PDA

View Full Version : Obama continuing yet ANOTHER "Failed Bush Policy"...


revefsreleets
05-15-2009, 01:11 PM
The sun rises and sets, and so there is a new day. But I'm still waiting for all this change...

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/45089787.html

Tribunals to return, detainees to have more rights By Lara Jakes
Associated Press
POSTED: 10:32 a.m. EDT, May 15, 2009
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama will restart military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, reviving a Bush-era trial system he once assailed as flawed but with new legal protections for terror suspects, U.S. officials said.
The changes to the system, which will affect a small number of detainees, will be announced Friday.
The move by the new Democratic president is certain to face criticism from liberal groups, already stung by his decision Wednesday to try to block the court-ordered release of photos showing U.S. troops abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. That decision marked a reversal of his earlier stand on making the photos public.
"It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz, a national security attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "There's no detainee at Guantanamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system. Even with the proposed modifications, this will not cure the commissions or provide them with legitimacy. This is perpetuating the Bush administration's misguided detention policy."
The military trials will remain frozen for another four months as the administration adjusts the legal system that is expected to try fewer than 20 of the 241 detainees at the U.S. naval detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Thirteen detainees — including five charged with helping orchestrate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — are already in the tribunal system.
Two senior administration officials outlined several of the rules changes, which will be carried out by executive authority, to The Associated Press on Thursday night. They include:
—Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.
—A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning.
—Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.
—Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.
The White House may seek additional changes to the military commissions law over the next 120 days, but it was not immediately clear Thursday what they could include. The two senior administration officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama had not yet announced the changes.
The tribunal system — set up after the military began sweeping detainees off the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001 — has been under repeated challenges from human rights and legal organizations because it denied defendants many of the rights they would be granted in a civilian courtroom.
In a statement late Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham called Obama's decision to revamp and restart the tribunals a step toward strengthening U.S. detention policies that have been derided worldwide.
"I continue to believe it is in our own national security interests to separate ourselves from the past problems of Guantanamo," said Graham, who has been working with the administration on issues related to detainees. "I agree with the president and our military commanders that now is the time to start over and strengthen our detention policies. I applaud the president's actions today."
Graham was an Air Force lawyer and is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Critics of the Guantanamo commissions, including Obama as a senator in 2006, called them a violation of U.S. law because of the limits on detainees' legal rights. Pushed by President George W. Bush, Congress created the current tribunal system in 2006 after scrapping an earlier version that gave detainees additional rights.
Obama voted for the earlier version of the tribunals plan that also had the support of four moderate Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee. But he opposed the system that Congress ultimately approved, calling it "sloppy."
"We have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court," Obama said in a Sept. 28, 2006, speech on the Senate floor. "This is not how a serious administration would approach the problem of terrorism."
Later, on the presidential campaign trail in February 2008, Obama described the Guantanamo trials as "a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges."
Three Guantanamo detainees have been convicted in the tribunals so far, a government official said Thursday.
The restrictions on evidence almost certainly will result in only a fraction of detainees who ever will go to trial. The rest of the detainees would either be released, transferred to other nations or tried by civilian prosecutors in U.S. federal courts, an official said.
It's also possible that some could continue to be held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions protections, according to another senior U.S. official.
The decision to restart the process puts the administration in a race against the clock to conclude commission trials before the Navy prison is closed, by January 2010. If the trials are still going on, the detainees might have to be brought to the United States, where they would receive even greater legal rights.
Since Obama's executive order to close the prison, Republicans have focused on the issue of where the detainees would go — and the new Democratic administration's lack of a plan to deal with them. In his Thursday statement, Graham said he would not support allowing detainees to be released into the United States.

The_WARDen
05-15-2009, 01:23 PM
*yawn* It's killing you isn't it?

:rofl:

revefsreleets
05-15-2009, 02:33 PM
Actually, no. It was pretty solid policy to begin with under Bush. I'm glad to see Obama come around...

Problem is, Obama was basically elected as the "anti-Bush", and I wonder how all his voters will cotton to him adopting his predecessors policies pretty much wholesale now that he actually gained office...

That's a common misconception. When I post these things, I'm not bashing Obama for adopting good policy, I'm bashing him for his hypocrisy and pandering, and I'm also bashing his blind followers for their hypocrisy and inability to admit what is happening before their very eyes. Him getting on-board with these things which he either didn't understand to begin with or just lied about to get elected is actually good for this country...

MACH1
05-15-2009, 04:11 PM
Problem is, Obama was basically elected as the "anti-Bush", and I wonder how all his voters will cotton to him adopting his predecessors policies pretty much wholesale now that he actually gained office...



If obaama adopts them, then they are no longer evil. Its the right thing to do. :doh:

hindes204
05-15-2009, 04:27 PM
but, but, but ,bush....deflection, bush..but,but,but

I for one am glad he is adopting alot of President Bushs' "failed" policies. I bet it will be hard for you to find any lib that will actually admit tht Pres. Bush did alot of good things in office...a lot of things that, now in office, Pres. Obama is now doing

Dino 6 Rings
05-15-2009, 06:05 PM
So basically...all the "Bush is Bad" stuff and the "McBush" stuff from the left, is null and void because in hindsight...Bush was actually pretty good?

Nice...nothing sleezy about the Politician From Chicago at all...

BozMan
05-15-2009, 10:56 PM
Just shows that it is much easier to pander to ignorant masses and make outlandish criticisms than to take up the responsibility of actually governing. How ironic that one of the most left-wing pols to come down the pike is tacitly making GWB's counterterrorism policies "bipartisan".

Probably a shrewd move on Obama's part. He denies the GOP an opening with moves like this. The fawning media will never call him on his hypocrisy. He has enough of a cult-like following from his base such that they won't turn on him for these moves (for now).

Dino 6 Rings
05-19-2009, 02:26 PM
How about this one:

Pentagon: No plans to end don't ask-don't tell

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon says it has no plans to repeal the don't ask-don't tell policy for gay troops.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday that the military's top leaders have only had initial discussions with the White House about whether gay troops should be open about their sexuality.

Under current rules, openly gay troops can be discharged from the U.S. military.

Morrell said the White House has not asked for the 1993 policy to be scrapped.

"I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building for some expected, but not articulated, anticipation that don't ask-don't tell will be repealed," Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon.

President Barack Obama committed during the 2008 presidential campaign to moving to end the Clinton administration-era policy.

The 1993 law was enacted as a compromise between openly gay people serving in the armed forces and those opposed to gays in uniform.

Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen both have discussed the issue with Obama.

"They're aware of where the president wants to go on this issue, but I don't think that there is any sense of any immediate developments in the offing on efforts to repeal don't ask-don't tell," Morrell said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D989EH1G0&show_article=1

revefsreleets
05-19-2009, 03:44 PM
Similar to gay marriage. The Dems blamed the GOP FOREVER for blocking it, and, now that they are in power, where is the gay marriage?

I'm actually fine with the issue myself, mostly out of sheer apathy, but, again, the hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Dino 6 Rings
05-19-2009, 03:58 PM
The Democrats are starting to back off seriously a lot of their agenda because of Huge Backlash.

Gitmo, "we'll close it" now, they won't fund closing it.

Gay Marriage "we'll pass it" because of the uproar, "civil union" is talked about.

its happening more and more now all the things they were "hoping to change" they are getting serious back lash from the Real Public about the issues and are backing down.

Republicans are killing Dems in poll after poll for House and Senate Seats and Governorships. Even NJ is leaning Republican which is huge at the Governor level.

SteelersinCA
05-19-2009, 06:56 PM
The biggest problem with abolishing the don't ask don't tell policy is sheer logistics imho. What are you going to do have showers for straight guys, gay guys, straight women and gay women? How can you force a gay person to shower with a straight person, that would be like making men and women shower together.

I don't think people think this stuff thru before they add it to their agenda and then no one calls them on it because they dont want to be a homophobe.

Godfather
05-19-2009, 07:22 PM
that would be like making men and women shower together.


I'm all for that! :applaudit:

HometownGal
05-19-2009, 08:16 PM
I'm all for that! :applaudit:

:banana: :applaudit: :banana:

SteelersinCA
05-20-2009, 12:32 AM
Until you get the fat and hairy man/woman.

steelwall
05-20-2009, 12:44 AM
pretty sad for a guy who ran strictly on the premise "I ain't Bush"......

revefsreleets
05-20-2009, 09:04 AM
The Democrats are starting to back off seriously a lot of their agenda because of Huge Backlash.

Gitmo, "we'll close it" now, they won't fund closing it.

Gay Marriage "we'll pass it" because of the uproar, "civil union" is talked about.

its happening more and more now all the things they were "hoping to change" they are getting serious back lash from the Real Public about the issues and are backing down.

Republicans are killing Dems in poll after poll for House and Senate Seats and Governorships. Even NJ is leaning Republican which is huge at the Governor level.

Concur...BUT the last thing I'd like to see is mid-terms held right now. Give the Dems another 18 months of rope with which to hang themselves, and I can see HUGE sweeping changes in the House and Senate next election.

Dino 6 Rings
05-20-2009, 09:37 AM
Concur...BUT the last thing I'd like to see is mid-terms held right now. Give the Dems another 18 months of rope with which to hang themselves, and I can see HUGE sweeping changes in the House and Senate next election.

It actually happens almost everytime a new party takes the whitehouse. Heck even when Reagan won the Whitehouse, the Republicans lost seats in the House and Congress. The Single Party rule really turns people off and since the white house (regardless of who is in) can not satisfy all the people all the time, when the election comes around mid term, the people vote against the white house party on a regular basis.

Check and Balance.

Godfather
05-20-2009, 10:50 AM
It actually happens almost everytime a new party takes the whitehouse. Heck even when Reagan won the Whitehouse, the Republicans lost seats in the House and Congress. The Single Party rule really turns people off and since the white house (regardless of who is in) can not satisfy all the people all the time, when the election comes around mid term, the people vote against the white house party on a regular basis.

Check and Balance.

Even bigger reason for midterm losses is what political scientists call "surge and decline". When a party wins the White House, it is, by definition, a good year for that party. Which also means that party wins seats it wouldn't normally win. Two years later there's a regression to the mean and they lose those seats.

Which is also one of the reasons it didn't happen in 1998 and 2002. Clinton won by a plurality and Bush lost the popular vote, so there wasn't a high to come down from two years later. Impeachment and the war on Islamofascism, respectively, pushed the midterms even further in the in-party's direction.