Marie Says:
The Bush policies and practices have made it impossible to deal with this. His policies were not right and therefore Obama continues them — it’s because his policies were so wrong that it is impossible NOT to continue them while something can be figured out.

That’s the thing… we’re pretty far down the wrong path here thanks to the Bush Administration and you can’t just “undo” Gitmo and torture with the stroke of a pen.

They’ve got prisoners in Gitmo, many of whom are undoubtedly very dangerous, who they can’t simply turn loose, and who can’t be easily charged and tried because of torture-tainted evidence.

We need to close Gitmo and we need to begin to wash the stains of torture from our reputation and we need to charge and try the accused in the respectable and honorable manner we once knew.

Hopefully we’re moving forward here.

(Opinion)

Really, Obama is in a darned if you do, darned if you don’t situation here with this issue.

Most of you and I agree that the Constitution is clear on this issue: that we cannot hold anyone without due process of law. Even the worst elements of society get it. Therefore, the progressive base (you) and even a few moderates (me) get really angry at him breaking a promise.

However, if he prosecutes these people, any sensible jury will release them because of the illegal evidence gained by torture, etc. That would be political suicide for his re-election campaign in ‘12, and regardless of his stances, he will always remain just another politician who is risk averse, even IF it is the right thing to do.

Obama won with an uneasy coalition in ‘08, and many factors (strong youth vote like me) are traditionally unreliable. If he is seen as releasing these people, he can kiss states like CO, NV, and VA goodbye, let alone traditionally conservative states like IN and NC.

The more I look at it, the more I think Obama is a one-term president. It’s sad, considering I thought he held so much promise when I voted for him.

I believe that he would do the right thing. If that right thing is to doggedly communicate to the people over the heads of Congress (which is Democratically controlled) to change the situation, he would do that.

And you doggedly push the “Just trust them” meme for some unfathomable reason.

That is not what Obama ran on.

That is not what Obama promised.

That is not what the American people deserve.

That is bullsh¡t secrecy and cloaking government business under the auspices of surrendering our government and our rights to “those who know better, don’t worry your little heads.”

When (another) truly addled nutjob manages to cheat his way into the WH, will you then claim that his secrecy is okay? He will use Obama’s rationale and justifications to basically tell you to bugger off about what the hell he’s doing with your government….just like Obama is now.

Your naive defense of the indefensible is at the least sadly ignorant and at most tantamount to handing hundreds of years of fledgling democracy to a KGB-style or autocratic regime after securing, with your witless assent, all your Constitutionally mandated responsibility to protect your country from interior rot and corruption.

It’s asinine, nothing less.

Good points.

For enlightenment on how a TRUE American leader would act in the same situation, go listen to President Reagan’s speech during the Polish crisis when Lech Walensa and the Solidarity movement were facing the tyranny of their communist overlords!

Now Reagan was a President that stood on American and need I say universal principles of Freedom and justice.

You do a wonderful job of articulating half the story. I trust Obama. He is sitting at the center of a mass of information that we are probably not aware of.

I believe that he would do the right thing. If that right thing is to doggedly communicate to the people over the heads of Congress (which is Democratically controlled) to change the situation, he would do that.

The problem is, you consider only half the story. I’m not sure the world is as peaceful or enlightened as you take it to be.

Here’s from Iran:

Iranian authorities have detained several local employees of the British Embassy in Tehran, a move that Britain’s foreign secretary Sunday called “harassment and intimidation” and reflected a hardening of the regime’s stance toward the West. The European Union condemned the arrests.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090625/ML.Iran.Election/

Obama has done a wonderful job of respecting their sovereignty. Although this tactic seems the most enlightened in theory, maybe it just doesn’t work in reality.

Maybe we have to make a choice. A choice to defend our interests and the interests of who we believe are those that support freedom. Maybe if we choose not to do that, our altruistic attempts to compromise will only enable those that threaten our interests and limit our ideal of liberty.

In short, do we defend our interests or cede them in the name of unreciprocated compromise?

SIGN THE PETITION & Forward our website to all

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

God bless

NOTE: We are helping progressive groups cause prosecution of the torturers simply by doing the commenting we normally do on related news articles and blogs. It really Works! Takes no more time than you already devote to commenting.

How do we do that. Simply by adding the text below after our daily comments on news articles and blogs.

SIGN THE PETITION
To Prosecute Those who Tortured In Our Name at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
————————————-

It Really Is THAT SIMPLE.

Do this yourself on related articles and you will reach readers who are sympathetic to prosecution of those who conspired to torture.

Just One of our commenters causes over 5,000 new petition signers to go to the petitions each month. With only a few comments a day!

If you were to help by just adding our Url to the bottom of a half dozen of your daily comments you too could help add 5,000 signatures a month to the Petitions to Indict and Prosecute Bush, Cheney and staffers who conspired to Torture in our Name.

.

Isn’t that an eerie absence? The voices of the people we claim to have saved from despotism? Seems to me we, as a nation, will look at anything else, but.

Is this not the same country we were in during the election campaigns? Is there any reason to believe that the nation has moved to a Progressive world view and that the president should act accordingly?

Is there any reason to think that the U.S. is concerned about justice and adhering to our ideals to such a degree that people are actually willing to do what it takes to rectify injustice? Isn’t the illegal invasion, destruction, and violent occupation of Iraq the most evil phucking thing you’ve ever seen your government do? Unjust as the situation of the Guantanamo prisoners is, does it not pale in the light of an entire nation destroyed and poisoned? We are still responsible for that, as Americans.

And the world is still reeling from a global financial crisis, the likes of which has never been seen, which our government can take a credit for.

The people of the United States haven’t even begun to think of what it means to make reparations to the people of Iraq.

Now it appears that a considerable part of the U.S. population believes that the people imprisoned at Guantanamo is of the super-terrorist variety that pulled off 9/11, and these people are even afraid to have these prisoners transferred into U.S. super-max prisons.

Is there a Progressive movement manifest in the U.S. that is convincing the majority that this is fallacious thinking? Nevermind the 18%, they need treatment. But have we really paid our dues as Progressives to the degree that we can honestly say that we are deserving of a Progressive government?

90 TORTURED!

=

90 RECRUITS!

.

Anybody want to go to patsy’s house?

Yet still defend him tooth and nail?

Hmmm…I said he has lost my vote for reelection at this point. Losing votes wouldn’t make Obama feel like he is losing his base? Also, you don’t know the reasons I voting for Obama, so assuming I did because he was liberal is a bit presumptious of you. How do you propose we put pressure on him then and not also consider it “whining” as you put it?

I have read your posts long enough that I wouldn’t take what you said as offense.

Obama isn’t a liberal and those that weren’t paying attention to that during the primaries are upset as one would expect. If the change you were hoping for was that he be a liberal, he never promised that. In fact he promised the opposite.

If you have read any of my previous posts, you would know that I only voted for Obama simply because I felt he would make smarter decisions than McCain, not because I thought he was liberal/progressive. On the contrary, I knew he was right-of-center. My disappointment is with the fact that he is reversing his campaign promises. There were a number of more progressive ideas that he presented. I was hoping for a little better out of him.

That’s why I fought so hard for candidates that were as far left as I could during the primaries. That’s the only place you can make any real difference.

Agreed. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a candidate that can get past the MSM without them making the candidate look like a loon. Corporate America at work yet again.

Instead, they worry they’re that the big terrorist will be moving into their backyards. GOP smoke-and-mirrors the dems fall and roll over for is the reason we’re six months in and President Obama’s vision is still “hope” and not real legislation.

When’s the next vacation, congress? Don’t strain yourselves.

The White House dismissed reports that it has drafted an executive order allowing indefinite detention in the United States of some of the top terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
An administration official told AFP that no such draft order existed, though internal deliberations were taking place on how to deal with those inmates who could not be released or tried in civilian courts.

The source said that a task force established by the president was not due to present its recommendations until July, and that the administration would then work with Congress to find a solution to the conundrum.

The official was reacting to a report by The Washington Post that said the Obama administration “has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely.”
The newspaper later revised its report to say the administration “is drafting” the executive order, among other changes.

White House officials were “growing increasingly worried” they may not be able to reach a deal with Congress on a new system for dealing with inmates, putting President Barack Obama’s January deadline to close the camp in doubt, the Post said.

“Legislation could kill Obama’s plans,” one senior official told the newspaper.

If the White House cannot agree with lawmakers opposed to bringing what are allegedly the most dangerous terror suspects to US soil, an executive order issued by the president may be one option to establish a new detention system.

Raw Story