The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

Wait, wait, forget this hate-mongering BS, forget who the messenger was, is this "preventive detentions" plan for real? I mean, if it's true, then no matter what you think of the messenger, the conclusion should be the same.

 

Given who the messenger is, the odds are quite high that he has exaggerated, twisted, and mangled the actual policy beyond recognition. I'm not saying that the matter isn't worth looking into, but I'm just not going to trust a polemicist from either side of the aisle without checking his facts first, and I imagine this is true of most of us.

 

NOG,

Here is the issue with the Gitmo detainees, and there is no good solution for some of them. Some of them can be tried in American courts, which is fine. Some of them can be shown to have done nothing wrong, and be sent back to where ever they were initially picked up, which is fine. Some of them can be tried in foreign courts for crimes against other coalition forces, which is fine. But there is a final group that cannot be tried - in some cases because EITs have been used on them - but have stated that they have tried to attack Americans in the past and would do so again if released.

What the heck do you do with them? You cannot try them, you certainly don't want to release them in the US, and you don't want to send them back to Iraq or Afghanistan to join the fight against US forces again. (This has happened in the past, about 50 of the 500 Gitmo detainees who were released during Bush's second term have been picked up again for attacks on US troops since their release.)

Obama is in a very difficult position. His best option would be to keep these guys locked up, but it appears he might not be able to as without the prospect of a trial, their continued detention would be unconstitutional. On the other hand, if he releases them and they end up killing Americans, he will be labelled as being soft on terrorism. I don't see how he works his way out of this without making a decision that will be very unpopular among many people. That's not a slam on Obama, I just think he's in a situation where there are no good choices.

 

Guess what. You guys already have "preventive detention", in D.C. according to Encyclopedia Britannica, there's even such countries as Belgium, which is renowned for it's vile dicatorship!

(France has it too, but that only goes to show what kind of evil countries have that already...)

This from NY Times: Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan (emphasis mine)

Read the article before reacting to the headline.

 

This is a good article on ther matter with a LOT of information to digest
preventive detention

oneof the better parts

It also addresses such issues as :
Are defenders of Obama's proposals being consistent?
Questions for defenders of Obama's proposal.
Do other countries have indefinite preventive detention?
Is this comparable to traditional POW detentions?
Is it "due process" when the Government can guarantee it always wins?
Can we "be safe" by locking up all the Terrorists with no charges?

A very interesting read with lots of links, even if it is by a liberal( JK)

 

Martaug - I think GWB and Dick are going to make great cell mates - I wonder if they will have matching jamies.

 

Bad Chandos. no cookies for you.
Do people other than children even wear jammies anymore? Gotta go commando to feel the good sheets

 

Parents do. It's one thing for your five year old to see you in your birthday suit or whitie-tighties (sue me, I have an irrational fear of testicular torsion), but your 13 year old? Not really.

 

Hahaha!
Luckily no kids in the house however i am pretty cautious around the wifes d*** cat! ("oh look!" thinks the cat "a hanging cat toy! Mreow!!" Attacks with a leap BAD CAT!! AAAH!! Get it off!!! Get it off!!!)

 

This was a good question in that article martaug posted

Just pointing it out. It's a good question. How do you know if someone is criminally insane, if he hasn't done anything yet?

Sure, the guy is frothing from the mouth, says that the day will come that he'll waste a lot of people, he has a whole lot of guns (legally obtained), he has a collection of knives (still not illegal), his bookshelves have such fine pieces of literature as mein kampf, and the anarchist cookbook, he has a collection of splatter films (which alone do not prove a damn bit, except that he has a preference for a certain type of movie-genre), his personal hygiene is nonexistent, he has nervous tics and he has these strange fits of rage seemingly directed towards no-one specifi, he's just gotten into a lot of stress and got laid off from work, he acts in a threatening manner (without actually vocalizing a threat to injure anyone specifically)...etc.

But he hasn't done anything. He has a "group of similar-minded people" and they play a little fun and games, like 'how to defend a house in case of a siege' or just-for-fun theoretical discussions about "how to make a perfect murder", but they haven't done anything illegal.

Now if this person should be put under survellance by the police, or *gasp* detained, without due process (there can't be since he hasn't. done. anything.) and questioned...well...the last school shooter in here was questioned by the police...and he hadn't done anything, so they couldn't detain him. Two days later, 9 people dead.

Much better that way than putting the perp on a tight leash, now wasn't it?

 

The short answer? If he's in America, you sell him a gun.

 

Iku, that article does ease a few fears a little, but it honestly raises more considering that it basically legitimizes the base of the claim.

 

Or we have a person of interest to the police, Oh we will call him "iku".
He has posted some things online that the current politicians don't like and feel like he is a "threat" to them.
Well then, just pick him up & hold him until he proves he isn't a threat(however the hell he is supposed to prove a negative).

See Iku, you potrayed someone that had every sign of being on(or over) the edge but thats not who this type of detention is directed at.

 

What? What red flags has Iku displayed that come even remotely close to frothing at the mouth, stating that the day will come that he'll waste a lot of people, possessing a large knife and gun collection, copies of mein kampf and the anarchist cookbook on his bookshelf, a collection of splatter films, non-existent hygiene, nervous tics, flying into strange fits of rage directed towards no-one specific, and behaving in a threatening manner while also traveling with a "group of similar-minded people" who play games like 'how to defend a house in case of a siege' or just-for-fun theoretical discussions about "how to make a perfect murder".

Any of these things alone (except maybe the last one) would be utterly meaningless, but put together? A completely different story.

 

No no drew, i wasn't saying that iku was exhibiting any of those signs(didn't mean to give you that impression).
Just that the type of person that he portrayed in his post wouldn't be the kind of person they would be tempted to use this kind of detention against.

Now iku may have strange fits but i don't think he fits in the raving funny smelling lunatic archetype.

 

If, by "this kind of detention," you are referring to the suspension of habeus corpus, we are in agreement. Just as I think all the prisoners held in Bagram and GITMO should be either charged or released, I also think that our police shouldn't be able to hold someone on mere suspicion of criminal intent. That said, the FBI would have more than enough cause to tap this guy's phone, put parabolic microphones in this guy's house, and maybe even monitor his movements. This isn't the kind of guy we detain -- since we follow the rule of law, we'd need evidence of criminal intent to do that -- but he sure as **** is the kind of guy we watch very, very carefully.

 

True.

Now something else i dislike about the obama led crap, what they are calling Dealergate.
closing dealers largely republican

dealergate statistical evidence

reuters

dealergate investigation asked for by Democrat & republican

Big dem donor keeps all 6 dealerships while competitors are eliminated

This seems to be a legit case of pure political chicanery. Lets see some of that so hyped transparency now.

 

I have been keeping an eye on Dealergate also. I'm still not convinced that all the evidence is in yet. However, if it turns out that the Obama administration is making "business" decisions based on political payback, this could be the worst thing to happen politically since Nixon. Hopefully, the "car czar" will release how the the decisions were made. Wasn't one of the Obama "Promises" to be more transparant?

 

No amount of transparency can shed light on a manufactured scandal.

 

Perhaps you fell asleep in 2000 and woke up in 2008? The last 8 years have been nothing but political payback to the GWB supporters, starting with the tax cuts for the wealthy, TGS.




Martaug - There was a similar scandal with GWB that involved the closing of military bases in the states that did not vote for him after the national election.

Edit: Anyone who has worked for a large corporation can answer that one: It's typical "corporate think." Those of us who have worked for these guys in the past have seen it, or worse, been victims of it for years.