Guantanamo Bay closed? Guess again.

[Brainfade]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama?newsfeed=true

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to GuantáÃamo Bay. Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end". The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention. The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at GuantáÃamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country. "It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch.

First, the promise. And no matter what anyone says, this was one of his big talking points in 2008, and helped sweep him into power. Then, the stalling when the realization came that it could not be done (at least the GWB admin was honest about the impossibility). Now, the reversal. Citizens can be held at Gitmo w/o trial if suspected of terrorist activity. How can you trust the guy?

[coffee_rules]

President will not veto any legislation that comes with a strong congressional backing. If it gets voted by an overwhelming majority, the veto will get overturned. He is not stupid to overturn a popular legislation that too in election year.

[Brainfade]

President will not veto any legislation that comes with a strong congressional backing. If it gets voted by an overwhelming majority' date=' the veto will get overturned. [b']He is not stupid to overturn a popular legislation that too in election year.

Of course not. But, espousing that principle over and over won him hearts and minds in the aftermath of Bush's failed Iraq policies. It now rings hollow when he reverses position once in power.

[Clarke]

If he were to pursue principle over pragmatism, you'd call him a liberal commie and paint a red flag in his hand. Since he's not pursuing it as priority #1 (not that it ever was other than for the hawks) he is deemed untrustworthy. Not much of a choice, is there to satisfy you ?

[Ram]

CA, are you not being too harsh. People's policies and perspectives evolve. Of course, that is not to say that Obama can do whatever he wants. When he came into power, the realities he had to face on the ground were a product of bush-era policies. He couldnt have possibly tackled the by-product of bush-era times with Obama style policies. Besides, give the man some time. He isnt a miracle worker. I am sure the Guantanamo will be gone mid-way thru his 2nd term.

[Brainfade]

If he were to pursue principle over pragmatism' date=' you'd call him a liberal commie and paint a red flag in his hand. Since he's not pursuing it as priority #1 (not that it ever was other than for the hawks) he is deemed untrustworthy. Not much of a choice, is there to satisfy you ?[/quote'] Over the years on this board, I have been ambivalent about Gitmo. I see a place for it (where else do you keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?), but I think it was being abused. But, that is not the point. The point is making promises one can't keep. It is easy to scream from the rooftops "I will close Gitmo" before getting a grip on reality, and use that to catapult you into power. The GWB admin said "Nope. Too difficult. Can't do." It was an unpopular position, and Obama jumped on what was the sexy position. All I am asking is "get your ducks in order before making a proclamation." Arre yaar ... ho jaayega ... main hoon naa .... 3 years later, kuch nahi hua. Overpromising and underdelivering is one of my pet peeves.

[Brainfade]

CA, are you not being too harsh. People's policies and perspectives evolve. Of course, that is not to say that Obama can do whatever he wants. When he came into power, the realities he had to face on the ground were a product of bush-era policies. He couldnt have possibly tackled the by-product of bush-era times with Obama style policies. Besides, give the man some time. He isnt a miracle worker. I am sure the Guantanamo will be gone mid-way thru his 2nd term.

Don't count on it. Besides, all I am saying is that he *was* portrayed as a miracle-worker. It was easy to deliver a message of hope and change. It is infinitely harder to deliver hope and change. Don't fall for it again.

[Ram]

Don't count on it. Besides, all I am saying is that he *was* portrayed as a miracle-worker. It was easy to deliver a message of hope and change. It is infinitely harder to deliver hope and change. Don't fall for it again.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to suggest Obama claiming that he will close Guantanamo bay during the 2008 Presidential campaign was his own way of fraudulently claiming moral superiority and then not delivering on it. Come to think of it For him to say that he will close Guantanamo bay back then could have so easily boomeranged on him. Back then, the republicans, like they always do with democrats, tried to portray him as being weak and soft on national security. Others claimed that the policies of Obama will bring terrorists right into the heart of United States for trial. Yet, he stuck to his guns and said he will close it (of course, he has not delivered on that promise yet, but that is a separate discussion). The point I am trying to make here is him saying he will close gitmo in 2008 was not his own way of gaining political mileage. It was a move that was fraught with risk and could have backfired badly and cost his entire campaign.

[Brainfade]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to suggest Obama claiming that he will close Guantanamo bay during the 2008 Presidential campaign was his own way of fraudulently claiming moral superiority and then not delivering on it. Come to think of it For him to say that he will close Guantanamo bay back then could have so easily boomeranged on him. Back then, the republicans, like they always do with democrats, tried to portray him as being weak and soft on national security. Others claimed that the policies of Obama will bring terrorists right into the heart of United States for trial. Yet, he stuck to his guns and said he will close it (of course, he has not delivered on that promise yet, but that is a separate discussion). The point I am trying to make here is him saying he will close gitmo in 2008 was not his own way of gaining political mileage. It was a move that was fraught with risk and could have backfired badly and cost his entire campaign.

We'll have to disagree. In 2008, Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib were the most prominent symbols of Bush's failed Iraq policy. Closing Gitmo was a core liberal tenet then. BHO capitalized on it. He may have truly believed he could do it. But, he hadn't done his homework. I come from a school of thought where I make sure I can deliver something before I promise it. I can't stand the one who talks a good game before getting anything done. It's like if I wrote a grant proposal saying I can find the cure for HIV-AIDS in 5 years, but have no evidence of my past work or a well-thought-out roadmap for how I would do it.

[Clarke]

Over the years on this board, I have been ambivalent about Gitmo. I see a place for it (where else do you keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?), but I think it was being abused. But, that is not the point. The point is making promises one can't keep. It is easy to scream from the rooftops "I will close Gitmo" before getting a grip on reality, and use that to catapult you into power. The GWB admin said "Nope. Too difficult. Can't do." It was an unpopular position, and Obama jumped on what was the sexy position. All I am asking is "get your ducks in order before making a proclamation." Arre yaar ... ho jaayega ... main hoon naa .... 3 years later, kuch nahi hua. Overpromising and underdelivering is one of my pet peeves.

How on earth can you predict what the House/Senate will look like 3 yrs from now or for that matter their voting patterns ? You convey your goals to the people and then let them vote. One of the questions his supporters had for him in 09 was about the public option. The answer's the same: there isn't enough support for it. I hate going back to Bush, but it was 2000 when Oil had touched $28 per barrel and his idea was that President Clinton must ensure the middle east (jawbone opec or something) produces enough oil to bring down the price. Guess what the cost was in 2008 ($147 i reckon) .. how good was the preaching in that case ? Have you followed the Republican debates this year ? You reckon any candidate can deliver on the amazing job creation combined with deficit reduction promises they seem to suggest ?

[Ram]

We'll have to disagree. In 2008' date=' Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib were the most prominent symbols of Bush's failed Iraq policy. Closing Gitmo was a core liberal tenet then. BHO capitalized on it. He may have truly believed he could do it. But, he hadn't done his homework. I come from a school of thought where I make sure I can deliver something before I promise it. I can't stand the one who talks a good game before getting anything done. It's like if I wrote a grant proposal saying I can find the cure for HIV-AIDS in 5 years, but have no evidence of my past work or a well-thought-out roadmap for how I would do it.[/quote'] You say he *capitalized* on it, I say he *risked* it. The republicans tried their hardest to use that stand of his to paint him weak on national security. Though I do agree that it is rather surprising that he actually claimed that he would close gitmo as soon as he took office. Either he was naý×e and misinformed (or), he knew all along that he would never able to close it anyway (at least in the short term), but made the claim nevertheless during the campaign to see if he can get some political and moral mileage out of it.

[yoda]

This clearly shows that he is not an ideology driven President, but one who analyzes information presented to him and makes the choice that is best for the country, no matter what his voting base wants him to do. Contrast this to the right wingers who've signed a pledge of "no new taxes", even as the coffers are drying up and country's debt limit is sky rocketing.

[Brainfade]

How on earth can you predict what the House/Senate will look like 3 yrs from now or for that matter their voting patterns ? You convey your goals to the people and then let them vote. One of the questions his supporters had for him in 09 was about the public option. The answer's the same: there isn't enough support for it. I hate going back to Bush, but it was 2000 when Oil had touched $28 per barrel and his idea was that President Clinton must ensure the middle east (jawbone opec or something) produces enough oil to bring down the price. Guess what the cost was in 2008 ($147 i reckon) .. how good was the preaching in that case ?

On Gitmo, it is not about the Congress vote - at least not at first. He had a Dem Congress. He ran into legal and logistical roadblocks. I still contend that he had the obligation to study them before cranking up the rhetoric. On oil, of course GWB's preaching was inane. What does that have to do with BHO?

Have you followed the Republican debates this year ? You reckon any candidate can deliver on the amazing job creation combined with deficit reduction promises they seem to suggest ?

Gawd, I hope so :-)! Especially on deficit and debt reduction, and simplification of the tax code a la the Bowles-Simpson plan. BTW, has any of the candidates (besides Huntsman) mentioned the Bowles-Simpson plan in the debates?

[punjabi_khota]

Its true. He has let his supporters down on this front. He is too scared of his military generals maybe.

[Clarke]

On Gitmo' date=' it is not about the Congress vote - at least not at first. [b']He had a Dem Congress. He ran into legal and logistical roadblocks. I still contend that he had the obligation to study them before cranking up the rhetoric.

What's the sentence in bold supposed to mean ? He was a king who could order what legislation needs to be passed ? There's no effin way one can predict what sort of Congress would you get and how their voting patterns would be on certain issues. Its strange that you're implying Bush (i mean Cheney Jr.) would have considered closing Guam and then deemed it an impossible task .. I don't know what's funnier, that the neocon Cheney allowing such a possibility to arise or whether Bush 'considered' something before following his gut :winky:

On oil, of course GWB's preaching was inane. What does that have to do with BHO?

Not much, it's just that you came up with 'atleast GWB was honest' on this matter while he wasn't on something that matters far more to every American in terms of energy prices.

Gawd, I hope so :-)! Especially on deficit and debt reduction, and simplification of the tax code a la the Bowles-Simpson plan. BTW, has any of the candidates (besides Huntsman) mentioned the Bowles-Simpson plan in the debates?

I did watch 3-4 of them initially, hoping to see who has what credentials to run for President and gave up once the musical chairs was in full swing with Cain leading the polls. I don't exactly recall the mention of the plan but it was evident that each candidate was strictly against raising any taxes for deficit reduction. You really think any of these could survive the first term by cutting Medicare/Social Security massively, coz there's no tax increases allowed or touching defense unless you're Ron Paul wrt the latter ? Edit: BTW there was this support for Paul Ryan's plan here and there. Do you know what's the implied unemployment rate by 2028 ? I bet you wouldn't open a thread on that ..

[gs]

Its true. He has let his supporters down on this front. He is too scared of his military generals maybe.

Or maybe scared of appearing weak. Campaign promises are usually bollocks anyways.

[Cricket_2_Death]

Obama was a scared pussy from the beginning, but he was smart enough to realize how to treat terrorist rats (ex Osama Bin Laden, Pirates and now Gitmo). I'm pretty sure his hippie supporters ran back into the closet crying now but hey... you can't get your way every time.

[Clarke]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405274/january-05-2012/the-word---catch-2012 :haha: