Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[misko27]

"Facts are stubborn things, but Statistics are Pliable.

[Nadaka]

Is it weird that I think that an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties... mostly from the people that think that an armed revolution might be necessary to protect their "liberties".

[Zangi]

Is it weird that I think that an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties... mostly from the people that think that an armed revolution might be necessary to protect their "liberties".

Ah... yea... there is always the chance that whoever comes out on top after a revolution ain't who you would ever support if you had any say in it.

[Drakale]

Yeah that's the main headache with revolution, especially with armed ones, the cure may be worst than the disease.

[Owlbread]

Cue "Won't Get Fooled Again"...

[Scoops Novel]

Mos Def has been forcefed in the same manner as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. He doesn't last long with it, I doubt I could.

Given his job description, sounds like reform is coming up.

[palsch]

Mos Def has been forcefed in the same manner as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. He doesn't last long with it, I doubt I could.

Two things about this video.

The first is this from a nurse who frequently carries out similar procedures for valid medical reasons, including on people who were resisting and under restraint (people who had attempted suicide and were sectioned under the mental health act; I've met people with anorexia where this has happened). He believes the video makes out the procedure to be far, far worse than it is, which can be medically dangerous. People fearing life-saving medical procedures is never good. Making out an unpleasant but useful treatment method to be torture can cause problems down the line.

The second is this decision from a district court judge. She denied that she had jurisdiction to stop force feeding at GTMO, but saw no legal reason why Obama couldn't directly order it stopped as commander in chief. She also offered a strong case that force feeding is illegal under international law.

IMO that puts Obama in a really ugly position, at least if the media pick up on it (not seen any real indication of this yet). On the one hand we have force feeding being made out to be the last dregs of torture remaining at GTMO. On the other hand we have prisoners who are very likely to die if allowed to continue their hunger strike indefinitely. Obama's only real political option was to try to keep things at arm's length.

[Sheb]

Or hold his nose and close the damn thing. Congress did gave him the authority to deal with prisoners in a case-by-base basis, which is obviously a set up for "You freed terrorist!" attack ads, but he don't have to deal with re-elections anymore.

[Owlbread]

I'm not a big fan of Mos Def personally, but I'm hesitant to attack him for bursting into tears like a wean because of the fact that I haven't experienced force feeding myself.

[palsch]

Or hold his nose and close the damn thing. Congress did gave him the authority to deal with prisoners in a case-by-base basis, which is obviously a set up for "You freed terrorist!" attack ads, but he don't have to deal with re-elections anymore.

No, they have repeatedly blocked any attempts to transfer prisoners out of the prison. He has the authority to deport some of them, but that's limited by the state department assessments of the nations they would be sent to and there being states to take them. At most he could overrule the state department and deport some of the prisoners to Yemen, where such transfers are only blocked by executive branch bodies who Obama can overrule, but that may change if the House language below takes effect.

The 2014 NDAA language debated in the Senate may actually relax these restrictions for the first time since Obama came into office (there have been annual blocks on his doing anything), but that requires that language being adopted over the House language which basically extends current restrictions. From that article;

Consider first the House bill (H.R. 1960), which has already passed the chamber. Were it to become law, the administration would not be permitted to use any appropriated funds to build alternative facilities for housing Guantanamo detainees (Sec. 1032). It would be forbidden to transfer any detainees abroad without complying with the same sort of onerous certification requirements it currently faces, even if a detainee had served his sentence or been acquitted in a military commission (Sec. 1033). It would not be allowed to transfer any detainee to the United States for detention or trial (Sec. 1034). It would not be allowed use any appropriated funds “to provide additional or upgraded recreational facilities for individuals detained at” Guantanamo (Sec. 1040C). And it would be forbidden to use appropriated funds to transfer any detainees to Yemen at all (Sec. 1040D). In other words, more of the same policy we are currently living under.

By contrast, the Senate bill (S. 1197), were it to become law, would alter the landscape a lot. Under its terms, the Pentagon could transfer a detainee if the Periodic Review Boards set up in Executive Order 13567 found “that the individual is no longer a threat to the national security of the United States.” (For this to happen, of course, the administration would actually have to convene some PRBs, but that’s really not the Senate’s issue.) It could also transfer a detainee who has been acquitted of criminal charges or completed a sentence (Sec. 1031(a)). What’s more, the administration could transfer a detainee certifying only that “actions that have been or are planned to be taken will substantially mitigate the risk of such individual engaging or reengaging in any terrorist or other hostile activity that threatens the United States” and that the transfer “is in the national security interests of the United States” (Sec. 1031(b)). The factors that constitute onerous restrictions in the House bill are, in the Senate version, mere factors to “take into consideration” (Sec. 1031(c)). The Senate bill requires notification and explanation of transfer decisions to Congress at least 30 days before the transfer happens (Sec. 1031(d))—which creates a record of accountability if and when things go bad. But it does not prevent them from happening. That’s a big difference.

The Senate bill also relaxes the transfer restrictions to the United States—in two ways. First, it permits DoD to “temporarily transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo” to a DoD facility in the United States “for the sole purpose of providing medical treatment” if that treatment is “necessary to prevent death or imminent significant injury or harm” and the treatment is not available at reasonable cost at Guantanamo (Sec. 1032). More importantly, the Senate version relaxes the ban on detainee transfers to the United States for trial, allowing them if the Secretary of Defense finds that a transfer is in the interests of national security and that “appropriate actions have been taken, or will be taken, to address any risk to public safety,” and gives Congress an explanation and 30 days notice (Sec. 1033).

In other words, were the Senate bill to become law, it would become possible—if the Executive Branch had the political will—both to resume transferring detainees abroad who do not need to remain at Guantanamo and to bring to the United States the small number of detainees who make sense to try in federal courts. By contrast if the House language becomes law, the result will be continued stagnation. For the first time in quite a while, in other words, transfer policy is seriously at play in congressional politics.

Obama had a veto threat against the House language. I haven't seen any White House policy about the Senate language, but the veto threat may be enough to get Congress to choose the liberal option for once.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

IMO that puts Obama in a really ugly position, at least if the media pick up on it (not seen any real indication of this yet). On the one hand we have force feeding being made out to be the last dregs of torture remaining at GTMO. On the other hand we have prisoners who are very likely to die if allowed to continue their hunger strike indefinitely. Obama's only real political option was to try to keep things at arm's length.

Sure wish 'Release the innocent people on hunger strike' was an option but I guess this isn't the America I used to know.

[10ebbor10]

IMO that puts Obama in a really ugly position, at least if the media pick up on it (not seen any real indication of this yet). On the one hand we have force feeding being made out to be the last dregs of torture remaining at GTMO. On the other hand we have prisoners who are very likely to die if allowed to continue their hunger strike indefinitely. Obama's only real political option was to try to keep things at arm's length.

Sure wish 'Release the innocent people on hunger strike' was an option but I guess this isn't the America I used to know.

It never was.

[Nadaka]

IMO that puts Obama in a really ugly position, at least if the media pick up on it (not seen any real indication of this yet). On the one hand we have force feeding being made out to be the last dregs of torture remaining at GTMO. On the other hand we have prisoners who are very likely to die if allowed to continue their hunger strike indefinitely. Obama's only real political option was to try to keep things at arm's length.

Sure wish 'Release the innocent people on hunger strike' was an option but I guess this isn't the America I used to know.

It never was.

Yea... The only thing that changes is which injustices are currently in style. Some fade, some grow. We hardly make progress.

[palsch]

Sure wish 'Release the innocent people on hunger strike' was an option but I guess this isn't the America I used to know.

Hasn't really been an option since 2002 and the whole legal ball of shit was first crafted.

There are 86 prisoners who have been cleared for release but can't be sent anywhere thanks to a mix of congressional and DoJ blocks. The rest of them are people either in court now (the 9/11 trial is ongoing) or who simply can't be prosecuted because of how they were captured and treated, but who the USA feel are too serious a threat to release. How to deal with that last group of ~50 is something no-one wants to touch.

I've even seen substantial arguments that any transfer of those prisoners would be a threat to their human rights and living conditions. Seriously. That's from a senior DoJ lawyer known for advocating the closing of GTMO and who works for Human Rights Watch on counter terrorism issues.

One interesting point here is that Obama made noises about finally repealing the AUMF; the declaration of war on terror that all current war powers (including detention powers) flow from. If that were to happen then the authority under which those last people are being held would evaporate unless specifically replaced in some new law. If, by some miracle, that were to happen then it would force a solution to be found. It also feeds into the wider debates about drone strikes and executive powers that need to be had out in public and, more importantly, congress.

[RedKing]

Which is why it won't happen. National security debates are much easier to have when it's limited to a relative handful of people with a lot of information and a focus on security. When you start involving the uninformed public, the misinformed public, and the deliberate obfuscators with a political agenda....things get ugly.


Note: I'm not saying this as a anti-democratic sentiment by any means. It's a pragmatic one.
It's just that democracy and pragmatism often don't go hand in hand.