Bush's Gitmo Vindication

[bytor2112]

Yet for all of his attacks on the Bush Administration, which he accused of making "decisions based upon fear rather than foresight," Mr. Obama stuck with his predecessor's support for military commissions, adding some procedural bells and whistles as political cover to justify his past opposition. For the record: Both the left and right, from the ACLU to Dick Cheney, now agree that the President has all but embraced the Bush policy.

Bahahahah!! I love it!! Love it!! read here.

[Moksha]

Mr. Obama stuck with his predecessor's support for military commissions, adding some procedural bells and whistles as political cover to justify his past opposition. For the record: Both the left and right, from the ACLU to Dick Cheney, now agree that the President has all but embraced the Bush policy.

Considering all the vilification heaped on President Obama by (hey I not gonna say - you have to guess here), this is an interesting development.

[Hemidakota]

Bahahahah!! I love it!! Love it!! read here.

Being a former Senator and knows the background about Gittmo, place this in a better light, some need a public limelight attention - as two child requires attention from its parent.

[FunkyTown]

This particular article is not very informative.

A) What were the 'Administrative bells and whistles' that are occurring?

B) What has been the suggestions for alternative locations?

Actually, the issue sounds less to do with Obama (Who still wants to relocate them) and more with the House. In fact, the House isn't even morally opposed to it, even according to the very skewed opinion writer who wrote this. The politicians opposing it are simply not wanting it in their backyard as it hurts re-election chances.

[bytor2112]

Considering all the vilification heaped on President Obama by (hey I not gonna say - you have to guess here), this is an interesting development.

I think you've got it backwards. Considering all the vilification heaped on Bush, this is an interesting development. I understand that Obama is reserving the right to use water boarding in the event he deems it necessary......I thought he said that was torture???!!!

[bytor2112]

This particular article is not very informative.

A) What were the 'Administrative bells and whistles' that are occurring?

B) What has been the suggestions for alternative locations?

Actually, the issue sounds less to do with Obama (Who still wants to relocate them) and more with the House. In fact, the House isn't even morally opposed to it, even according to the very skewed opinion writer who wrote this. The politicians opposing it are simply not wanting it in their backyard as it hurts re-election chances.

Ah, but he also wants to detain them indefinitely. No habeus corpus. They are treated much better at GITMO than they would be in the US prison system. Point is, the issue is not as easy to solve when you are in charge of doing it. Political posturing for political gain worked well, but now he is adopting much of what he bashed....at least for a while.

[FunkyTown]

Ah, but he also wants to detain them indefinitely. No habeus corpus. They are treated much better at GITMO than they would be in the US prison system. Point is, the issue is not as easy to solve when you are in charge of doing it. Political posturing for political gain worked well, but now he is adopting much of what he bashed....at least for a while.

We aren't being allowed to see them at Gitmo. No one can. How do we know they're treated much better?

[bytor2112]

We aren't being allowed to see them at Gitmo. No one can. How do we know they're treated much better?

Since some feel that mistreatment of prisoners occurred under Bush's watch, wouldn't Obama have insured their safety and well being by now? Or are you saying that Obama is employing the same system as Bush and if that is the case, and I think it is, then it's probably safe to assume that mistreatment wasn't and isn't going on. After all, Obama would not want that kind of scandal.

[FunkyTown]

Since some feel that mistreatment of prisoners occurred under Bush's watch, wouldn't Obama have insured their safety and well being by now? Or are you saying that Obama is employing the same system as Bush and if that is the case, and I think it is, then it's probably safe to assume that mistreatment wasn't and isn't going on. After all, Obama would not want that kind of scandal.

Obama isn't there. If nobody is allowed to go there, then yes. I suspect the exact same thing is occurring under Obama's watch.

I'm not an Obama fan. I'm a fan of morality, and since Matthew 25:31-46 says "I was in Prison and you visited me", I think maybe locking people away forever without charging them might be a not good thing.

Y'know. Since Jesus seemed to disagree with it.

[bytor2112]

Obama isn't there. If nobody is allowed to go there, then yes. I suspect the exact same thing is occurring under Obama's watch.

I'm not an Obama fan. I'm a fan of morality, and since Matthew 25:31-46 says "I was in Prison and you visited me", I think maybe locking people away forever without charging them might be a not good thing.

Y'know. Since Jesus seemed to disagree with it.

I understand your point Funky. I am mainly speaking about the hypocrisy of the left. I have read reports that the detainees receive a lot of special treatments that they wouldn't receive normally. I don't want the detainees here nor do I want them to have access to our courts. Military tribunals seem the best way to go. Let us not forget that these are the worst of the lot and deemed most dangerous. Many have been released and some returned to their former callings....terrorist.

[FunkyTown]

Too true. I find it hypocritical that a group would loudly decry the use of something (Which I agree is wrong) and then quietly maintain it. But... Really, I don't believe the 'Special privileges' bit for a second. "Oh, yes. All the detainees are treated quite well." "Can we see?" "No. National security, you know." "Well... So... How are you going to get these people to spill their guts about potential attacks on US soil?" "Gumdrops and lollypops. Please go away."

It just smacks of lies. The Geneva Convention was man's attempt to make an inhumane thing only slightly less so. It was called 'Quaint' by the Bush administration, which enraged me beyond measure.

The problem is... And as naive as this sounds: We're supposed to be the good guys. We don't use the same tactics they do. That's what makes us the good guys. I understand the complications and the shades of grey. I realize lives are endangered when we don't sink to their level. I'm not stupid.

But we still can't sink to their level. We can't. No torture. No removal of habeus corpus. No abandoning the Geneva Convention.

[bytor2112]

Too true. I find it hypocritical that a group would loudly decry the use of something (Which I agree is wrong) and then quietly maintain it. But... Really, I don't believe the 'Special privileges' bit for a second. "Oh, yes. All the detainees are treated quite well." "Can we see?" "No. National security, you know." "Well... So... How are you going to get these people to spill their guts about potential attacks on US soil?" "Gumdrops and lollypops. Please go away."

It just smacks of lies. The Geneva Convention was man's attempt to make an inhumane thing only slightly less so. It was called 'Quaint' by the Bush administration, which enraged me beyond measure.

The problem is... And as naive as this sounds: We're supposed to be the good guys. We don't use the same tactics they do. That's what makes us the good guys. I understand the complications and the shades of grey. I realize lives are endangered when we don't sink to their level. I'm not stupid.

But we still can't sink to their level. We can't. No torture. No removal of habeus corpus. No abandoning the Geneva Convention.

Regarding habeus corpus, I fear some slick lawyer gets one of these yahoos off on a technicality and then he's back with a vengeance that can only be satisfied by blood. How do you feel about military tribunals?

Edited May 22, 2009 by bytor2112

[Islander]

Those detained at Gtmo have much better conditions than some inmates in some of our prisons right here int he US of A. Of course, they have the press and the ACLU to thank for that. Most people have never seen the inside of a prison anywherelse in the world, of course.

The schizophrenia driven by political interest and partisanship will be the downfall of this nation. From a psychological standpoint, the need for constant grandstanding, showmanship, exhibitionism, agitation, paranoia, obsessiveness, incoherent and delusional behavior this nation exhibits; if it were a person it would be locked up in a mental institution.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln

[Moksha]

I'm a fan of morality, and since Matthew 25:31-46 says "I was in Prison and you visited me", I think maybe locking people away forever without charging them might be a not good thing.

Y'know. Since Jesus seemed to disagree with it.

Jesus did point the way to how we should treat each other.

However, hardliners would point out that he said nothing about repeatedly causing our fellow beings to experience suffering by drowning them for nonlethal periods of time.

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, Obama has surrounded himself with washington insiders and more or less continued the policies of the previous administration. Not just foreign policies, but also the "spend money we don't have on things that won't work" policies.

LM

(yearning for the next conservative revolution)

[bytor2112]

Jesus did point the way to how we should treat each other.

However, hardliners would point out that he said nothing about repeatedly causing our fellow beings to experience suffering by drowning them for nonlethal periods of time.

Seems the Lord had no problems with delivering Laban into Nephi's hands to have his head cut off.......bet Laban would much rather have been water boarded.

I wonder how we would feel if we didn't water board the three monsters, including KSM....you know the one who cut Daniel Pearls head off......and another terrorist attack would have occurred in Los Angelos and thousands more had died, because we did not use extreme interrogation methods administered by the CIA under the direction of a Physician????

Funny isn't? We water board our Navy Seals during training....maybe we should prosecute the members of the armed services who came up with that??

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

[Islander]

Jesus did point the way to how we should treat each other.

However, hardliners would point out that he said nothing about repeatedly causing our fellow beings to experience suffering by drowning them for nonlethal periods of time.

Following the same logic then we should have just clean up the mess at 1 WTC, bury our dead and move on with life. And if we capture anybody we should just deport them to their countries of origin since imprisoning them cost so much money we should use that to feed the poor.

Dialogue and the political process works really well when everybody plays by the same rules. When somebody wants you dead, no matter what you say or do to try to compromise, the rules of the game MUST change a bit to accommodate the new reality. You would not last very long otherwise. We can sit here and pragmatically discuss these issues. But if you would have seen how terrorists decapitated Daniel Perl in Pakistan (nothing to do with Afghanistan or Irak by the way), if that would have been your husband and the father of your children, if you capture one of the cell members before the fact, I am certain you would not put him in an air conditioned cell and wait for him to voluntarily offer information that would help save your husband's life.

I know I am biased, I was a soldier. I have seen things that I pray everyday my children not anyone would have to see for as long as they live. In fact, I would go to war today and die to protect this nation as it is my legacy to my children. War is hell and nobody descend there unless you really have to. There are things in hell that would stop you heart if you had to see them. The realities of war are seldom appreciated from the comfort of our homes. There are some out there plotting to kill you. This is their purpose in life and they welcome the opportunity of dying themselves in the process if it accomplishes the objective. They are reared to believe that is a sure way to reach their god. Think about your own commitments to your God and you could begin to understand. In the current environment the most committed wins. We have 100 years of recent recorded history to prove it.

Just some thoughts.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Islander

[FunkyTown]

Following the same logic then we should have just clean up the mess at 1 WTC, bury our dead and move on with life. And if we capture anybody we should just deport them to their countries of origin since imprisoning them cost so much money we should use that to feed the poor.

Dialogue and the political process works really well when everybody plays by the same rules. When somebody wants you dead, no matter what you say or do to try to compromise, the rules of the game MUST change a bit to accommodate the new reality. You would not last very long otherwise. We can sit here and pragmatically discuss these issues. But if you would have seen how terrorists decapitated Daniel Perl in Pakistan (nothing to do with Afghanistan or Irak by the way), if that would have been your husband and the father of your children, if you capture one of the cell members before the fact, I am certain you would not put him in an air conditioned cell and wait for him to voluntarily offer information that would help save your husband's life.

I know I am biased, I was a soldier. I have seen things that I pray everyday my children not anyone would have to see for as long as they live. In fact, I would go to war today and die to protect this nation as it is my legacy to my children. War is hell and nobody descend there unless you really have to. There are things in hell that would stop you heart if you had to see them. The realities of war are seldom appreciated from the comfort of our homes. There are some out there plotting to kill you. This is their purpose in life and they welcome the opportunity of dying themselves in the process if it accomplishes the objective. They are reared to believe that is a sure way to reach their god. Think about your own commitments to your God and you could begin to understand. In the current environment the most committed wins. We have 100 years of recent recorded history to prove it.

Just some thoughts.

All right. David was a soldier and was considered closest to God's heart, even though the chants were 'Saul killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands'. So I will grant you that being a soldier is not naturally a wicked thing.

However, morality is not adjusted for convenience. Ask Meshach if it was okay to drop his morals just a bit because he was being threatened.

I'll give you a hint: It wasn't.

Ask Peter if it was okay to chop off a man's ear in defense of his Saviour.

Again, it wasn't.

In the heat of battle, defending your loved ones is a commendable thing. To give up your life in defense of your friends and family is one of the noblest endeavors.

To torture an imprisoned man because you think he might know something is not one of those noble things.

[Aesa]

Yet for all of his attacks on the Bush Administration...

You do all recognise, right, that this is the game this left-right paradigm has to play? It's not that they necessarily disagree, it's just that like a game of chess: one side must be in dichotomy with the other.

I mean, we saw this coming. Who has forgotten the promises that Obama made prior to being elected that he turned his back on before he even got President?

They disagree for the public vote, but go back to supporting the vested interests once 'in control'.

Following the same logic then we should have just clean up the mess at 1 WTC, bury our dead and move on with life.

Personally I think that's along the lines of what should've been done, with improvements to security at home - not further compromising apparently weakened security by investing resources with an invasive foreign policy. But, I think that's kind of another discussion altogether... Edited May 26, 2009 by Aesa

[lilered]

Okay, then if I understand some of the logic being used. The enemy can torture United States Citizens, bomb the towers on our soil, killing thousands and because we are the good guys we should refrain from doing anything that may be determined to be torture to them, to prevent further bloodshed. Torture being determined to be actions such as sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc.. So, should this same logic preclude us from entering into any type of retalitory action against our enemies. My point is, where is the acceptable line that seperates killing and death as being okay, but certain types of torture to prevent further deaths during war is not okay. As believers, are we not counseled to turn the other cheek when our enemy strikes us? As I recall Bush Doctorine moved us from a Defensive poisition to one of Offensive. Taking action against our enemies usualy means that they are killed, maimed, not to mention collateral damage that ocurrs during bombing. We started taking the fight to the enemy instead of waiting for the enemy to continue to strike us. Should we honor the Geneva Convention or forget that agreement and set up a much stricter code, or simply ban any type of action against those who are the agressors?

As for the treatment they are receiving at Gitmo, there have been several documentated visits by outside agencies that have determined these prisioners are being treated humanly and are indeed treated better than criminals in our own penal system. I for one, do not wish for these enemies of the state to be released in the U.S. and end up being one of my neighbors. For those who desire that they do be released, are you willing to take one of them in to your homes, to be with your family, and share the love.

Edited May 26, 2009 by lilered

[FunkyTown]

Okay, then if I understand some of the logic being used. The enemy can torture United States Citizens, bomb the towers on our soil, killing thousands and because we are the good guys we should refrain from doing anything that may be determined to be torture to them, to prevent further bloodshed.

I am not seeing the world through such rose coloured glasses that I feel that any code we set up, such as the Geneva convention, shall be honoured by our enemies. I do not, and have not argued, that doing such is not the more difficult path.

The simple fact is: God has given us a set of rules to live by. When I, or my nation, commit an act that is contrary to that, I do not and will not condone it. In any argument where Jesus has set the example, anything less than that is wrong. This does not mean it is not understandable - Sometimes, fear leads us to make incorrect choices.

However, those choices are never justified - They're merely understandable. Don't excuse the actions of your government just because another government does not subscribe to your morality.

[Misshalfway]

I am not seeing the world through such rose coloured glasses that I feel that any code we set up, such as the Geneva convention, shall be honoured by our enemies. I do not, and have not argued, that doing such is not the more difficult path.

The simple fact is: God has given us a set of rules to live by. When I, or my nation, commit an act that is contrary to that, I do not and will not condone it. In any argument where Jesus has set the example, anything less than that is wrong. This does not mean it is not understandable - Sometimes, fear leads us to make incorrect choices.

However, those choices are never justified - They're merely understandable. Don't excuse the actions of your government just because another government does not subscribe to your morality.

I don't know...... I mean even the BofM military was pretty hard core. I mean they gave their enemies a choice; join us or die. And not everyone joined, you know?

I do think that the US loses when they engage in torture. It does go against the moral fabric of what this country was built on. But in the same breath, I feel the difficulty with which it is to fight this kind of enemy. It seems that violence is the only language they understand.

You are right though. Fear leads to incorrect choices.

[Islander]

All right. David was a soldier and was considered closest to God's heart, even though the chants were 'Saul killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands'. So I will grant you that being a soldier is not naturally a wicked thing.

However, morality is not adjusted for convenience. Ask Meshach if it was okay to drop his morals just a bit because he was being threatened.

I'll give you a hint: It wasn't.

Ask Peter if it was okay to chop off a man's ear in defense of his Saviour.

Again, it wasn't.

In the heat of battle, defending your loved ones is a commendable thing. To give up your life in defense of your friends and family is one of the noblest endeavors.

To torture an imprisoned man because you think he might know something is not one of those noble things.

I have a hint for you:

Waterbboarding is not torture. We have, for political reasons extended the definition of torture to slapping. In real life, and you can ask anyone familiar with intelligence work, torture is about physical pain.Waterboarding is based on psychological drivers and fear rather than pain.

But again, you know nothing about that, you already made up your mind and this is just a philosophical exercise for you. So, in other words, it is a useless exercise because you will never be presented the prerogative where you would REALLY have to wrestle with that question. You are just taking the high moral ground from the comfort of your home and behind the protection of your keyboard. The harsh reality is that under certain circumstances I can turn you into a monster where you will hate yourself the rest of your life for what you had done. But at that moment, pressed by the circumstance and under the threat of death the scenario NEVER looks that clear, it is never a clean cut moral turn with the "ONE WAY" sign pointing. You know just about nothing on the subject and all you are doing is joining the chorus in this philosophical debate.

So, let's just agree to disagree.

[FunkyTown]

Islander: I never denied that you could turn me in to a monster. I have argued against torture of all kinds, just like I have advocated that the death penalty should be disallowed. In that case, when someone said 'So you say now, but if you had kids and one of them were murdered, you'd change your tune.'

My response? 'No, because I wouldn't want to be executed when I shot the guy on the front steps of the court.'

I don't claim to be perfect, nor have I ever said that it's not understandable why bad things happen in war time.

But I will never ever state that we can condone these things or make them legal just because people are imperfect. God has set a standard and that is the standard I will always aspire to. Whenever I disagree with that, I'm in the wrong. Whenever you disagree with that standard, you are in the wrong.

It's really that simple.

Oh, and torture isn't just about physical pain. If someone tossed a person with a crippling fear of enclosed spaces in a box, that would be torture. If I were buried alive and oxygen pumped in, that would be torture. If someone slapped me for three days straight until I started hallucinating and descended to my own personal Hell, that would be torture.

Torture can and will be psychological, emotional or physical. Again, if Jesus didn't condone it, neither can I. In any argument between you and God, Islander, God wins. It's really that simple.

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh, good grief . . .

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.