2012 presidential debates

I'm not sure where you currently are on this issue. Do you acknowledge it's a political/practical impossibility to close gitmo? Do you blame Obama for not keeping his promise with respect to closing gitmo, and you effectively deny the impossibility? Why do you think it's still possible to close gitmo? And what would it take for the current administration to do so?

And what war on terror propaganda/lies are you actually talking about which Obama '12 is supposed to believe in? Excuse me my ignorance.

i'm coming at this from a moral and civil rights point of view, which cast Gitmo in a very dark and tragic light. Pretty much all of my beliefs stem from this.

- i think gitmo should be closed full stop, if people there are 'too dangerous' to release to the public, they should transparently (not under the cloak of secrecy or national security) charge them with a crime, and commute whatever part of the sentence they receive with how long they've already been there.

- someone in a position of authority should find out which hundreds of people are innocent, Colonel Wilkerson isnt the only one who has suggested this and release them, provide flights back to wherever they came from and allow them to sue the US government for wrongful imprisonment

- whoever incurred physical abuse and violence while in custody should have the right to sue for damages regardless if they were innocent or not. Unfortunately once the US government crossed this line of legality, regardless of how 'dangerous' they say a particular prisoner was, 2 wrongs dont make a right. If the US government can't prove their guilt, and they most definilty cannot in a court of law defend physical abuse, they deserve to get the shit sued

- if there are still hundreds or more of 'dangerous' prisoners who have now been properly charged with a crime via the due process of law then they should be transferred to a prison inside the united states which operates under united states law (which many empy prisons inside the US have offered on the cheap). The whole reason they are at Gitmo in the first place (and dont forget this key part) is because the location does not fall under US laws, it's in a mysterious legal limbo which at least to the US government seems to give them the authority to outright violate US law as we understand it. Violate it in the form of detaining people indefinitely with no criminal charges

Violate it in the form of murdering prisoners

iolate in the form of committing violence on prisoners during interrogations

Violate in the form of kangaroo courts which if they do 'charge' someone with a crime the disclosure of evidence is completely not traditionally legal. Meaning the prosecutions evidence doesnt have to be shown to the defense, which is completely contradictory to the process of law in the united states.

Yes...but, again, do you acknowledge it's a political/practical impossibility to close gitmo?

It's nice and tidy on that big white horse of moral values you're sitting on, but that white horse ain't pulling a plough by itself, if you catch my drift.

  On 10/27/2012 at 10:34 PM, goDel said:

Do you acknowledge it's a political/practical impossibility to close gitmo?

absolutely not, but from the point of view of someone who only cares about political fallout and not the right thing to do, the moral thing to do or the legal thing to do i could understand shy someone so self absorbed and concerned about the temporary image of the US and the PR strategy for the war on terror would do absolutely everything in their power to keep it open.

  On 10/27/2012 at 10:34 PM, goDel said:

Do you blame Obama for not keeping his promise with respect to closing gitmo, and you effectively deny the impossibility? Why do you think it's still possible to close gitmo? And what would it take for the current administration to do so?

I think it's absolutely possible to close gitmo if someone in power took a moral stand over temporary selfish political considerations.

I think it's possible to close Gitmo for all the reasons i just described above, it is a mess legally speaking, morally speaking and continues to make us look horrible across the globe. GITMO is probably in large part why people across the world think the united states is hypocritical as fuck.

What would it take? Balls. Which this administration does not have. But to me it implies something even worse, that Obama intended to keep continuity between the Bush administrations lawlessness and his own. Either he thinks he needs this dictatorial like power or he feels it cannot be stopped. Whatever the reason it doesnt excuse it.

  On 10/27/2012 at 10:34 PM, goDel said:

And what war on terror propaganda/lies are you actually talking about which Obama '12 is supposed to believe in?

specifically the lies he believes in are

- believing the war on terror is a valid concept that will last indefinitely, by his own whitehouse documents up to 20 more years (the disposition matrix)

- believing that we can extra judicially assassinate anybody anywhere int he world that poses an existential and unproven or publicly documented threat to the united states including american citizens for our own protection.

- believing that certain 'terrorsts' are too dangerous to release even though no criminal charges have ever been brought towards them

- believing that the entire world is a battlefield and it is our right as the united states to wage war through drones, stuxnet or assassinations anywhere on the planet to stop 'pre-crime'

  On 10/27/2012 at 10:47 PM, goDel said:

Yes...but, again, do you acknowledge it's a political/practical impossibility to close gitmo?

absolutely not (maybe you didn't read my post above), the only way someone could acknowledge this is if they see the world through the lens of electioneering and political PR maneuvering. this is not how i personally see the world, but i can guarantee that many of our leaders do and it's not an excuse for their behavior.

It just takes balls? Sorry, Obama might believe in propaganda/lies, but this would be equally oblivious if you ask me.

I agree with you on a lot of points. The whole Gitmo ordeal is a giant turd which smells miles in the wind. But the 'solutions' you present are not the magic bullets which suddenly clears the skies and make it possible for gitmo to release the kraken. And yes, I've already read your post after I repeated - again - my question. And I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I admire you sticking to your guns. But stubbornly keeping oneself in the saddle of moral and civil rights will not solve this issue. No matter how big your balls are.

Again, the prisoners are not going anywhere because they can't go anywhere. If there was a point in time where prisons in the US were ready to take them, that millisecond lasted very short. It simply isn't going to work. IMO.

Also, I don't know if the news made it to the other side of the pond, but in the early days of Obama's presidency when he was touring the EU and half the rest of the world, he was begging everyone and anyone to please please take a couple of gitmo detainees. And even though half the EU had a huge boner even talking to Obama, the answer was a consistent "No". Even if there was a political will to do so, international law made it impossible.

The Bush administration laid an impossible turd. And even if Obama had the balls to try to wipe it away (which he did), the stains were there to stay. Perhaps the red whine on a white shirt is a better analogy.

Kind of agree with goDel here, though I also find Obama's increase or continuation of Bush era foreign policy a bit confusing if you are correct that Obama would want to close gitmo if he had a way to do it. Seems hypocritical

I'm currently reading a book written by a Dutch lawyer specialised in international law. One of the things he writes about is the gitmo-ordeal. I will try to write a summary later on. But as a cliffhanger, there's enough juicy info for both sides of the discussion to prove their points. And I'm not kidding either. Apart from the legal complexities, there's also the financial part which is a huge showstopper. And Obama with all his ideals (believe it or not), is very good at shooting himself in the foot. But that does not put all the blame on him however.

Let the detainees out and pay them an huge amount of compensation and apologise. How hard can it be, well unless you live in a rabbit hole sustained by propaganda generated illogical fallacies.

  On 10/27/2012 at 11:19 PM, goDel said:

The Bush administration laid an impossible turd. And even if Obama had the balls to try to wipe it away (which he did), the stains were there to stay. Perhaps the red whine on a white shirt is a better analogy.

I actually think that is a fantastic ANALogy.

I'd like to see the proof that obama tried to wipe away the turd of Gitmo. Did you know that he threatened Italy, the UK and Spain to withold 'vital' intelligence info to them (aka sanction them) if they proceeded with criminal trials in regards to citizens of theirs who were tortured and renditioned to gitmo and other places? The judges in the UK in particular were horrified by the act, and emphasized themselves that Obama has continued some of the worst of the Bush law breaking

http://enduringamerica.squarespace.com/february-2009/2009/2/4/us-threatens-uk-to-keep-gitmo-torture-secret.html

Obama lawyers also rushed to defend a lawsuit filed towards John Yoo, the chief architect of the Bush torture memos evoking the 'states secret privilege' essentially saying that no part of the lawsuit could be heard in public or in court because it violated national security.

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/obama-administration-files-to-dismiss-case-against-john-yoo/

it wouldn't surprise me if major European countries were unwilling to take on GITMO detainees, especially after the US, under Obama threatened them/strong armed them (whatever you want to call it) when they tried to proceed with their own criminal trials in regards to torture

SFPD came down really hard on the Giants world series riots last night, they shot tear gas at everybody and were enforcing all over the place. The police were already ready for them, in the thousands to quell the protests as soon as the game was out

just kidding, no tear gas or excessive force was used at all and police showed up long after the riots started, at 1am in relatively small numbers.

Police response during Occupy normal and expected? It's to be expected to be tear gassed if you a protestor or veteran, but not so much a drunken sports fan rioter who commits arson.

just look at all these cops!

me thinks there is a double standard here?

hmmmmm......

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

  On 10/28/2012 at 9:49 PM, Awepittance said:

I'd like to see the proof that obama tried to wipe away the turd of Gitmo.

Coming weekend I'll have time to summarise the case I've been reading about.

  On 10/30/2012 at 1:24 AM, Awepittance said:

SFPD came down really hard on the Giants world series riots last night, they shot tear gas at everybody and were enforcing all over the place. The police were already ready for them, in the thousands to quell the protests as soon as the game was out

 

 

just kidding, no tear gas or excessive force was used at all and police showed up long after the riots started, at 1am in relatively small numbers.

 

Police response during Occupy normal and expected? It's to be expected to be tear gassed if you a protestor or veteran, but not so much a drunken sports fan rioter who commits arson.

 

just look at all these cops!

 

thank goodness for awepittance.

I could link to our riot party problems (throwing bricks at police, destroying surrounding suburban gardens) where the police back off instead of asking for backup and then when there's some left wing sit in, they trample people with horses and police cars (actually happens).

It's arging annoyilating hellapissoffing INJUSTICE IN ACTION.

For those who care, there'll be another Third Party Debate on November 4th. Ralph Nader will be moderating.

http://nader.org/201...ate-in-d-c-114/

So not the RT double minus header then ?

doesn't that seem biased? Isn't Nader obviously supporting Stein?

I think it's funny that you refer to it as gitmo. It's kinda like saying 'murica.

NADER IS KING

  On 10/30/2012 at 8:01 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

doesn't that seem biased? Isn't Nader obviously supporting Stein?

Ralph has suggested that you should vote for Jill/Green or Rocky/Justice (sauce: http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/what-ralph-nader-thinking-about-2012-election)

I think he's probably at least as capable as anyone of being a fair moderator, but the public image of him as a (non-member) figurehead for the Green Party certainly makes the decision a weird one, from a PR perspective

  On 10/30/2012 at 10:08 PM, Hoodie said:

NADER IS KING

DER GRÜNFUHRER