Obama: Gee, this Gitmo thing is more complicated than I thought
I razzed Team Obama over their newfound appreciation of the nuances of closing Gitmo back in November. Now, we are hearing it from the Messiah directly.
This morning on ABC’s Sunday show, he admitted that his recklessly simplistic promise to the nutroots to shut down the detention facility had run into some barriers.
Namely: Reality.
When he says “a lot of people,” he means himself.
President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.
“I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do,” Obama said in an exclusive “This Week” interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.
“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the president-elect explained. “Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”
Like I said two months ago: Nothing clarifies the mind like a jihadi boomerang.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Obama hedging on Gitmo? | Generic Rant - NOT always Politcally Correct!
- BAM Stimulus: Liberal Overreach? « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Obama lowers expectations, raises taxes; Surprise Surprise! « Riggword Weblog
- ScoopThis.Org » Obama: Gitmo will not close in first 100 days.
- Obama: Bush Was Right About Guantanamo « American Elephants
- Pictures of Westwood Gaza Rally - Intifada! | Political Vindication
- B. Hussein Obama will not close gitmo for at least the first 100 days of his dictatorship, err presidency. | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » Deep Thoughts With Kevin
- This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Another promise broken [Jonn]
- Steynian 307 « Free Canuckistan!
- Wizbang
- Michelle Malkin » “…they worried that the administration might yield to pressure to display its toughness in dealing with terrorism in its detention policies.
- There's My Two Cents
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Gitmo
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsMudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
As each one of these revelations unfolds to “The One”, it gives me exceptional pleasure to tell each of my colleagues at work (Who voted for Obama) “I told ya so!”. However, the consolation is short lived, as I quickly realize I’m going to say that for 4 more years.
Yes, These things are so gosh-darned complicated…
The squawking noise you hear are the chickens coming home to roost.
Have fun in the barnyard, Mr. President-elect!
Aw, poor widdle Barry’s twisting himself into knots again. Should I protect the country or make my barking moonbat base happy?
The schadenfreude is palpable.
What a surprise! This President thing isn’t as easy as it looks!
Frankly, it wasn’t “reckless” and it wasn’t “simplistic”. It was, from the start, calculated. Obama correctly calculated that there were certain “lying themes” and not just political rhetoric that would find favor with key constituencies. Interestingly enough several of these lying themes were mutually exclusive, yet the intended audiences were not in the least bit bothered by their contradictions.
Reason? They were on a mission. They HAD to vote for the clean, articulate semi-black person in order to finally assuage their white guilt.
Oh darn, another week-end shot! Gotta work on this too.
L
Election is over, so it’s time for backpedaling.
I doubt this is the last time he’ll express such sentiments about this or any other issue.
Now that Obama has been elected (remember what happened after Clinton got elected), let’s watch what “The One” decides to leave “as-is.” I bet that he’ll raise taxes on “the rich” but will leave most policies as they are because – well, they’re good ideas. Once you (the right) get on their (Democrats/Media) hit list, everything that you say and do is wrong. There’s a new sheriff in town. Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.
He will tell the lefties that it’s Bush’s fault. “Bush made them mad at us, now they’re too angry to turn loose”.
And the loons will believe him.
Sometime in 2010 one of two things are going to happen, either Obama will run out of campaign promises to renig on or the congressional democrats will realize that Obama is going to cost them their jobs. If it comes down to them or him, we’ll see Obama impeached.
Maybe The One is actually picking up some reality. I’m really suprised to see the phrase “intent on blowing us up.”
A couple of months ago, that would have been “intent on creating situations which the American people would find difficult to accept.”
Come on this CAN’T be a quote! duh1 can’t say that many words in a row sans teleprompter without his annoying ers, uhs, and uhms. Sheesh
I don’t tell people I told you so. I say Obambi told you so if, you would have been listening instead of drooling. The media helped keep the truth about him from being exposed but, he said enough to reveal his anti-Americanism and socialism.
He hasn’t a clue about how to lead anything let alone this country.
I am shocked! Shocked! Some of the detainees at Gitmo might be dangerous and want to blow us up? Wow, I thought we were just being cruel and terroristic to hold these innocent young men against their will.
How is NOT closing Gitmo socialist or anti-american to you?
Awwwww come on.It’s not that complicated or difficult.
We should send a bunch to penitentaries in up-state New York.
We can send one or two to Code Pink to adopt. These dudes would probably love to protest Armed Services Recruiters offices in San Fran and wear pink hats and clothes.
We can send a few to live with Jane Fonda. They can all sit around the campfire and talk about their glory days.
A few can go to Ted Turner. He has enough land. They can help him stock his private lake and herd his private stock of buffalo.
Barbara Streisand can adopt one or two to work as groundskeepers and help her hang out her laundry.
Robert Redford has an extensive background in international affairs (opinions). He can also have them work at the Sundance Film Festival where they can be extras in anti-US films. Maybe they can sell tickets or serve as bouncers.
Susan Sarandan and Tim Whatizname can hire them as babysitters and pet walkers. Susan and Tim would probably love to have them around all day.
And what about the ACLU and all those fancy-schmantzy law firms that are supporting these guys? Heck, the bad dudes can sort mail and make coffee. The female lawyers won’t mind mingling with the great unwashed,nor will they mind getting oogled or having spit, poop, etc. launched their way. Their burquas will protect them.
And… to show their good faith, the Obamas could have a few move in with them and these guys could teach at Sidwell Friends.
Yes, Mr. (there is only one president at a time) Obama, it’s easy.
Now that you’ve had a peek at the real world and the president’s security briefs, and are no longer running for president, you just might have to take the oath of office seriously and defend the citizens of the United States. Well Barry O… you can’t vote “present” anymore.
As the saying goes “be careful what you wish/pray for…you just might get it.”
This just goes to show that that community organizer was willing to say anything to acquire power.
I can’t wait until he backpedals on his “leak” revealing his plan to talk with Hamas.
There are not any new facts or a changed situation with Gitmo. So either Obama sincerely underestimated the situation and how he would close it or he knew all along and promised the exact opposite to the far left anyway.
If he’s too smart for the former, that really only leaves the latter.
So, how many broken campaign promises does that make before he’s even taken office?
“Our new Au Pair, Al-Zawari, is sooo great with the kids. He’s making them all vests that will hold 6 juice boxes”.
THERE’S really only one option. Release them back onto the battlefield from whence they came, give them a 10-second lead, and then resume the gunfire.
If this were anything other than asymmetric warfare, they would have been killed by our soldiers long ago. But we needed to first extract some information. We did.
So let’s pick up where we left off…
Simple, just vote present.
Like many conservatives, I did have a preference in the Democratic primaries. I preferred Hillary Clinton, on the basis that if Clinton was doing something ill-advised and it threatened her power base, she would stop doing it, and Obama would not stop no matter what.
What’s the quote about being less afraid of the evil man, who takes a break once in awhile, than the man whose conscience approves of his tyranny, because he will never cease?
If Obama is going to start getting pragmatic, rather than, say, letting the Gitmo detainees loose in DC and throwing a big party, I’m relieved. I’d like to see him do a minimum of harm to the country, and if the more radical parts of the left are disappointed about it, well, they’re all the safer for it, too.
I’ll still be complaining when he breaks his campaign promises to conservatives, though. After all, I believe keeping those promises would be good for the country. Besides, I’m not saying the radical left doesn’t have some call to be disappointed, just that I like this turn of events better.
“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the president-elect explained.
In other words, don’t expect much.
He was saying something different for the benefit of his wacko leftist friends and associates during the campaign.
The ignorance of the “one” on how the real world works is staggering. I do believe in the area of national security I will not be the only one experiencing what we used to call in my active duty flying days as pucker factor. Incidents involving pucker factor required the seat cushion from your crew position having to be removed with a crowbar. What scares me most is how he will lead our troops into another “Blackhawk Down” situation or we will get to watch a major city vaporize thanks to his stacking his cabinet with the Clinton 9/10 mentality gang.
JD in DC you are much more generous than I would be when releasing the medieval savages we captured on the battlefield.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh) Translation: Come and take them!
Welcome to the real world, Barak.
You’re right, Boomer. That’s my generous solution…!
I must say that I have been pleasantly surprised by the Big O. He hasn’t been as insane as I thought he would be and he has taken some very pragmatic steps. His current views on Gitmo only further reinforce what I’m saying.
Of course, what’s pragmatic to and reasonable to a conservative is evil to a liberal. So it’ll be interesting to see what happens to his power base in a few months after the inauguration.
The real problem here is repatriating or resettling these vermin elsewhere. All the moonbat countries that were whining about the US even having Gitmo are now claiming they won’t take any of the prisoners when released. Hello Australia, I’m talking to you. So if none of these wonderful bastions of multi-culti don’t want these guys, then shut your mouth and let us continue the way we are.
I was hoping he WOULD close Gitmo and fly the errant lads to San Francisco. Let Newsome, Pelosi and Feinstein deal with it. Their first big public works project could be replacing the bay bridges followed by the TransAmerica Building. I am sure Chief Heather Fong, the first Asian-American Lesbian to head a major city police force could talk to the lads and explain where the bath houses are.
New York and Vermont next.
What does he think has been going on since the first opposition to Gitmo surfaced? Is this just an inkling of the brilliance and “leadership” from Obama that the people of the United States has to look forward to? The man is looking more and more like a clueless moron.
No truer words have ever been spoken.
Here’s to you Barry Oh! Now you get to make the decisions and they may not wait until your workout is done!
Reality really bites, doesn’t it, Barack?
It’s moments like these when I seriously consider undercover commenting on liberal blogs. Oh, how much fun it would be playing the outraged progressive. “How the could Barack do this to us after he promised …?!?! ”
Alas, I just can’t read the ubiquitous obscenities on those blogs for long without wanting to wash my eyes out with soap.
Do it. Add fuel to the fire and enjoy.
Demagouging is a b*tch… The freaks on the left would release all of these creeps without caring about whether or not they would get right back into the business of trying to kill Americans. But Obama had to say he would do that, to get their votes. Now reality OF COURSE dictates otherwise. Which tells you one thing at least; that conservatives are, and have always been right about the Gitmo situation. AND, that even liberal politicians, such as Obama, understand how totally out of touch with reality the far left really is.
Speaking of briefs, I’ll bet Obama filled his when W opened up the Big Book of What’s REALLY What and let him see what we’re up against.
I think the next four years will simply be dismal, a lot of money thrown away by Pelosi and Reid (if he’s reelected) in government handouts, inflation, slow recovery, and stronger enemies to confront when the shif hits the tan. Needless to say, if there’s an attack on the US, Obama will join Carter as a one-term failure.
Gitmo detainees (who are vetted 7 times by professionals before detainment at Gitmo) don’t need no adjudiacatin’ !
What they need is to be off line from the public at large indefinitely.
Here we go with Jihadis in courtrooms.
Obama is an idiot.
Well said Michelle, well said.
Those of us on the right often accuse those on the left of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. I’m glad to see that’s not always the case.
Awww….bein’ President is gonna be haaarrrd!
Before long, PEBO will give up basketball and take up the backstroke, and he’ll have to get good at it, because items like this will be on his agenda daily; And after 1/20/2009, the beginning of an error, when PEBO becomes P-BO, people will soon discover that he is in over his head at the shallow end of the gene pool; Welome Back Carter!
So when George Bush says we need to detain terrorists, he’s referred to as Hitler. When Barack Obama says we need to detain terrorists, he’ll be referred to as…inevitable Nobel Prize recipient?
Jugears is going to find it’s difficult to actually DO something other than bitch and moan about others doing something. The entire Democrat party is finding that out (a-la-Pelosi, et al) thus Congress has done little to justify its paycheck.
Truly, da chickens be’s comin’ home to roost!
“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize.”
Ya think?
Why is it Democrats lie about national defense issues to be elected President? Republicans are accused of lying all the time with statements like “no WMDs” yada yada yada when, in fact, the WMDs did exist in every form but large stockpiles waiting to be picked up. Seriously, JFK lied about the “missile gap” claiming we were infinitely behind the Soviets when we actually had a sizeable lead. The Soviets did not mind their disparity as long as we did not challenge their false statements and JFK’s reckless (I hate to think he knew the aftereffects of his lie) speeches provoked a disastrous arm’s race that lasted until Reagan broke the Soviets. It did not have to happen and JFK knew he was laying about the “gap” but Nixon was powerless to tell the truth because it was CLASSIFIED! JFK won, promptly launched us into two Presidential OJT nightmares involving Cuba and only showed glimmers of hope after three years on the job.
Obama knew many of his statements to the moveon.org and lily left were not tenable but made them anyway. He will still do harm but unless he is a total fool he will not follow his own campaign statements. That means the Left has betrayed by reality, once again, and simplistic “Kum Ba Yah” moments will not solve everything overnight.
I was never a big McCain fan but he was a realist and never lied about national security (that is better than Obama). Too bad voters do not realize that National Security is not a laughing matter and you cannot vote “present” on the real issues facing the President of the United States.
“FOLKS”??
how ’bout ‘KNOWN CRIMINAL TERRORISTS’,
MUSLIM TERRORISTS on a battlefield.
Is that the new “Age of Obama/Ayers” way of describing JIHADI’s KILLING PEOPLE? (at least he said US instead of things)
Liberals, pay attention-
That is the problem, you can NOT balance “folks” killing any and all infidels (non muslims) per mohammed and allah’s demand, with affording these nutcase “folks” rights they have never earned nor should they ever be given.
The terrorists lost those ‘rights’ by their own decision to engage in WAR to kill innocent life as fast and as much as they can simply because we don’t believe what they believe.
Period.
This is why Pelosi decided to make obsolete all Republicans votes for four years and, “Bi-Partisan” B Hussein is meeting with Dems only today to discuss our entire country’s future.
(do you ’spose’ barry thinks BI-Partisan means a gay crafts
manperson?)Hey, rookie! The world isn’t as simple as you thought. Welcome to the Presidency. Boy, are we in trouble on the world stage!
I don’t know where you guys get the idea that every single person sitting in Gitmo was pulled off an active battlefield with an AK in one hand and a IED instruction manual in the other. This is demonstrably false.
Obumma should just throw in the towel this early. He is in for far more than even he believed he could handle. He should have done item #100 of Mad Magazine’s “The First 100 Minutes of Obama’s Presidency” while McCain was still fool enough to have accepted….
http://tinyurl.com/747fc3
Not that a McCain presidency would have helped anyone either.
Isn’t it amazing how a little dose of reality can turn even the most dedicated leftie into a realist? It’s not guaranteed to cure their mental condition, unfortunately! [See Michelle's column on "liberalism is a mental illness, for clarification]
My turn; “OBAMA LIED!!!!”
I think chap at least has a decent point. I dont think that every person sitting in Gitmo is guilty. No more than everyone sitting in an American jail is guilty. I dont think they’re all innocent either…i largely think these people did something to get themselves detained, obviously.
But there’s a few things i’ve noticed no one picked up on, and a few that some have.
MM is going to have to do a few stories to match THIS level of intelligence (that we were recently told by eaglehaslanded that we don’t possess), such as:
NEWS! Water is wet!
This just in! Fire STILL hot.
yeah. President-Elect Obvious there hit that one on the head after months of careful political pondering.
But lets have some more fun!
Well, yeah…….but liberals like you, President-Elect Obama, have been screaming for this place to CLOSE!!!!! NOW!!!! for quite some time. So make up your mind! Are these people dangerous and need to be detained, or do we let them all go?
But, as I have to reference eaglehaslanded again, because he’s pointed out the LightBringer and his *stunning* intellect…this next phrase just speaks for itself.
Mathmatics Question: How much cocaine does one president elect have to do over what period of time, to think this sentence is completely and absolutely without fault?
Tainted….but still true? This is the most direct, classic example of liberal doublespeak one can EVER see. Plain as day. Their evidence is tainted…but its true! Does that mean it was a lie when they obtained said evidence, and then lied again to make it sound better, inadvertantly making it true in the end? How does this work exactly?
I just…yeah. *shakes head* Eagle, THIS is your brilliant leader, burdened with “uncommon sense”? Its uncommon, alright.
I’m going to go laugh my @$$ off and i’ll come back later.
I don’t think Gitmo should have been opened, not because some consider it inhumane, but because these detainees tried to kill our military. So here are my solutions:
1. Shoot them
2. Give them an opportunity to escape, then shoot them for doing so.
3. Shackle their hands and feet, and see if they can run 100 yards to freedome in 10 seconds – if they can’t, shoot them.
4. Get what info by whatever means necessary from them, then shoot them.
The theme here is that we have options – to shoot them.
More like:
Obama: Gee, this
GitmoPresident thing is more complicated than I thought.Mr. Obama is really not that difficult to understand or predict (which btw is a serious weakness). In English what he is saying is this:
“Of course we want to shut down Gitmo and get these people into America and make citizens/voters of them get good press, etc. Unfortunately, some of these guys are bad news and if they were to commit crimes — not that I’m saying they would of course — it is possible, that a) foxnews or some such would tie it back to our closing Gitmo and b) the Republicans, guilt-ridden weenies that they are, might yet use it against moi and the Party in 2010. [Big sigh]. Since I am just starting my 2012 re-election campaign, it would be bad to have this strike against me right from the start. So I’m going to be more cautious then the faithful would like, but where are they going to go?”
Not a contradiction at all. There is an extremely important concept in constitutional law called “fruit of the poisonous tree” i.e, when evidence is illegally obtained it most often cannot be used. For example, a warrantless search of a home. The gun with the accused fingerprints all over it is “true” but also tainted.
Obviously not a perfect analogy to those being held in Gitmo, but I have heard of some people being detained on the basis of accusations made by people that may or may not have ulterior motives for wanting someone out of the picture.
Curse you Rove/Bush/Cheney!!!!
You have screwed these matters up so bad that EVEN Obama cannot easily walk in the door and magically solve them with a simple Presidential-elect directive.
How is Obama supposed to solve all of the rest of the problems that the Bush Administration has inflicted upon the worlds populace – if he has to waste his time on Gitmo? Even God himself rested on the 8th day.
Actually, Abstractmind, I’m pretty sure evidence can be both tainted and true.
It would happen like this. A police officer charges into somebody’s house without a warrant or any probable cause. There’s cocaine all over the table.
Is the cocaine evidence? Yes. Is it true? Yeah, it was there on the table. Somebody in the house is probably guilty of a drug violation. Is is tainted? Yes, because it was acquired in violation of, I believe, the fourth amendment, and is thus completely inadmissable in a court of law.
I do believe that the military has been subject to all sorts of unfair accusations and Obama was probably thinking of some of them when he made that statement, and possibly giving the accusations more credit than they deserve due to knee-jerk anti-military reactions. I do not think closing down Gitmo and letting everybody loose is a good idea. I just also think that evidence can be both tainted and true.
It’s not cocaine that did this to his brain, it’s Harvard Law School.
I am reminded of the serial killer Randy Kraft, who was caught by the police when he was pulled over with the body of a victim in the car with him, and an envelope in the car contained pictures of all of his other victims, including the ones he had murdered out of state.
Yet, he still went to death row proclaiming his innocence. He had an attorney who proclaimed at the start of his trial “Randy Kraft killed no one.”
Obama is a product of the American Bar. And part of being an attorney is having to make up really unbelievable things and pretending to believe them. Because our legal system isn’t based on finding the truth, it’s based on making people (jurors, judges, the media) buy into whatever reality you create through tactics and rhetoric.
That’s why our political system is dominated by lawyers, and it’s also why our politicians can’t distinguish reality from rhetoric.
Chapoutier beat me to it and said it better than I did.
I think I read that BO wants to tackle the social security problem too. Wait until he runs up against all those little old ladies shaking their fists saying “You stay away from my casino money!” Talk about reality…..
Yeah, I’ve heard that a lot also. Our military is flaunting it’s illegal power right under the noses of Amnesty Int, The Red Cross, The Red Crescent et. al.
There is actually a simple solution:
1. Remove all the guards.
2. Lock all the gates.
3. Fly the guards out.
4. Drop the keys over Havanna
5. A C-130 delivers a MOAB.
Two problems solved:
1. Gitmo is closed.
2. The Cubans get what’s left of it.
I’ve never been able to determine if the following story is true.
But it should be.
It seems around 1918 or ‘19 the Philipines were haveing a little trouble with Muslin terrorists.
Gen. “Black Jack” Pershing was sent to deal with the situation.
50 terrorists were captured.
He had his men kill some pigs and dip their bullets in the blood and killed 49 of them.
He put them in a mass grave and poured the pig stuff over their bodies.
The last one was let go.
End of Muslim terrorism until 1968.
The liberals here still want to reference Constitutional Law. So, military squad is patrolling and someone tells them that Akhbar is making an IED. Akhbar lives down the street, the squad goes and searches his mud squat and finds enough components to make a cache of IED’s. Akhbar is now in Gitmo. So you say, Akhbar should be released because there was no search warrant signed by a judge….You people are not this stupid, I think you are trying to save face. Even BHO sees what a train wreck will be when he releases these guys and a bad terrorist attack is traced to one that he released. There are not enough LGM’s, Chap’s, Eagles and Nestings to save him and call him the great one after a retarded move like that.
Sure, PEBO. It is sooooo easy to criticize the guy on the job, while you know next to nothing about the full story.
NOW you get to see what it is like. It will be amusing to watch the liberals eat their own, as they realize that PEBO won’t be able to do things much differently that President Bush.
I am sure W is going to be laughing his ass off watching Obambi squirm under real pressure (and God help him if there is another attack on our soil after Bush kept the country safe since 9/11).
There are not enough LGM’s, Chap’s, Eagles and Nestings to save him and call him the great one after a retarded move like that.
Nevermind, I though about it and there probably are enough people to prop him up. There were enough to think that this guy had substance when in fact he was hallow and voted him in.
Question: What did he mean by ‘Anglo-American’ legal system? Does he only recognize his Black Liberation Theology legal system?
Gee, ya think?
Works for me!
Well ,Chapoutier, your man, Obama is certainly getting it that GitMo can’t be closed considering who is there. It is refreshing to see BO using the only thing he has any competence in which is of course the rhetoric of a weaselly lawyer to admit it…but will the hard left get it?
Hmmm
…that being said, however, I’d still watch BO to see what he may really has in mind for GITMO…WE may not like the reasons for his employment of GITMO not yet visible.
There is actually a simple solution:
And can coincide with this years 4th of Julio celebration!
1. Remove all the guards.
2. Lock all the gates.
3. Fly the guards out.
4. Drop the keys over Havanna
4b. Sell tickets for front row seats on all of our available Aircraft Carriers
4b. Fly in Jimmy Buffet, the NFL Cheerleaders and all available Hooters girls (see where Im going with this?)
4c. Lets party first
5a. A C-130 delivers a MOAB.
5b. Repeat 5a until I run out of Pina Coladas and the partys over
“I don’t want to be ambiguous about this – we are going to close Guantanamo”
- Obama (in an interview earlier today)
That seems pretty clear to me.
I was kind of afraid of that. Defend Obama from one accusation that I feel is false, and/or say I’d rather he do A that he is doing than B that he is not, and obviously, I must worship the guy. I guess when I voted for McCain-Palin it was because I felt Obama was too good for the presidency. Same thing when I expressed elsewhere on this site that I was hoping for Palin in 2012.
Nuance…those Harvard guys…
I like to reference constitutional law a lot, yes, and I wish the government would do so more often. I’m a conservative if anything, though.
Cool. A textbook demonstration of “probable cause” and “clear and present danger,” which I believe the law allows for. Thus, this would not actually be a case of tainted evidence.
Nope, not with the “probable cause” and “clear and present danger” clearly demonstrated in your scenario.
However, in many situations, when evidence is gathered in an inappropriate way, dismissing the case is the right thing to do. Punishing the police officer who did it would have no effect, because police officers are the kind of people who would give up their careers to see a ruthless psychopath safely behind bars. (Which I mean as a high compliment.) Thus, merely threatening the police officer with career problems would result in no safeguarding of constitutional rights. However, police officers would not want to ruin their chances of seeing the ruthless psychopath behind bars, so that is a way to make sure they follow the law, even in cases where it is tempting not to.
Are these cases where it would be more appropriate to treat them as criminals or as prisoners of war? I don’t know. It’s all in the details and I’m not a lawyer. It may well be a case-by-case kind of thing.
Save what face? I’ve never been for a mass release at Gitmo. Of course it would be a train wreck, and I’m glad Obama has apparently seen that before doing something astonishingly stupid and harmful. Which does not mean there is no such thing as evidence that is “tainted but true.”
Even more so after you take into account that the “Nestings” voted for McCain, I suppose.
Marshall,
I never said the military was illegally arresting these people. I do think that it is wrong for our government to subsequnently hold anyone indefinitely without having to show any cause.
Do not confuse the two issues.
Our government was showing cause.
Prior to the Supreme Court getting involved, no hearings were used to determine status of the detainees. By regulation and in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, we sorted out the lawful combatants, the civilians, and the unlawful combatants.
Civilians were separated from combatants. They were protected, relocated from the area of combat, or temporarily quaretered until they could safely return to their homes. Lawful and unlawful combatants were separated from each other. Per the Geneva Conventions, that was all that is required and combatants can be held for the duration of the conflict. Due to the Supreme Courts decisions, the DTA and MCA were passed by Congress in 2005 and 2006, respectively, to further regulate that activity. Those laws gave unlawful combatants more rights than the Geneva Conventions and more process than our troops would receive by holding nations in war, a formalized way of assessing if they were combatants and could be held for the duration.
Justice Scalia was exactly right when he wrote that the majority decision of the SCOTUS to transfer the determination of their status from the elected branches to the judicial branch was “extra juducial” as the Constitution gave them no authority to in matters of war.
Whoa, Camp XRay at Gitmo won’t be closed immediatly ??
Why the next thing you know , the sea levels WON’T be lowered and the world WON’T love us? Say it ain’t so, O.
Ummmm..Errrrr…Ahhhhh…Ummmmmm
Gitmo is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this issue with regard to bad guys (former prisoners) released to fight us again. We should look to Iraq and see how releasing prisoners in accordance with the new bi-lateral works out.
Chap and Hawk,
Any time you would like to volunteer for combat duty in Afghanistan and show us how to follow the rules of evidence gathering while being shot at, be my guest. On the other hand, if you prefer to play armchair commando and sea-lawyer at the expense of those risking their lives on your behalf, how about a nice warm cup of SHUT THE F–K UP!
Just like PEBO is learning, it all looks easier on TV. That is really the point of the article.
Hey speakeasy,
I certainly am not asking any soldier on the battlefield to follow the rules of evidence, and I do have kin in Iraq right now, so you may kindly shut the hell up. I am so sick of the ignorant screed of posts like this.
It is unfortunate that this is what your side’s argument often devolves to with respect to Gitmo: hyperbole and strawman arguments.
Guess what? I believe there are a lot of bad guys there that should never see the light of day. It is stupid and/or disingenuous to believe that any reasonable person who opposes Gitmo wants all these detainees released. Which are you?
I am also pretty certain (based upon the track record of past Gitmo detainees being released) there are innnocent people there that were swept up in unfortunate circumstances. I was just barely joking when I made the “AK in one hand and IED instruction manual in the other” crack, because so many here have deluded themselves into thinking that this is how all those locked up in Gitmo were discovered. And that is simply not reality. I never said that rounding up someone that turns out to be innocent is the soldier’s fault nor do I expect to see a CSI episode when gathering people that they have reason to believe a threat. No one does, except people like you that falsely ascribe such a desire to those on the left. It is a cheap tactic to claim we are criticizing the soldier in the field.
What I DO expect is some follow up from our government and an established set of procedures that forces menaingful review and consideration to every detainment, including the ability for those detained to challenge that detainment. And here’s a hint: the government saying that: “Our evidence is that we say we have evidence” does not cut it. Some here like to throw around Gestapo or blackshirt or Stalin references with respect to Obama, but THAT is what is truly scary.
I am happy to discuss what these procedures should be and how they need to be balanced in light of who we are dealing with and the government’s legitimate needs for security and secrecy. But that cannot happen unless both sides are honest about the other’s positions. You appear either too dull or lazy to do either. That or else you are just an empty ideologue.
That is fine. There are plenty of other posters here with both intelligence and civility.
Yes, Obama, the lack of EXPERIENCE makes a lot of things in life hard to do. It is very easy to blow smoke and make idiots (libs) think you are smart, but when it comes down to making a presidential decision, you are going to have a very hard time.
Hey chap, when were you overseas? Maybe I saw you there, we can discuss all those innocents you are so sure are locked up in GITMO. Obama was so sure about the military gestapo establishment of the U.S. too. Now he does not seem so sure. Maybe he should call you, you’ll set him straight. Since, you sure do talk like you were on the ground.
Nope. Not one innocent person. How silly of me.
But again, trying to change the subject by somehow impugning the speaker with your “not on the ground” crap. I am not sure how my passport stamps have any bearing on proven reality.
The military has a lot of oversight, and you are not qualified to play living room quarterback. You know that some have been released. You are the one impugning the integrity of service members. Having known many service members and enough attorneys, I know that I would put the integrity and character of a service member above the attorney every time. I know an attorney here who talks a great “im for the little people game”, she applauded the lawsuit against the boyscouts. She also would not touch a pro bono case unless it padded her resume or gave her some fame. This is par for the course for slimeball attorneys.