Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
When you do things like this that pollute your justice system, and confuse your rolls of criminals, and destroy your normal evidence process, and arrest people on hunches, or because some guy you are waterboarding, after he hasn't had sleep for a while, and was in total sensory deprivation for a month, and whose wife and kids you are also holding and threatening to rape and kill, spewed names and names and names, you don't really have justification even for waiting to find out who you really have.
And that's a big reason why I say the US has forfeited the right to hold, try, convict, and/or punish any of them.
If they are not released outright, they should be transferred to a neutral international party (yeah, try to find one) for disposition -- which could include trial, but not on any current concept of US "justice."
Maybe Ireland would take on the task...
In your Jan 5 post on the selection of Dawn Johnsen you cite some of her articles and speeches in which she strongly advocates, in facts insists on public outcries when we see wrongful acts contemplated, about to be or being committed.
Where is the outrage, the public outcry?!
But we must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power.
And in the March 18 Slate article you cited, Dawn again vehemently argues the president, members of his administration and those who welcome a new administration, that “[w]e must avoid any temptation simply to move on. She claims "Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure."
It is clear from his selection of Dawn Johnsen for OLC that Obama himself would consider the REFUSAL to require him to operate with greater transparency or provide greater details, or to challenge him on any one of his positions or policies, a great disservice to both him and this country.
It is obvious from Obama's repeated attempts to negotiate keeping his Blackberry (to ensure he gets unfiltered information from the real world) that he is terrified of getting trapped in a bubble where he only hears what others think he wants to hear.
Obama is not afraid of dissent. He grows from it. If we refuse to challenge him we will be the ones preventing him from living up to his potential and hampering his ability to lead this country back in the right direction
Just so, the inmates at Gitmo are going to suffer when Gitmo closes and they are no longer under the care of the US government but someone else who will not treat them well.
This reminds me of what people used to say about the "negro problem" when I was young:
Africa is so awful. They are so lucky we brought them to America to be slaves. Now they have been free for almost 100 years, and they are still complaining. Why don't we send them all back?
A general response: The UN is not a government in and of itself. It merely carries out what its most powerful member nations do, or do not, want it to do. It's like an ongoing ad-hoc committee of nations which really don't want to be subject to each others' approvals.
Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9). Abstention is not regarded as a veto despite the wording of the Charter. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto 6 times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 123 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 82 times. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, China (ROC/PRC) has vetoed three resolutions; France three; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43.
Procedural matters are not subject to a veto, so the veto cannot be used to avoid discussion of an issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Veto_power
Just like with the U.S. Presidential veto power, the potential of a likely veto is enough to heavily influence UN activity.
It's better to think of the UN as something which at minimum tries to help prevent the superpowers from going to war with each other.
If the UN manages to accomplish anything else, consider yourself lucky.
Give me a break. They are not holding U.S citizens. They are holding terrorist suspects from other countries. I do not agree with torture, but some of you act as if this will happen to just anyone. If they have any proof of wrong doing, they be an international court not U.S. military courts with ACLU defending them. I thought the ACLU purpose was for U.S. citizen's civil liberties. This is a national defense and international issue.
Yes, it has happened to "just anyone".
TPM criticism
Could you point me to some of that?
I just think its a cheap tactic to constantly make note of "blind Obama supporters" when really Glenn is talking about 5 or 6 people who post in his blog, who may or may not be blind Obama supporters, but who usually just disagree with Glenn's point or his framing of the issue.
I didn't comment at all on how many people dislike whenever Obama is criticized except to say it's a "small though substantial and vocal minority."
You keep trying to imply that I've equated those who reject specific criticisms I've made of Obama with "blind Obama supporters." I haven't. That's something you've made up and then attributed to me.
I know that whenever I criticize Obama, I hear from many people -- in comments, by email and elsewhere -- that Obama shouldn't be criticized because to do so is to tear him down, help the Republicans, create a circular firing squad on the Left, etc. etc. It happens every time. Anyone who writes and criticizes Obama has the same reaction. There are people making that argument in today's thread and in the ones from the last two days.
I don't think anyone who defends Obama is guilty of this. I don't think anyone who supports Obama does so blindly. That's why I said it's a small minority. But it does exist. And I hear from them any time I criticize Obama for anything. And it's far more than 5 or 6 people.
Having said all that, even if there were zero people who fall into this category, the point of my post is about the values of criticizing and pressuring Obama. That would all be true even if not a single person qualified as a "blind Bbama supporter."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
