foreign policy in a different direction. "A decade of war is now ending," Obama declared. "We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war."

Much of the media focus that day was on the new hairstyle of First Lady Michelle Obama, who appeared on the dais sporting freshly trimmed bangs, and on the celebrities in attendance, including hip-hop mogul Jay-Z and his wife, Beyoncé, who performed the national anthem. But the day Obama was sworn in, a US drone strike hit Yemen. It was the third such attack in that country in as many days. Despite the rhetoric from the president on the Capitol steps, there was abundant evidence that he would continue to preside over a country that is in a state of perpetual war.

In the year leading up to the inauguration, more people had been killed in US drone strikes across the globe than were imprisoned at Guantánamo. As Obama was sworn in for his second term, his counterterrorism team was finishing up the task of systematizing the kill list, including developing rules for when US citizens could be targeted. Admiral William McRaven had been promoted to the commander of the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and his Special Ops forces were operating in more than 100 countries across the globe.


But, hey, it's just uncontrolled murder of innocent people. Let's keep talking about totally unimportant stuff.

[Cigar]

Yea you're right, maybe it is time to find a new scandle for Issa. :)

[AmazonTania]

Being President means never having to say you're sorry...

Unless you are fooling millions of Americans into going along with your Health Care plan, and doing everything within your power to make sure the full impact in the marketplace isn't realised until after your re-election.

THEN, you can be sorry.

[Chris]

Yea you're right, maybe it is time to find a new scandle for Issa. :)

So you're OK with Obama killing people with drones and prefer to deflect to Issa.

[Cigar]

Being President means never having to say you're sorry...

Unless you are fooling millions of Americans into going along with your Health Care plan, and doing everything within your power to make sure the full impact in the marketplace isn't realised until after your re-election.

THEN, you can be sorry.

Yea because we all know real Men never say they are sorry. Besides, the 43 before were perfect.

[Codename Section]

Jeremy Scahill: Obama presidency marred by legacy of drone program (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/obama-drone-counterterrorism-war-legacy)



But, hey, it's just uncontrolled murder of innocent people. Let's keep talking about totally unimportant stuff.


There's more important and snarkier things to cover, dontcha see. If we talk about drones we have to admit that he's Bush Jr and that would make Republicans smug.

[Cigar]

So you're OK with Obama killing people with drones and prefer to deflect to Issa.

Yes, more precise than Shock-N-Awe

[Codename Section]

Yea because we all know real Men never say they are sorry. Besides, the 43 before were perfect.

So murder's ok because Ted Bundy did it.

[Codename Section]

Yes, more precise than Shock-N-Awe

A little empire building and murder is ok, just not a lot of empire building and murder.

[Chris]

Yes, more precise than Shock-N-Awe

So you give Obama the two-wrongs-make-a-right excuse.

[Codename Section]

So you give Obama the two-wrongs-make-a-right excuse.

Yes ...unless its Rand Paul. Then even though Obama was caught doing it six times, including in Audacity of Hope, and Biden twice it does not make it right. Then its just one wrong is WRONG.

[nathanbforrest45]

Call me crazy but personally I don't see anything wrong with killing off our enemy with a weapon that does not put Americans at risk. We lost Vietnam because we were worried about collateral damage. We beat the Japanese because we didn't care.

[Codename Section]

Call me crazy but personally I don't see anything wrong with killing off our enemy with a weapon that does not put Americans at risk. We lost Vietnam because we were worried about collateral damage. We beat the Japanese because we didn't care.

I dunno. I was SF and knew that part of the job could be digging out the enemy. At this point ask me if my life was worth that of a Pakistani girl who would get hit by collateral damage.

[Peter1469]

Call me crazy but personally I don't see anything wrong with killing off our enemy with a weapon that does not put Americans at risk. We lost Vietnam because we were worried about collateral damage. We beat the Japanese because we didn't care.

WWII was a "total war", Iraq and Afghanistan turned into occupations.

[nathanbforrest45]

WWII was a "total war", Iraq and Afghanistan turned into occupations.

War is war, period. It matters little to the grunt in the field if he only part of the "bigger picture" or if he is the entire picture. Getting shot at is getting shot at, right then. Occupations happen after you have subdued the bulk of the enemy. Until then, its a total war.

[Peter1469]

War is war, period. It matters little to the grunt in the field if he only part of the "bigger picture" or if he is the entire picture. Getting shot at is getting shot at, right then. Occupations happen after you have subdued the bulk of the enemy. Until then, its a total war.

I am against the occupation part, especially in cultures that don't want democracy.

[Common]

So you're OK with Obama killing people with drones and prefer to deflect to Issa.

Id much rather have drones than our troops going in and taking all the risks, drones dont bleed and have, mothers fathers, wives and husbands, sisters, brothers and CHILDREN of their own. I like drones and I would like to many more but I would like thier use to be quite restricted and very targeted an controlled.

If it saves one american troop its all good to me. I am all about our own our troops, EVERYONE elses come second

[Green Arrow]

Id much rather have drones than our troops going in and taking all the risks, drones dont bleed and have, mothers fathers, wives and husbands, sisters, brothers and CHILDREN of their own. I like drones and I would like to many more but I would like thier use to be quite restricted and very targeted an controlled.

If it saves one american troop its all good to me. I am all about our own our troops, EVERYONE elses come second

The problem is, you're still assuming we have to have the conflict in the first place.

[Common]

The problem is, you're still assuming we have to have the conflict in the first place.

No sir, no where do I believe I indicated that. I believe I stated their use should be quite restricted and very controlled targeting.

I thought that would be sufficient to get across my thoughts, so let me add this. I am for the use of drones in lieu of sending in our troops when it is deemed necessary for our defense or our best interests.

[patrickt]

Yea because we all know real Men never say they are sorry. Besides, the 43 before were perfect.

Flop sweat isn't pretty. Wrapping yourself in strawmen, Cigar, doesn't soak up the flop sweat.

[patrickt]

Call me crazy but personally I don't see anything wrong with killing off our enemy with a weapon that does not put Americans at risk. We lost Vietnam because we were worried about collateral damage. We beat the Japanese because we didn't care.

You do realize that you are one of President Obama's enemies? Your family? Just collateral damage.

[Alyosha]

I'm sure that before the Nazis and Soviets came to power there were people that said "...somethings not right." And then everyone said to them, "no one cared when the Tsar did___________" or some other logical fallacy used to make them feel ok about crying and cheering over a dangerous cult of personality.

Obama's drone war is scary, but it is his "next step" with encroaching on civil liberties that we should fear. Look at what the courts do with caselaw.

Look at who voted for the Patriot Act--bipartisan. The assholes are winning. Democrats refuse to say that the idol has clay feet. Jillian just told me as her response to spying "Oh well, Bush did it and no one cared" or some similar lame excuse like that.

Why does caring have a time limit on it? We should care every time. She admitted herself they take the next step. What's the next one?

[Alyosha]

Id much rather have drones than our troops going in and taking all the risks, drones dont bleed and have, mothers fathers, wives and husbands, sisters, brothers and CHILDREN of their own. I like drones and I would like to many more but I would like thier use to be quite restricted and very targeted an controlled.

If it saves one american troop its all good to me. I am all about our own our troops, EVERYONE elses come second


Next steps common...do you know how many drone bases we have in the US?

What if Ted Cruz does get into office? His wife is a VP of Goldman Sachs who helped buy Obama's presidency. They have three years to turn on the machine. What happens when speech is a crime? It's coming. I can provide caselaw.

You should care about our desensitization and attitude that collateral damage is ok.

[Chris]

The problem is, you're still assuming we have to have the conflict in the first place.

Exactly. But Obama is a warmonger.

[Alyosha]

http://www.codepinkalert.org/img/original/09Hopeless_Escalation2.jpg


http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/code-pink-banner.jpg

[Alyosha]

http://i.imgur.com/ldP00.jpg

[Codename Section]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rp09SV46EW4/USVsZoGdcSI/AAAAAAAARU4/A8loUb05lv8/s1600/obama+strangelove.jpg

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/QB9DJ.jpg

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/xndZE.jpg

[The Wash]

During war drones and manned aircraft have their place. It is part of subduing those dudes on the other side. What I DON'T like is when we use drones to extend our wars to Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and any other place we want to scare the shit out of. When you drop a bomb on my country, that's war to me mutherfucker.

It's bad enough when we declare wars and drop bombs. Why we gotta NOT declare wars and drop bombs is what I'm saying?

[Adelaide]

The problem is, you're still assuming we have to have the conflict in the first place.

For the most part, I agree. I think the "War on Terror" is sort of like the "War on drugs" and for the last 12 years it's been gone about the wrong way by 2 different presidents, although you could argue that Obama has been slightly more successful. However, I also think that using drones sparingly to take out important people in terrorist organizations should (hypothetically) cause havoc and confusion within the organization which should slow process towards large-scale attacks, (small scale attacks seem to be a free for all for any extremist with an internet connection). It seems there is an advantage there, but again drones should be used sparingly and responsibly.

[The Wash]

For the most part, I agree. I think the "War on Terror" is sort of like the "War on drugs" and for the last 12 years it's been gone about the wrong way by 2 different presidents, although you could argue that Obama has been slightly more successful. However, I also think that using drones sparingly to take out important people in terrorist organizations should (hypothetically) cause havoc and confusion within the organization which should slow process towards large-scale attacks, (small scale attacks seem to be a free for all for any extremist with an internet connection). It seems there is an advantage there, but again drones should be used sparingly and responsibly.

I am new so I'll tread lightly. If you were in a coffee shop where a terrorist went to use the wifi would you feel the same?

[Codename Section]

I am new so I'll tread lightly. If you were in a coffee shop where a terrorist went to use the wifi would you feel the same?

Now I wanna change my avatar. If you're Ice Cube I'm gonna be Dre. :D

[The Wash]

Now I wanna change my avatar. If you're Ice Cube I'm gonna be Dre. :D

GTFO. You are whiter than white.

[patrickt]

Some years ago an opponent of Khadaffi was going to school in our town. A hit man hired by an intermediary came to our town and shot the man in the head. He lived.

I suppose the supporters of President Obama see that as a legal and rightful thing to do. Me? I didn't. Of course, we couldn't touch Khadaffi. Tyrants have immunity...until the don't. President Obama has immunity.

[Adelaide]

I am new so I'll tread lightly. If you were in a coffee shop where a terrorist went to use the wifi would you feel the same?

From what I know, most leadership in groups like Al-Qaeda don't frequent public places and try to hide, using those lower in the structure to complete tasks. If I'm sitting in a Starbucks and Ayman al-Zawahiri walks in I'll be sure to let you know.

[The Wash]

From what I know, most leadership in groups like Al-Qaeda don't frequent public places and try to hide, using those lower in the structure to complete tasks. If I'm sitting in a Starbucks and Ayman al-Zawahiri walks in I'll be sure to let you know.

They hide in the population. They go drink tea and smoke hookahs and they're eating bread in houses they just bust into. If you're in Teabucks in Pakistan it is possible that Ayman al-Zawahiri would walk in.

So I ask you would you still feel the same about drone strikes if the terrorist was in your neighborhood?

[The Xl]

Call me crazy but personally I don't see anything wrong with killing off our enemy with a weapon that does not put Americans at risk. We lost Vietnam because we were worried about collateral damage. We beat the Japanese because we didn't care.

The definition for a "terrorist" is absurd and vague as fuck.

We lost Vietnam the second we went over there, and we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[Adelaide]

They hide in the population. They go drink tea and smoke hookahs and they're eating bread in houses they just bust into. If you're in Teabucks in Pakistan it is possible that Ayman al-Zawahiri would walk in.

So I ask you would you still feel the same about drone strikes if the terrorist was in your neighborhood?

Depends. If he's planning an attack on my country that could kill thousands of people I think my life would be worth less than the opportunity to take him out. Of course, my family wouldn't see it that way. Or the media.

[The Wash]

Depends. If he's planning an attack on my country that could kill thousands of people I think my life would be worth less than the opportunity to take him out. Of course, my family wouldn't see it that way. Or the media.

Plans could not happen. So you'll kill innocent people over a "maybe".

[jillian]

Plans could not happen. So you'll kill innocent people over a "maybe".

there's that.

and an interesting ethical question…

better before when you're pretty sure the target is toxic…

or be 100% sure after he takes ten, or a hundred, or three thousand people out?

[The Wash]

there's that.

and an interesting ethical question…

better before when you're pretty sure the target is toxic…

or be 100% sure after he takes ten, or a hundred, or three thousand people out?

Do you know how many times CIA had bad intel and they got zero tangos in these strikes?

[Green Arrow]

No sir, no where do I believe I indicated that. I believe I stated their use should be quite restricted and very controlled targeting.

I thought that would be sufficient to get across my thoughts, so let me add this. I am for the use of drones in lieu of sending in our troops when it is deemed necessary for our defense or our best interests.

If you give them the power, they will abuse it.

[The Wash]

I am not anti-drone. Drones are just a technology. I am against how we are using them to fly over countries we are not at war with, invading their air space to kill hundreds of people with each drop.

[Dr. Who]

If those countries were part of the G-8, it wouldn't be happening. If I were a terrorist I'd hide out in the UK or Germany or France, where the US wouldn't dare to use drones.

[Codename Section]

If those countries were part of the G-8, it wouldn't be happening. If I were a terrorist I'd hide out in the UK or Germany or France, where the US wouldn't dare to use drones.

They do.

[Dr. Who]

They do.Presumably the unarmed spying variety vs the weaponized versions.

[Codename Section]

Presumably the unarmed spying variety vs the weaponized versions.

No, I mean terrorists do hide in Europe.

[Dr. Who]

No, I mean terrorists do hide in Europe.
Ah yes. Well it is logical. Sorry for the confusion.

[Green Arrow]

I am not anti-drone. Drones are just a technology. I am against how we are using them to fly over countries we are not at war with, invading their air space to kill hundreds of people with each drop.

I am anti-drone because our government has shown that if we give it to them, they will abuse it.

[Peter1469]

I am not anti-drone. Drones are just a technology. I am against how we are using them to fly over countries we are not at war with, invading their air space to kill hundreds of people with each drop.

I would only state than many of these nations ask for us to use the drones..., of course they don't tell their people that.

But as I have said many times, I am largely against using them. And I am 100% the CIA using armed drones. They are not legal combatants.

[Peter1469]

No, I mean terrorists do hide in Europe.

They also hide in Canada and there are likely several sleeper cells inside the US.

[The Wash]

They also hide in Canada and there are likely several sleeper cells inside the US.

Which is why I am against drones here and even talking about them like they're a good thing. Few tangos pop off and we'll be looking at drone drops in the US.

[AmazonTania]

I have no problem with the Government using drones to kill people or break things.

The Government is really good at doing those things.

[Peter1469]

I have no problem with the Government using drones to kill people or break things.

The Government is really good at doing those things.

Sure. But when they don't put our men in danger, don't you think it becomes too easy to use deadly force? I see it as a moral issue. It becomes a slippery slope.

And I would modify your last sentence to say that the government is really good at asking the military to kill people and break things.

[Professor Peabody]

Jeremy Scahill: Obama presidency marred by legacy of drone program (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/obama-drone-counterterrorism-war-legacy)

But, hey, it's just uncontrolled murder of innocent people. Let's keep talking about totally unimportant stuff.

Quotes from Obama's speech...............

Text: Obama’s Speech on National Security

Published: May 21, 2009

Following is a text of President Obama’s speech on Thursday on national security issues, as released by the White House.


I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -- these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.


Anwar al-Awlaki; April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an American[7] and Yemeni imam and Islamic militant. In April 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama placed al-Awlaki on a list of people whom the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities.[32][33][34] The "targeted killing" of an American citizen was unprecedented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


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.

The existence of Guantanamo recruited terrorists, but blasting them, their wives and children with drone missiles won't???

First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists.


Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen and entitled to due process under the Constitution and so was his 16 year old son. I'd like to see the proof that he was such a clear and present danger that he needed to be killed before he pressed some button and launched a ICBM at the US.


I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?pagewanted=all

What about the 2 American citizens slaughtered before they could even defend themselves in court? They had, but were denied that legal framework guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

[Codename Section]

Quotes from Obama's speech...............

Text: Obama’s Speech on National Security

Published: May 21, 2009

Following is a text of President Obama’s speech on Thursday on national security issues, as released by the White House.







Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen and entitled to due process under the Constitution and so was his 16 year old son. I'd like to see the proof that he was such a clear and present danger that he needed to be killed before he pressed some button and launched a ICBM at the US.



What about the 2 American citizens slaughtered before they could even defend themselves in court? They had, but were denied that legal framework guaranteed to them by the Constitution.



^^^This is 100% correct and I cosign it.

[jillian]

^^^This is 100% correct and I cosign it.

if the "american citizen" were on the battlefield shooting at you, you'd blow him off the face of the planet. his "citizenship" is less an issue than his actions when he is trying to blow up americans and he's on foreign soil.

[Chris]

if the "american citizen" were on the battlefield shooting at you, you'd blow him off the face of the planet. his "citizenship" is less an issue than his actions when he is trying to blow up americans and he's on foreign soil.

It is so ironic to see liberals who under Bush raged against the very arguments they put forth today. Partisans.

[Codename Section]

if the "american citizen" were on the battlefield shooting at you, you'd blow him off the face of the planet. his "citizenship" is less an issue than his actions when he is trying to blow up americans and he's on foreign soil.

If he were on the battlefield shooting at me, he'd be dead. If I was told this guy was going to shoot me does it give me the right to kill him?

If you say "yes" I have to question the integrity of your gun control arguments about the Wild West.

[The Wash]

if the "american citizen" were on the battlefield shooting at you, you'd blow him off the face of the planet. his "citizenship" is less an issue than his actions when he is trying to blow up americans and he's on foreign soil.

These people aren't in the act of killing people when a bomb's dropped on them and the 100 people who had no idea that dude was in their vicinity. You're crazy if you think we're catching people in the act.

Are police allowed to roll up onto someone who they think committed a crime and just gun him down?

[Professor Peabody]

if the "american citizen" were on the battlefield shooting at you, you'd blow him off the face of the planet. his "citizenship" is less an issue than his actions when he is trying to blow up americans and he's on foreign soil. Neither of those were on a battlefield doing anything. They were driving down the road in a car. Please supply proof that they were actively engaged in trying to blow up anything in the U.S. while driving down the road in Yemen 8223.27 miles away. Did they have the launch button of an ICBM with them?

[The Wash]

Neither of those were on a battlefield doing anything. They were driving down the road in a car. Please supply proof that they were actively engaged in trying to blow up anything in the U.S. while driving down the road in Yemen 8223.27 miles away. Did they have the launch button of an ICBM with them?

It takes a white dude from Texas to get conservatives to agree with the Patriot Act and a partially-black man from Chicago to get liberals to suddenly like hellfire missiles.

The system is gamed.

[jillian]

These people aren't in the act of killing people when a bomb's dropped on them and the 100 people who had no idea that dude was in their vicinity. You're crazy if you think we're catching people in the act.

Are police allowed to roll up onto someone who they think committed a crime and just gun him down?

i have mixed feelings on this subject. but do you think drones are worse than locking people up without charges and denying them habeas corpus for ten years?

[Chris]

i have mixed feelings on this subject. but do you think drones are worse than locking people up without charges and denying them habeas corpus for ten years?

Are you actually questioning a policy Obama approved? :f_applause:

[Green Arrow]

i have mixed feelings on this subject. but do you think drones are worse than locking people up without charges and denying them habeas corpus for ten years?

Why do we have to like one more or less than the other? Why can't we be opposed to both?

[jillian]

Are you actually questioning a policy Obama approved? :f_applause:

if you actually read anything and posted in good faith, you'd leave room for discussion on a lot of issues you know nothing about.\

btw, the president tried to close gitmo. the rightwing decided to cut off all funding necessary to move the prisoners.

just saying.

[nathanbforrest45]

We have lost the war on terror for the same reason we lost the war in Vietnam. We lack the will to win the war. We obsess over "what ifs" and "boo hoo we killed the wrong guy" If you want to win you have to do every thing in your power to destroy the enemy, not just make him understand he is wrong because he never will. You must in the words of Conan the Barbarian "kill the enemy and listen to the lamentations of their women" Its also as Nathan Bedford Forrest said "War is fighting and fighting is killing" Anything else is losing the war.

[Chris]

if you actually read anything and posted in good faith, you'd leave room for discussion on a lot of issues you know nothing about.\

btw, the president tried to close gitmo. the rightwing decided to cut off all funding necessary to move the prisoners.

just saying.



Lots of wasted words, don't get so upset over a simple question, my G-d!

Obama signed the NDAA which greatly expanded and codified indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Discuss.

[nathanbforrest45]

if you actually read anything and posted in good faith, you'd leave room for discussion on a lot of issues you know nothing about.\

btw, the president tried to close gitmo. the rightwing decided to cut off all funding necessary to move the prisoners.

just saying.

Wait wait. I don't have my bullshit boots on. Give me a second.

[The Wash]

i have mixed feelings on this subject. but do you think drones are worse than locking people up without charges and denying them habeas corpus for ten years?

Why do I have to pick which is worse when they're both disgusting? I'd rather be alive than dead. I expect they would too. Don't make either right.

[AmazonTania]

if you actually read anything and posted in good faith, you'd leave room for discussion on a lot of issues you know nothing about.\

btw, the president tried to close gitmo. the rightwing decided to cut off all funding necessary to move the prisoners.

just saying.

Obama tried to close gitmo in the first two years. Democrats had a super majority within that time fame. Which right-wingers are you referring to, the ones with zero power to grant or cut funding?

There are ways of making a factual statement without sounding completely moronic.

Just saying...

[The Wash]

if you actually read anything and posted in good faith, you'd leave room for discussion on a lot of issues you know nothing about.\

btw, the president tried to close gitmo. the rightwing decided to cut off all funding necessary to move the prisoners.

just saying.

The president was Commander in Chief for three years and didn't close Gitmo. Congress didn't pull that stunt until 2011. He had time to find someplace for the trials or stage them there. You don't get to be on CPT when you're president. Your ass needs to work.

[The Wash]

We have lost the war on terror for the same reason we lost the war in Vietnam. We lack the will to win the war. We obsess over "what ifs" and "boo hoo we killed the wrong guy" If you want to win you have to do every thing in your power to destroy the enemy, not just make him understand he is wrong because he never will. You must in the words of Conan the Barbarian "kill the enemy and listen to the lamentations of their women" Its also as Nathan Bedford Forrest said "War is fighting and fighting is killing" Anything else is losing the war.

Who exactly is our enemy? Explain to me why we were in Iraq and Afghanistan again.

[jillian]

The president was Commander in Chief for three years and didn't close Gitmo. Congress didn't pull that stunt until 2011. He had time to find someplace for the trials or stage them there. You don't get to be on CPT when you're president. Your ass needs to work.

the funds were denied in may, 2009, almost immediately after the president took office…. specifically BECAUSE it was a significant part of his agenda.

that, or the ny times was prescient… which i don't think they are.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[The Wash]

Lots of wasted words, don't get so upset over a simple question, my G-d!

Obama signed the NDAA which greatly expanded and codified indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Discuss.

Yeh, after the dude swore he wasn't going to sign it. He must have had the CIA pay him a little visit cuz that man hasn't been the same since he got into office. No other explanation for it. He either is scared or he's a liar.

[The Wash]

the funds were denied in may, 2009, almost immediately after the president took office…. specifically BECAUSE it was a significant part of his agenda.

that, or the ny times was prescient… which i don't think they are.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


You know we can have trials there, right?

[jillian]

Lots of wasted words, don't get so upset over a simple question, my G-d!

Obama signed the NDAA which greatly expanded and codified indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Discuss.

the NDAA was the entire defense budget…

the president doesn't have a line-item veto.

why would i be upset?

for the record, i'm all for getting rid of indefinite detention… but would they have had the votes to override a veto?

[Chris]

the funds were denied in may, 2009, almost immediately after the president took office…. specifically BECAUSE it was a significant part of his agenda.

that, or the ny times was prescient… which i don't think they are.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



So everything is always someone else's fault.


...Supreme Court rulings in 2004, 2006 and 2008 confirmed that prisoners at Guantánamo did have habeas rights and the military tribunals were not sufficient substitutes. The U.S. government transferred more than 500 prisoners before Obama took office (166 remained in November 2012). Under the Obama administration, however, the force of those rulings have weakened.

"President Obama is steadily returning Guantanamo to the secretive and hopeless internment camp that he vilified as a candidate,” wrote Azmy Baher, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an August op-ed in The Washington Post.

Human rights groups have criticized the Obama administration for its insistence on appealing decisions by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that have favored Guantánamo prisoners' petitions. At the appeals level, the Obama administration has successfully persuaded the court to keep almost every Guantánamo petitioner in detainment.

Baher's op-ed noted that the court of appeals has "imposed legal standards that make it virtually impossible to win a habeas case.” He also wrote that the Supreme Court has refused to review the appellate court's standards, signalling "the end of meaningful judicial oversight of Guantanamo.”

In January, the American Civil Liberties Union also condemned the backsliding under Obama, saying Guantánamo was not of his "making, but it is now one of his choosing.” The civil rights group also denounced efforts by Congress to pass a law that would make permanent the indefinite military detention of anyone without charge or trial, so long as they are deemed an enemy combatant. Finally, the group echoed Baher's assessment that the Supreme Court "has stood by as the D.C. Circuit has effectively gutted meaningful habeas review.”

The limited rights afforded to prisoners in Guantánamo are still better than those at the Parwan detention facility in Afghanistan, according to Golnaz Fakhimi, an attorney litigating on behalf of U.S. detainees brought into Parwan from other countries. Human rights attorneys have argued that a Supreme Court ruling in 2008 about Guantánamo detainees should extend habeas rights to non-Afghan detainees -- deemed enemy combatants by the U.S. government -- in Parwan as well.

In October the Obama administration persuaded a federal judge that prisoners at Parwan -- placed there by the U.S. military -- do not have habeas rights, largely because Afghanistan is an active theater of war and the detention facility is not entirely under United States' control, unlike Guantánamo. This followed a unanimous decision in 2010 by the D.C. appeals court, applying the same rationale.

We requested a comment from the White House about concerns raised by Baher, Fakhimi and others, but did not hear back.

Obama promised to restore habeas rights for people the U.S. government deemed enemy combatants. Four years later, prisoners in at least at two U.S. military detention facilities either have no meaningful way to challenge their confinement, or no legal right at all. We rate this a Promise Broken.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/181/restore-habeas-corpus-rights-for-enemy-combatants/

[The Wash]

the NDAA was the entire defense budget…

the president doesn't have a line-item veto.

why would i be upset?

He held up the government in October for Obamacare. Why not for this?

[jillian]

He held up the government in October for Obamacare. Why not for this?

held up the government?

what are you referring to?

[Chris]

Yeh, after the dude swore he wasn't going to sign it. He must have had the CIA pay him a little visit cuz that man hasn't been the same since he got into office. No other explanation for it. He either is scared or he's a liar.

Just another broken promise. Yet partisans like jillian find no fault with him. As she says "why would i be upset?"

http://i.snag.gy/I4dcF.jpg

[The Wash]

held up the government?

what are you referring to?

Typo.

In October the Democrats and Obama said they were not going along with the House Budget and let the government shut down because they felt the ACA was important for America. Why not have the same convictions over our rights?

[The Wash]

I don't want to keep getting stupid about this. Those dudes could go to Yemen or Iraq for trial. We've done it before. Our government has not made it a priority like it's made it a priority to rob us of our rights. The topic is drones not Gitmo. Drones during war is one thing. Flying over airspace of other nations to drop bombs that kill people not even involved is 100% wrong. Our intel could be wrong. It has been wrong before. Google it. We've blown up large portions of villages and got nobody but a bunch of goatherders. We don't care because these aren't western, "white" nations. Do not for one minute think if AQ bigwigs were hiding in London suburbs that we would bomb.

[Peter1469]

Enemy combatants when captured can be given POW status. Then they can be held for the duration of the conflict. But they are supposed to be held in theater. Enemy combatants who are considered criminals (not valid combatants or committed war crimes) can be tried by a court of competence by the holding state. For non-Americans this is typically done by military commission. If they are acquitted, they then get EPOW status and you can hold them until the end of the conflict (of course you can also let them go if you realize there really weren't part of the fight.

[Codename Section]

Enemy combatants when captured can be given POW status. Then they can be held for the duration of the conflict. But they are supposed to be held in theater. Enemy combatants who are considered criminals (not valid combatants or committed war crimes) can be tried by a court of competence by the holding state. For non-Americans this is typically done by military commission. If they are acquitted, they then get EPOW status and you can hold them until the end of the conflict (of course you can also let them go if you realize there really weren't part of the fight.


This

[Chris]

I don't want to keep getting stupid about this. Those dudes could go to Yemen or Iraq for trial. We've done it before. Our government has not made it a priority like it's made it a priority to rob us of our rights. The topic is drones not Gitmo. Drones during war is one thing. Flying over airspace of other nations to drop bombs that kill people not even involved is 100% wrong. Our intel could be wrong. It has been wrong before. Google it. We've blown up large portions of villages and got nobody but a bunch of goatherders. We don't care because these aren't western, "white" nations. Do not for one minute think if AQ bigwigs were hiding in London suburbs that we would bomb.



Sorry, distracted. It's an important and difficult ethical question. Is retaining, interrogating, even torturing enemy combatants, if they are that, justified even if it saves American lives. I don't think there's an easy answer.

According to CBS, for what it's worth, Guantanamo trials not a sham, says prosecutor (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57610469/guantanamo-trials-not-a-sham-says-prosecutor/), trials, or at least preparations, are under way. Since the prisoners cannot come here, it costs us millions a day to fly the prosecuting and defending teams there. Defenders are forced to pretty much silence.

[Peter1469]

Sorry, distracted. It's an important and difficult ethical question. Is retaining, interrogating, even torturing enemy combatants, if they are that, justified even if it saves American lives. I don't think there's an easy answer.

According to CBS, for what it's worth, Guantanamo trials not a sham, says prosecutor (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57610469/guantanamo-trials-not-a-sham-says-prosecutor/), trials, or at least preparations, are under way. Since the prisoners cannot come here, it costs us millions a day to fly the prosecuting and defending teams there. Defenders are forced to pretty much silence.

Because they are provided classified information to defend their clients. Active Duty defense attorneys are largely not dumb enough to make classified info public, though one or two have. But if a civilian defense attorney does it, I imagine that the only thing that would happen is that he would lose his clearance and be sent back to the states.

[Chris]

Because they are provided classified information to defend their clients. Active Duty defense attorneys are largely not dumb enough to make classified info public, though one or two have. But if a civilian defense attorney does it, I imagine that the only thing that would happen is that he would lose his clearance and be sent back to the states.

Makes sense, CBS was trying to make into into a torture story about waterboarding.

[Peter1469]

The US had little to no intelligence on the al Qaeda movement. After 9-11 they were desperate to fill the void. They figured it was worth it to push the legal limits to get a clear picture of the organization so they could start to exploit the intelligence and begin to dismantle the organization. When I was in Kuwait staging to enter Iraq, my unit got a briefing by two of the contractors who taught the enhanced interrogation techniques to the Army.

[Peter1469]

A lot of the guys that we droned or captured was based of false intelligence. People settling scores against rivals by telling the coalition- hey that douche is a bad guy....

[Professor Peabody]

the funds were denied in may, 2009, almost immediately after the president took office…. specifically BECAUSE it was a significant part of his agenda.

that, or the ny times was prescient… which i don't think they are.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why didn't they do it in 2010?

[Professor Peabody]

Article 41 explains that the broader category of individuals in the power of an adverse party includes “cases [in which] land forces might have the adversary at their mercy by means of overwhelmingly superior firing power to the point where they can force the adversary to cease combat.”116 The decision to kill an adversary in such a vulnerable position is thus prohibited.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2213960

116 ICRC Commentary to Protocol I, art. 41, at 1612; Cf. ICRC Commentary to Protocol I, art. 41 at 1614

To make matters worse Anwar al-Awlaki and his son were BOTH American citizens.


Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-Bill_of_Rights_from_Cornell_University_Law_School-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

They were both deprived of due process.