Obama's first evil act as president

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby stefano » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:48 am

Shutting Guantanamo sounds nice, but if he moves those captives somewhere else where they'll get the same treatment it is just a PR stunt, Hope™ notwithstanding.

Tell you what, though, Pan - if those captives get tried in proper courts under US law, and the innocent ones get sent home with an apology and compensation, I'll say "That was a good thing to do; Obama is better than I thought."

Conversely, what would Obama need to do for you to say "That was fucked up; Obama is worse than I'd hoped"?
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ninakat » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:03 pm

Since the shutting down of secret CIA prisons is now supposedly in the works, the following story seems highly relevant. And, btw, if the prisons are secret, will there be an oversight committee to check all this? Just asking. No harm in asking is there?

Report: Intel Nominee Adm. Dennis Blair Knew of ’99 East Timor Church Killings Before Crucial Meeting
Democracy Now!, January 22, 2009

Today is the confirmation hearing for Admiral Dennis Blair as National Intelligence Director. We speak with investigative journalist Allan Nairn, who says he has new information that reveals that as commander of Pacific forces, Blair offered US aid to the general in charge of a massacre that took place in a Catholic Church in East Timor.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ninakat » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:04 pm

stefano wrote:Shutting Guantanamo sounds nice, but if he moves those captives somewhere else where they'll get the same treatment it is just a PR stunt, Hope™ notwithstanding.

Tell you what, though, Pan - if those captives get tried in proper courts under US law, and the innocent ones get sent home with an apology and compensation, I'll say "That was a good thing to do; Obama is better than I thought."

Conversely, what would Obama need to do for you to say "That was fucked up; Obama is worse than I'd hoped"?


Exactly.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:06 pm

Ugh, look at this utter sham of an executive order. I can't believe some people will see this as a genuinely good move, instead of the blatant PR stunt that it truly is.

--

Executive Order

- - - - - - -
Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base ("Guantánamo") and promptly to close the detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.
(b) "Geneva Conventions" means:
(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(c) "Individuals currently detained at Guantánamo" and "individuals covered by this order" mean individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be or treated as enemy combatants.

Sec. 2. Findings.

(a) Over the past seven years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Federal Government has identified as enemy combatants have been detained at Guantánamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a third country. The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo are eligible for such transfer or release.

(b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have been there for more than six years, and most have been detained for at least four years. In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facility would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facility without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantanamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo.

(c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.

(d) It is in the interests of the United States that the Administration undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals currently held at Guantánamo, and of whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated with detentions at Guantánamo require a comprehensive interagency review.

(e) New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo.

(f) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo may have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted. It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.

(g) It is in the interests of the United States that the Administration conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally.

Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantánamo Detentions.

(a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of each individual currently detained at Guantánamo ("Review") shall commence immediately.

(b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:

(1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;

(2) the Secretary of Defense;

(3) the Secretary of State;

(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(5) the Director of National Intelligence;

(6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

(7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

(c) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following:

(1) Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all information in the possession of the Federal Government that pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantánamo and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of any such individual. All executive branch departments and agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the Attorney General to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney General may seek further information relevant to the Review from any source.

(2) Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine, on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect to each individual currently detained at Guantánamo, whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release on appropriate terms and conditions. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals for whom release or transfer is possible on such terms and conditions.

(3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantánamo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations.

(4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under subsections (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.

(5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo to facilities within the United States and the review participants shall work with Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate.

Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order.

Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantánamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections implemented immediately thereafter.

Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission, under the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
Pub. L. 109-366, and the Rules thereto, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.

Sec. 8. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


[signed:] Barack Obama

THE WHITE HOUSE

January xx, 2009
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:13 pm

Conversely, what would Obama need to do for you to say "That was fucked up; Obama is worse than I'd hoped"?


I'm sure he will do plenty of things that will piss me off. And I will be outspoken when that occurs, just as I've been outspoken about any politician, regardless of party. But unlike the Obama-can-do-no-good RI brigade, I have now seen evidence that he will do some, possibly many, very good things.

He could cure fucking cancer and some of the nitwits here would twist themselves into pretzels trying to come up with why that's actually a bad thing.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:19 pm

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


My "find on this page" edit function must not be working, because it doesn't find the word "speedy" anywhere in that order.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

More Obaminations

Postby professorpan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:25 pm

Palestinians stunned by first presidential phone call

PATRICK MARTIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

January 21, 2009 at 8:09 PM EST

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... mideast22/
BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090121.wobama_mideast22


JERUSALEM - U.S. President Barack Obama's first full day in office certainly made a big impression on some people. His first action - the suspension of the Guantanamo system for alleged Islamic terrorists - caught the attention of Muslims around the world. And his first overseas telephone call, to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, stunned Palestinians and many Israelis as well.

"We were not expecting such a quick call from President Obama, but we knew how serious he is about the Palestinian problem," said a very excited Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior adviser to Mr. Abbas.

Faced with a struggle to regain control of the Gaza Strip, and growing popular support for the Islamic resistance movement, Hamas, in the West Bank, the beleaguered PA president could take particular comfort from the call.

"The speed of the call is a message signalling to all concerned parties that the Palestinian people has one address and that's president Abbas," Mr. Abed Rabbo said.

Many in the Arab world had taken encouragement from Mr. Obama's address the day before in which he specifically called on "the Muslim world" to join him in "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

Young Jordanians and Palestinians were ready to join him. They flooded radio programs and YouTube with their comments.

"I'm ecstatic," said Omar Jibril from Ramallah. "The world is fed up with Bush," said a teenaged Jordanian. "Don't we deserve a better future?" another asked.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak wrote Mr. Obama to congratulate him. "This region is looking forward to your handling of the Palestinian cause from the first day of your tenure," he said. "It is an urgent priority and the key to all the other difficult crises of the Middle East."

Even Iran appeared to have noticed Mr. Obama's offer to "extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

"We are ready for new approaches by the United States," said Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, even allowing that "a new Middle East is in the making.

"The new generation in this region seeks justice and rejects domination," Mr. Mottaki explained, referring to U.S. domination.

Hamas was non-committal about the message of the new President. "We will judge him by his policies and actions on the ground and how he will learn lessons from the mistakes of the previous administrations, especially that of George Bush and his criminal and unjust policies," said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum, in Gaza.

He said Hamas expects Mr. Obama "to respect the will of the Palestinian people, support their usurped rights and their right to defend themselves, away from any pressure or bias in favour of Israel."

You can be sure that every Israeli watching the Obama inaugural address Tuesday was listening carefully to hear their country named. They were disappointed.

"He only mentioned 'Iraq' and the 'Muslim world,'" said Eytan Gilboa, a specialist on American-Israeli relations at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, who had been keeping careful track. "But I take that to mean that these are his priorities.

"I don't believe there's any cause for concern," he said.

Many Israelis disagreed.

"Does he [Mr. Obama] have a solution to the greatest threat to the free world - Islamic fundamentalism?" asked the lead editorial in yesterday's Maariv newspaper. Islamic extremists "are not looking for a free world that understands them; they want to eliminate the free world."

The respected Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea, writing in Yediot Ahronot, Israel's most popular daily, said that there were moments in his address Tuesday when Mr. Obama looked "like a bar-mitzvah boy who found himself at a grown-up game - impressive, but not presidential; a rock star - not the CEO of the world."

Mr. Barnea zeroed in on the Obama foreign policy appointments as a more concrete way to judge the new President's performance. He railed against the expected appointment of former senate majority leader George Mitchell as a new Middle East envoy.

Mr. Mitchell, appointed by Bill Clinton to examine the events surrounding the Palestinian uprising in 2000, had concluded that the spread of Israeli settlements, as well as terrorism carried out by Palestinians, had contributed to the tensions.

Mr. Mitchell's report "was received with great anger by [Ariel] Sharon's government," Mr. Barnea wrote. "[Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert's government also does not consider him a friend."

Mr. Barnea goes on to conclude: "Since it is reasonable to assume that the next government will be more right-wing than the current government, it is doubtful whether it will feel as comfortable in Washington as the Sharon and Olmert governments felt."

Moshe Arad, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, is much more positive about the appointments.

"Obama hasn't put a foot wrong," he said. "George Mitchell is a very skilled, patient, fair man. He is opposed to settlements, yes, but he is in favour of Israeli security, and he knows both sides quite well."
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:28 pm

Conversely, what would Obama need to do for you to say "That was fucked up; Obama is worse than I'd hoped"?


Okay, fair play -- let's turn this question around.

What would Obama need to do for you [the collective you] to say, "That was great; Obama is actually not as bad as I suspected"?
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:29 pm

Merely closing the facility without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantanamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo.


WTF???
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:32 pm

Why the WTF, chig? I'm no lawyer, but "disposition" seems to mean (in the context of this document) a trial in a non-military court or a return to one's home country.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:37 pm

To the extent practicable???
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nomo » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:46 pm

chiggerbit wrote:To the extent practicable???

Some of those countries apparently don't want them back.
It's not as simple as opening up the gates and say, sorry, buh-bye.
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:50 pm

It's not as simple as opening up the gates and say, sorry, buh-bye.


Not good enough.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:58 pm

Not good enough.


I'm afraid nothing will be good enough for some. I really can't understand the animosity and unwillingness to give this and other actions by the man a chance before tearing them to pieces.

I must be an Obamabot.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:06 pm

Oh, stop exaggerating what I'm saying, professorpan. You know damned good and well that I'm not one of the Obama trashers. But this executive order just isn't good enough.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 163 guests