The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Today Obama walked from the family quarters to the Oval Office. Sure, other administrations have done the same thing, but Obama promised change. Is he ever going to skip or grapevine to the Oval Office or is it just going to be propulsion as normal?

btw- Just for reference, Stalin and Hitler were also well known walkers to work. I'm not trying to make any comparisons, but I just found the similarity interesting.

There's a difference between generic "change" and specific statements made during a campaign.

I appreciate that the president can change his mind, but find it interesting that no Obama supporters have a problem with this. I asked someone here (I can't remember who) whether they would disagree if Obama came to what I argued was an inevitable conclusion (and changed his stance on this), and they said yes.

On issues of Iraq and National Security, it seems more and more that McCain really was the "straight talker", and Obama was promising the impossible.

I'd be curious to hear the answer to that question now - if Obama decides, unequivocally, that it's simply not practical to try all of these people in civilian courts, or even with complete constitutional due process and federal rules of evidence - do Obama supporters have a problem with that?

[Butter]

Yes, I would have a problem with that.

[lungs]

I have no problem with what the Great Leader decides is best for our great nation. His power comes from the divine and such should not be questioned by any citizen who is working for the betterment of our great nation led by our beloved Barack Hussein Obama.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Imagine that, a president who can admit when he's wrong! Refreshing, eh?

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Yes, I would have a problem with that.

Is it refreshing or do you have a problem with it since everything indicates that he will back out on another campaign promise and do exactly what he blasted McCain for during the campaign?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Yes, I would have a problem with that.

Then why is your reaction to this news "how refreshing that a president can admit when he's wrong" and not disappointment?

This guy's clearly still bullet-proof, but it's early, I guess.

[Butter]

I was mostly just needling MBBF, if you must know.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

There's a difference between generic "change" and specific statements made during a campaign.

I appreciate that the president can change his mind, but find it interesting that no Obama supporters have a problem with this. I asked someone here (I can't remember who) whether they would disagree if Obama came to what I argued was an inevitable conclusion (and changed his stance on this), and they said yes.

On issues of Iraq and National Security, it seems more and more that McCain really was the "straight talker", and Obama was promising the impossible.

I'd be curious to hear the answer to that question now - if Obama decides, unequivocally, that it's simply not practical to try all of these people in civilian courts, or even with complete constitutional due process and federal rules of evidence - do Obama supporters have a problem with that?

I never cared about civilian vs. military courts so this doesn't really bother me. I do want to see a system that allows some sort of due process. My understanding is that the military courts will be restructured to provide a more impartial trial, and that's good enough for me.

One of the issues here, especially with high value detainees is that the torture used on some of them makes it damn near impossible to ever put them on trial in a civilian court.

[flere-imsaho]

I'll wait to see what actually happens before getting up in arms about an article filled with anonymous sources.

If it does turn out that the Obama Administration has to use military courts because the usage of torture would render much of the evidence unusable in civilian courts, it'll be very, very unfortunate, and hardly the Obama Administration's fault.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If it does turn out that the Obama Administration has to use military courts because the usage of torture would render much of the evidence unusable in civilian courts, it'll be very, very unfortunate, and hardly the Obama Administration's fault.

This post is the verbal equivalent of the Tilt-A-Whirl.

Well done.

[flere-imsaho]

It's unclear to me how you can have trouble understanding that sentence.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'll wait to see what actually happens before getting up in arms about an article filled with anonymous sources.

If it does turn out that the Obama Administration has to use military courts because the usage of torture would render much of the evidence unusable in civilian courts, it'll be very, very unfortunate, and hardly the Obama Administration's fault.

Torture is one of the issues, but the idea is ridiculous and impractical even independent of that. Due process and the rules of evidence provide pretty signficant obstacles (and rightly so), to convicting someone pulled over for DUI in New York City. How (and why) can you apply the same processes and evidence to non-citizens arrested in a war zone? I would guess that you could only convict an extremely small number of these terrorists with those restrictions and a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof, especially considering that the presence of information which you can't make public at a trial, for security reasons.

Now, if you claim you just want to simply let everyone go, that would be a more honest positition, because that's the only possible result of trying everyone in civilian courts.

But even having said that - Obama certainly knew about torture before he became president. He really didn't think of this possibility? What a visionary. I'm fascinated to see how far this protective attitude of him goes.

[flere-imsaho]

Every poll I've seen on this for Iraq states that this is not, in fact, the case.

{citation needed}

Still waiting, MBBF....

I am very seriously, honestly interested in polls that indicate a "vast majority" of the troops in Iraq support that war. From any year. I could see it being possible in 2008 or 2009, but I've not seen a poll with those numbers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Torture is one of the issues, but the idea is ridiculous and impractical even independent of that. Due process and the rules of evidence provide pretty signficant obstacles (and rightly so), to convicting someone pulled over for DUI in New York City. How (and why) can you apply the same processes and evidence to non-citizens arrested in a war zone? I would guess that you could only convict an extremely small number of these terrorists with those restrictions and a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof, especially considering that the presence of information which you can't make public at a trial, for security reasons.

Now, if you claim you just want to simply let everyone go, that would be a more honest positition, because that's the only possible result of trying everyone in civilian courts.

But even having said that - Obama certainly knew about torture before he became president. He really didn't think of this possibility? What a visionary. I'm fascinated to see how far this protective attitude of him goes.

Yes, it's shocking that people who supported and voted for Obama still support him six months later. Why that's just as surprising as people who opposed and voted against Obama still opposing Obama.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Torture is one of the issues, but the idea is ridiculous and impractical even independent of that.

So we're going to re-hash this argument?

That's fine, I guess my understanding has changed, to be honest. I am not a lawyer, so it was unclear to me how much the Bush Administration's interrogation methods, and evidence-gathering methods would potentially compromise the civilian trials of the detainees. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Candidate Obama was unaware of the extent of this as well.

So now we're left with two lousy choices. Let these guys hit the civilian courts and see them go free, or use military tribunals with special rules in place that (and let's be honest here) are basically set up to give the best possible chance of convictions, which isn't a "fair trial" by any stretch of the definition.

Now, someone's going to jump in here and say "But these guys are terrorists! They shouldn't go free!" Well, of course the terrorists shouldn't go free. Problem is, there's ample evidence that not all at Gitmo were terrorists. So you're going to throw them in a manufactured trial setting and hope for the best? Awesome.

And that's what I'm talking about, MBBF. The previous administration screwed the pooch so hard on this one that we're now left with the situation where Obama might not even be able to put KSM in front of a civilian trial, a guy who admits responsibility for 9/11, and will have to give him something that can be construed as a "show trial" in order to convict him, and even then you might have trouble putting him in a U.S.-based SuperMax because of the legal questions.

Again, AWESOME. And you, MBBF, would have me believe that this is Obama being hypocritical. Really? Maybe a truly left-wing partisan sees it that way (or a truly right-wing partisan). I don't.

So I guess I'm going to have to agree with JPhillips:

I do want to see a system that allows some sort of due process. My understanding is that the military courts will be restructured to provide a more impartial trial, and that's good enough for me.

Edit: Just a note that I'm not conflating MBBF and molson in this post. My comments to MBBF are related to his "Tilt-a-whirl" post.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, it's shocking that people who supported and voted for Obama still support him six months later. Why that's just as surprising as people who opposed and voted against Obama still opposing Obama.

No, it's surprising that people continue to support positions of Obama even when the position change.

Well, I guess it's not surprising. It's just evidence that people vote for rock stars, not positions.

I'm pretty sure that if Obama did it gradually enough, he could turn his followers into Republicans without them even noticing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

No, it's surprising that people continue to support positions of Obama even when the position change.

Well, I guess it's not surprising. It's just evidence that people vote for rock stars, not positions.

I'm pretty sure that if Obama did it gradually enough, he could turn his followers into Republicans without them even noticing.

Or maybe it has to do with looking at the totality of issues, especially in comparison to what McCain would have done. There are a number of issues where I disagree with Obama, but I still think he is a better President than McCain would have been. Just because you believe differently doesn't mean all the Obama supporters have no convictions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Now, someone's going to jump in here and say "But these guys are terrorists! They shouldn't go free!" Well, of course the terrorists shouldn't go free. Problem is, there's ample evidence that not all at Gitmo were terrorists. So you're going to throw them in a manufactured trial setting and hope for the best? Awesome.

There's a lot of room between constitutional due process/federal rules of evidence v. "manufactured trial setting".

Why not just have military tribunals with somewhat relaxed rules of evidence and burden of proof to account for the practical issues of trying to prove events that occurred thousands of miles away in conditions of warfare?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

No, it's surprising that people continue to support positions of Obama even when the position change.

Well, I guess it's not surprising. It's just evidence that people vote for rock stars, not positions.

As I stated in many posts during the campaign, I supported (and support) Obama mostly because I felt he had good judgment and the intellectual ability to arrive at good decisions. That hasn't changed.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Why not just have military tribunals with somewhat relaxed rules of evidence and burden of proof to account for the practical issues of trying to prove events that occurred thousands of miles away in conditions of warfare?

Leaving aside the question of torture and its deleterious effect on the government's prosecution (as I did, unwittingly, in the other thread), I guess I still don't see why these guys, supposedly dangerous terrorists, couldn't be convicted in civilian courts.

If, as we were told, these guys were dangerous terrorists and if, as we were told, the CIA et. al. had considerable evidence on them, these should be slam-dunk trials, even given the existence of top-secret evidence and the fact that the prisoners were captured under wartime conditions. Neither factor has unduly hampered civilian courts in the past (the legal register is replete with examples, but consider, as I suggested in the other thread, the incidences of Soviet double-agents and their successful conditions using top-secret evidence).

I guess there's a logical disconnect there that I'm just not understanding. Look, if you've got a guy like KSM and his immediate co-conspirators, who admit guilt and don't intend to plead insanity, and on whom the CIA says they have plenty of evidence, why aren't they in ADX Florence already? That's a rhetorical question, of course. We know why they didn't get a trial - the CIA wanted to waterboard KSM, apparently to little avail.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As I stated in many posts during the campaign, I supported (and support) Obama mostly because I felt he had good judgment and the intellectual ability to arrive at good decisions. That hasn't changed.

Your feelings are your opinion and aren't likely to change. With that said, Obama's performance when compared to his campaign promises have been inadequate in some situations. Hell, you may even be right that he has good judgment. If so, do we blame his cabinet for the 180 degree turns in some of his campaign promises?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Leaving aside the question of torture and its deleterious effect on the government's prosecution (as I did, unwittingly, in the other thread), I guess I still don't see why these guys, supposedly dangerous terrorists, couldn't be convicted in civilian courts.

If, as we were told, these guys were dangerous terrorists and if, as we were told, the CIA et. al. had considerable evidence on them, these should be slam-dunk trials, even given the existence of top-secret evidence and the fact that the prisoners were captured under wartime conditions. Neither factor has unduly hampered civilian courts in the past (the legal register is replete with examples, but consider, as I suggested in the other thread, the incidences of Soviet double-agents and their successful conditions using top-secret evidence).

I guess there's a logical disconnect there that I'm just not understanding. Look, if you've got a guy like KSM and his immediate co-conspirators, who admit guilt and don't intend to plead insanity, and on whom the CIA says they have plenty of evidence, why aren't they in ADX Florence already? That's a rhetorical question, of course. We know why they didn't get a trial - the CIA wanted to waterboard KSM, apparently to little avail.

I think we had this same exchange somewhere else, but the problem isn't with the high-level guys. Those would seemingly be "slam dunk trials" (though in a civilian court, there's no such thing as a slam dunk trial. All you need is a couple of charaismatic dissenters in a jury to eventually convince everyone else. Do you REALLY want to leave the fate of KSM and others to a small sample of fat housewifes, anarchists, drug addicts, etc? It's fine and dandy that they let the occasional murderer go free, but do you want to trust them with issues of national security? KSM COULD GO FREE if you tried him in a civilian court, even if the evidence was overwhelming). What if a prosecutor just screws up (either procedurally, or ethically). You're cool with just setting KSM free, regardless of the strength of evidence against him? And if you don't think there's a real risk of him walking away in a civilian trial, that the conviction is a 100% certainty - then what's the point of the civilian trial?

And of course, in most cases, you're not talking about that kind of high profile. You're talking about guys picked up on a battlefield. Do we really need to be 99% sure of their guilt (or whatever "beyond a reasonable doubt requires)? Do we really need to exclude hearsay evidence? When there's say, a drug case in the United States, the entire chain of custody has to be established. Things are signed for, moved, signed for, moved, you have to account for something for any second of its existence. Not that we're prosecuting drug cases here, but just as an example, you can't have that kind of precision in a war zone, where stuff gets blown up and people die. It's harder to make a clean case and the stakes are higher.

The Russian double-agents had a huge paper trail. And were American citizens. The evidence was investigated and gathered in the United States. Those were civilian crimes.

What crimes are the terrorists being charged with? U.S. civilian crimes? That's the only way they should be tried in U.S. courts, and how can a foreigner be guilty of a U.S. crime?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

With that said, Obama's performance when compared to his campaign promises have been inadequate in some situations.

Says you. I'm 100% happy with his performance so far. You seem to want to paint me as some sort of partisan who's going to wet my pants and cry to mommy if my wish list isn't fulfilled in 100 days. Sorry to disappoint you.

If so, do we blame his cabinet for the 180 degree turns in some of his campaign promises?

List some of those 180 degree turns and I can address them. Make sure they're 100% 180 degree turns (as in he's doing completely the opposite now that he promised in the campaign).

Originally Posted by molson

I think we had this same exchange somewhere else, but the problem isn't with the high-level guys.

We did. I linked the thread (above). That's why I'm kind of half-hearting the argument now.

Those would seemingly be "slam dunk trials" (though in a civilian court, there's no such thing as a slam dunk trial. All you need is a couple of charaismatic dissenters in a jury to eventually convince everyone else. Do you REALLY want to leave the fate of KSM and others to a small sample of fat housewifes, anarchists, drug addicts, etc? It's fine and dandy that they let the occasional murderer go free, but do you want to trust them with issues of national security? KSM COULD GO FREE if you tried him in a civilian court, even if the evidence was overwhelming). What if a prosecutor just screws up (either procedurally, or ethically). You're cool with just setting KSM free, regardless of the strength of evidence against him?

OK, back up for a sec. You're accusing me of making an argument I'm not making. Go easy on the "KSM COULD GO FREE" fear-mongering nonsense.

I'm not worried that KSM could go free. For one, the government could appeal a not guilty verdict. For two, the government could cite national security and hold him anyway (though I'd imagine the Obama Administration would want to avoid this).

Look, if the Bush Administration felt KSM and the other actual terrorists at Gitmo could have been acquitted at a civilian trial, even before they were tortured, they should have said as much and devised a workable military trial solution prior to having their hackneyed version shot down by the Supreme Court in mid-2006. Then, even with the help of Congress passing the Military Commissions Act in late-2006, they've still dicked around for another couple of years and left the mess, torture, compromised evidence and all, to the Obama Administration.

So I guess if the Obama Administration, in light of all this, has to now resort to another form of military tribunals, it's probably the best of a bad set of options.

And if you don't think there's a real risk of him walking away in a civilian trial, that the conviction is a 100% certainty - then what's the point of the civilian trial?

I guess I agree with JPhillips here. As long as the trial is fair and impartial, that's good enough. My opposition to the Bush Administration's military tribunals was that they were clearly not fair nor impartial. If you convict people in those trials you've probably not only convicted innocent people, but you've made a mockery of America's commitment to justice.

Again, if the Obama Administration has to resort to military tribunals, then I guess I'm OK with that, as I trust them a whole lot more than the previous administration to make those trials fair and impartial. I know a lot of people won't agree with me, but I've been pretty clear where I stand on who I trust.

And of course, in most cases, you're not talking about that kind of high profile. You're talking about guys picked up on a battlefield. Do we really need to be 99% sure of their guilt (or whatever "beyond a reasonable doubt requires)?

This is a bigger issue. I don't think you can call someone a "high value target" without having significant evidence that he's a big threat, even if that evidence is top secret. If you've got guys you want to put on trial but you don't have a lot of evidence aside from random hearsay evidence then yes, I think you need to look at that closely. Otherwise what you're suggesting is to imprison people indefinitely, and even convict them, based on potentially very weak evidence. If you start doing that, where does it end?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you start doing that, where does it end?

With the Constitution and the U.S. citizens it was intended to apply to.

[RainMaker]

I'm not a big supporter of his but did vote for him (thanks to the selection of Palin). I guess I'm satisfied so far with the performance. I don't get much into the daily news bytes but the economy has been improving and it seems like the major issues are past us.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I guess I agree with JPhillips here. As long as the trial is fair and impartial, that's good enough.

I agree with that too. That's good enough. Any more would be risky, expensive, and unnecessary.

But Obama didn't campaign for "military tribunals that you can trust me to be fair", as far as I know.

I'm glad he's coming around on that, I'm just amused that his supporters are simultaneously following his position wherever it goes, and claiming that he was blindsided by the Bush years and thus can't fulfill his promises (Didn't he know about the Bush years?)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

With the Constitution and the U.S. citizens it was intended to apply to.

Well, the Constitution refers to treaties, and the Geneva Conventions are the result of a treaty, so....

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, the Constitution refers to treaties, and the Geneva Conventions are the result of a treaty, so....

The Constitution is short and vague enough to allow or proscribe pretty much anything. Look at the commerce clause.

I just personally don't think the drafters thought that the bill of rights would apply to foreigners, in foreign countries (let alone foreigners that don't have a country).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm glad he's coming around on that, I'm just amused that his supporters are simultaneously following his position wherever it goes.

Meh, the goalposts have shifted significantly. We only very recently became aware of the extent of the activities done under the auspices of the Bush Administration which now complicate the path forward for these trials. Knowing only what we did back in 2008 (when I last posted in depth on the subject), one could have still made a reasonable assumption that many of the HVTs could have been tried in civilian courts successfully. It's tougher, much tougher, to come to that conclusion now.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

If anyone is legitimately surprised that

1. A candidate for president makes campaign promises and doesn't follow through on them

2. That candidates supporters don't really care

then they really haven't been following politics very long.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The Constitution is short and vague enough to allow or proscribe pretty much anything. Look at the commerce clause.

Article VI is pretty specific, though.

I just personally don't think the drafters thought that the bill of rights would apply to foreigners, in foreign countries (let alone foreigners that don't have a country).

On the contrary, the founders were pretty clear on their opinions regarding cruel and inhuman treatment of other human beings (that whole slavery thing aside).

Further, I'm pretty sure the founders intended for the United States to be as good as a country could be, to use perhaps hyperbolic language, a "shining beacon". Waterboarding and kangaroo courts don't really adhere to that mission.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

'm just amused that his supporters are simultaneously following his position wherever it goes

Or maybe some of his supporters already had that position, and are happy he is moving towards it. Just because a couple of people here said they didn't hold that view doesn't mean everyone did. You make that logic leap far too often.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Or maybe some of his supporters already had that position, and are happy he is moving towards it. Just because a couple of people here said they didn't hold that view doesn't mean everyone did. You make that logic leap far too often.

Fair enough. I just haven't heard anybody here claim that. I certainly don't mean to say that "everyone" feels any certain way.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Waterboarding and kangaroo courts don't really adhere to that mission.

Definitely not. You're just making the assumption that a non-civilian court is necessarily "kangaroo court". I think. But further up you also said, "as long as the trial is fair and impartial, that's good enough."

[flere-imsaho]

Additionally, I'm not sure it's accurate to claim that Candidate Obama called for solely civilian trials. For instance, in mid-2008, after Hamdan was convicted, he said (emphasis mine):

"That the Hamdan trial -- the first military commission trial with a guilty verdict since 9/11 -- took several years of legal challenges to secure a conviction for material support for terrorism underscores the dangerous flaws in the administration's legal framework. It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice. And while it is important to convict anyone who provides material support for terrorism, it is long past time to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and the terrorists who murdered nearly 3,000 Americans."

Further, U.S. civilian courts have obtained a number of terror convictions, including Zacarias Moussaoui. They've even dealt with badly-run trails without freeing suspected terrorists, as in the case of Sheik Moayad and Sheik Zayed.

There's a lot of nuance in this debate that's getting lost.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not a big supporter of his but did vote for him (thanks to the selection of Palin). I guess I'm satisfied so far with the performance. I don't get much into the daily news bytes but the economy has been improving and it seems like the major issues are past us.

I'm sure the economy will continue to improve, regardless of the decisions made. But if we avoid a double-dip recession caused by the winding down of the stimulus dollars, and if the federal stimulus/bailout philosophy doesn't become a permanant strategy, and if the federal defecit can look better without excessive tax increases, then the Obama administration and Congress deserve a lot of credit.

I'd even be willing to give him a pass on the whole promise of foreign energy independence, which is just a fairy tale. (Of course, he could just blame any failure to accomplish that on the Bush administration).

I'd love to see him succeed on all of it though.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Definitely not. You're just making the assumption that a non-civilian court is necessarily "kangaroo court".

Well, that's not the impression I intended to give. In my opinion the tribunals set up by the Bush Administration, up to 2006, were little more than kangaroo courts. As evidenced by Hamdan, if these had been done properly from the start, we probably could have had more of these done by now.

[Big Fo]

Once again you just have to love the assumption that every single person who voted for Obama did so because they share the same viewpoint on every single issue.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree with that too. That's good enough. Any more would be risky, expensive, and unnecessary.

But Obama didn't campaign for "military tribunals that you can trust me to be fair", as far as I know.

I'm glad he's coming around on that, I'm just amused that his supporters are simultaneously following his position wherever it goes, and claiming that he was blindsided by the Bush years and thus can't fulfill his promises (Didn't he know about the Bush years?)

So you don't actually know what he campaigned for that he is supposedly turning a 180 on?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Once again you just have to love the assumption that every single person who voted for Obama did so because they share the same viewpoint on every single issue.

I'm just curious how many people supported Obama's national security/Iraq posititons from early in his campaign, and now ALSO support his posititions now that they've changed. There's no scientific process for that. I don't claim that 100% of Obama supporters believe anything.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm just curious how many people supported Obama's national security/Iraq posititons from early in his campaign, and now ALSO support his posititions now that they've changed. There's no scientific process for that. I don't claim that 100% of Obama supporters believe anything.

Don't worry about it I wasn't talking about anyone specifically, just a general trend in American political discussions on the Internet. The same thing happens everywhere, liberals often paint all Republican voters with the same brush as well (well maybe two different brushes with one for the Religious Right and the other for fiscal conservative/social moderates).

As far as what he said his goals were and my own opinion, where these people are tried is something that does not concern me and it was not something that mattered to me as a voter.

On Iraq, we aren't getting out of there as quickly as promised (early in the campaign pre-surge) so that is disappointing. I know after being there so long people want to finish it the right way but 2011 is pretty far off. In addition to the loss of life it's also a waste of money. I wouldn't have high hopes for Iraq once we left if we stayed another fifty years.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm pretty sure that if Obama did it gradually enough, he could turn his followers into Republicans without them even noticing.

I understand you're still frustrated that Obama has won and that you think he is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes...

but if you really believe what you say here, then you are a completely blind partisan who has no business debating anything, much less politics.

You really think Obama's supporters would go along with a shift towards pro-life? Towards tax breaks for the wealthy? Towards more unilateral foreign policy instead of global cooperation? Towards anti-environment economic policies? Towards *list your favorite GOP policy platform here*?

I continue to stick with what I told my wife several months ago... if he is able to do 50% of what he wanted to during the campaign, he will be a wildly successful president. I am not naive enough to expect that he will do every single thing he mentioned in the campaign without change. Circumstances often require change. Something which the previous administration often didn't seem to realize, especially with respect to Iraq.

I am much more sensitive to economic issues, as are most Americans now anyway, so you'll have to forgive by and large the general lack of outrage over the fact that it may be determined that some of our foreign prisoners may not get what many would consider a fair trial. Honestly, I'm so detached from what is going on with that, I don't really care right now. But based on a belief system, do I trust Obama more than I trusted Bush to do what is right and fair and respect the rights of the individual in accordance with international law? Absolutely. And he will get some leeway in how he does it until he proves (as Bush did) that he doesn't deserve that leeway.

[Dutch]

First of all, many of Obama's supporters were just anti-Bush. Many, many, many people were strongly opposed to military tribunals. The main reason was because they assumed that Bush/Cheney were having some sort of sadistic fun over it. That's what the media pundits kept pushing. Now that Obama is the President, that #1 reason is gone. It doesn't matter that things are the same at Gitmo today that they were when Bush was reelected in '04. Gitmo might well be proving to have been nothing more than a political lightining rod, so maybe it's an easy pill to swallow for liberals? I don't know, but I'm going to guess so.

You really think Obama's supporters would go along with a shift towards pro-life?

Modedrate Democrats? Yes. The hard-line liberal base? No.

Towards tax breaks for the wealthy?

Moderate Democrats? Yes. Socialists? No.

Towards more unilateral foreign policy instead of global cooperation?

When you say unilateral, you really mean, "not unanimous" right? socialist Russia, communist China, and then hard-line liberal France were all very key leaders in the fight to not allow aggression towards Hussein be unanimous. Don't fool yourself that Russia and China (in particular) were not thinking economically with that decision.

Towards anti-environment economic policies?

A lot of moderates are starting to see that hard-line liberals and socialists have strong-armed their message on global warming. Taking care of the environment is one thing, reversing the flow of our economy to take care of "armaggedon" is still very much worth having open discussion about, despite the desire to "act right now".

So the question is, who voted for Obama? Lots of moderates or lots of hardliners? I think President Obama would be doing the right thing by keeping his supporters strongly in his corner, and a lot of them are not as hardline as you may think or hope.

[lordscarlet]

Wow.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Many, many, many people were strongly opposed to military tribunals. The main reason was because they assumed that Bush/Cheney were having some sort of sadistic fun over it.

No. People objected to military tribunals because at least until 2006 they were patently unfair and transparently a tool created by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez to keep detainees indefinitely (and out of the hands of the other branches of government) under a fiction of "due process".

While it's possible Cheney, Rumsfeld & Gonzalez supported torture because they got their kicks off of it, I think it's more likely that they actually felt, against all the evidence and against the advice of experienced interrogators, that torture works as an interrogation tool. Given the breadth of topics on which they were wrong, this would just be another example.

It doesn't matter that things are the same at Gitmo today that they were when Bush was reelected in '04.

But it's not. You remember Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, right? You might have a point if you said the situation is the same today as it was in late 2006, but 2004? Come on.

Modedrate Democrats? Yes. The hard-line liberal base? No.

It depends how you define "moderate Democrats", but I very much doubt this group would agree to support the GOP goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No. People objected to military tribunals because at least until 2006 they were patently unfair and transparently a tool created by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez to keep detainees indefinitely (and out of the hands of the other branches of government) under a fiction of "due process".

Of the 800 detainees that have found there way into Gitmo, almost 600 have been released. Was that before or after 2006? Were we trying to keep "detainees" indefinately or the really bad ones that are still there? It's a big difference.

While it's possible Cheney, Rumsfeld & Gonzalez supported torture because they got their kicks off of it, I think it's more likely that they actually felt, against all the evidence and against the advice of experienced interrogators, that torture works as an interrogation tool. Given the breadth of topics on which they were wrong, this would just be another example.

They didn't harshly interogate the 9/11 mastermind for kicks. They did interogate him for information, which, by all accounts, they received accurately.

[/quote]But it's not. You remember Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, right? You might have a point if you said the situation is the same today as it was in late 2006, but 2004? Come on.[/quote]

2001/2002 is the timeframe I am thinking of. When we were really pressing for information to stop additional 9/11's.

It depends how you define "moderate Democrats", but I very much doubt this group would agree to support the GOP goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade.

I suspect Roe v Wade doesn't fall within the realm of moderates (Democrat or Republican). You are either for it or against it. Gitmo Military Tribunals? Meh...maybe you're for it maybe not...as has been proven here today.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of the 800 detainees that have found there way into Gitmo, almost 600 have been released. Was that before or after 2006? Were we trying to keep "detainees" indefinately or the really bad ones that are still there? It's a big difference.

If Gitmo/secret prisons never came to light, would we have seen any or most of those 600 released? My contention is that Cheney, Rumsfeld & Gonzalez used whatever tactic they could to keep these detainees solely in their own jurisdiction for as long as possible and this worked until the Supreme Court ruled strongly against them in 2006. One could even view the release of some detainees as part of this strategy (given that the vast majority of the 600 were basically innocent of anything).

Bottom-line, though, the Administration's pretty much on-record goal was to keep whomever they wanted, for as long as they wanted, in their own custody, without references to the other branches of government. That is what most of us objected to.

Anyway, you're moving the goalposts. You said the situation in Gitmo is the same as it was in 2004 when Bush was re-elected. It's clearly not.

They didn't harshly interogate the 9/11 mastermind for kicks. They did interogate him for information, which, by all accounts, they received accurately.

Really? Because I haven't seen that. In fact, similar claims about Abu Zubaydah have been debunked:

Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified.

[flere-imsaho]

Every poll I've seen on this for Iraq states that this is not, in fact, the case.

{citation needed}

Still waiting, MBBF....

I am very seriously, honestly interested in polls that indicate a "vast majority" of the troops in Iraq support that war. From any year. I could see it being possible in 2008 or 2009, but I've not seen a poll with those numbers.

[Senator]

President check please, k thx.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Really glad to see this kind of push-back from the creditors against any Obama-negotiated agreements in regard to bankruptcy. This needs to stay out of government hands to avoid manipulation of creditor payouts by politicians. Leave it in the courts where it belongs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv...5464WC20090507

I have no clue why Pelosi continues to wage a finger-pointing campaign against the intelligence agencies. You can be sure that they have evidence to prove/disprove everything you say/do as a politician. She should just drop it and take the medicine.

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations' - Capitol Briefing