Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

Obama restarting bush-era terror tribunals - Democratic Underground

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will restart Bush-era military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, reviving a fiercely disputed trial system he once denounced but with new legal protections for terrorism suspects, U.S.

Officials said Thursday. Obama suspended the tribunals within hours of taking office in January, ordering a review but stopping short of abandoning President George W.

Bush's strategy of prosecuting suspected terrorists. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356 / Just one more campaign promise broken... "ACLU wary, GOP senator happy." Fucking amazing... RL

N/t

Not as many -- okay, good.

Some marginal oversight?

Better than nothing. But it's still not due process. A kept-in-full-campaign promise?

Don't think so.

The problem was that the tribunals did not provide any legal rights to the defendants.

Obama never said the tribunals must be destroyed, he said they were "flawed," and he promised to review them. It's reasonable that non-POW foreign nationals captured in a combat zone would not be tried in a standard American court.

Constitutional protections do not apply, and there are of course national security risks;

The government has to be able to present evidence without concern for the security risks in making such evidence public.

However, that is not to say detainees have no rights.

Geneva protections do apply.

Geneva protections require due process in accordance with the legal rights afforded by all ethical societies.

So far, it seems that Obama is offering detainees those rights.

That is the appropriate course of action. The alternatives are to release all detainees into the American public (for their nations of origin will not have them), or to hold them indefinitely.

Neither are good options.

But thanks for your concern. Meet the new boss... RL

They try to sensationalize Corp media articles by emphasizing certain parts and not mentioning others. Meet the new propaganda distributors....

Defend their politicians like sports teams nop matter what. See how that works? RL edit: spelling

Rather than highlighting only the portion that would justify my position...which is what you did. I offer up your OP as evidence of what I'm talking about in reference to your behavior.... where's your evidence that I defend politicians no matter what?

That bookstore of his was JUST A FRONT!!!! Sharp eyes, Frenchie!

And if RL has a Bookstore, more reason that he would post an article in a manner that would show its proper context regardless of the headline as opposed to how it was posted. Doesn't take a bookstore owner to understand this, now does it?

Have you ever seen his photos from the 80?!

Alex P. Keaton to a T.

It's just one reason why I refused to friend him on Facebook. I'm agreeing with you!

Figures, huh? RL

He may be a lot of things, like cute and charming and all around good guy, but he is not a Freeper.

However, the OP itself and how it was posted is my evidence of suspect behavior.

Period.

Joe McCarthy, is that you?

Http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... I am "making up headlines" to trash Obama.

That's what "us people" do.

Joe McCarthy? That must be you. RetroLounge (1000+ posts) Fri May-15-09 10:29 AM Original message Obama restarting bush-era terror tribunals WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will restart Bush-era military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, reviving a fiercely disputed trial system he once denounced but with new legal protections for terrorism suspects, U.S.

Officials said Thursday. Obama suspended the tribunals within hours of taking office in January, ordering a review but stopping short of abandoning President George W.

Bush's strategy of prosecuting suspected terrorists. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356 / Just one more campaign promise broken... "ACLU wary, GOP senator happy." Fucking amazing... RL

I'm dealing with OP's author decision to post an OP out of context. let me repost so that even you can understand. RetroLounge (1000+ posts) Fri May-15-09 10:29 AM Original message Obama restarting bush-era terror tribunals WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will restart Bush-era military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, reviving a fiercely disputed trial system he once denounced but with new legal protections for terrorism suspects, U.S.

Officials said Thursday. Obama suspended the tribunals within hours of taking office in January, ordering a review but stopping short of abandoning President George W.

Bush's strategy of prosecuting suspected terrorists. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356 / Just one more campaign promise broken... "ACLU wary, GOP senator happy." Fucking amazing... RL

#1 being homosexual males

And diverting attention away from what is the issue is not helping the OP's author.

This is the greatest flame war ever.

R_L a freeper? OMFG.

Beyond sad. I just give up.

Funny, funny stuff.

Please. I have children.

HA. It's hard to keep up!

Is most likely really weak--- Evidence restrictions Three Guantanamo detainees have been convicted in the tribunals so far, a government official said Thursday. The restrictions on evidence almost certainly will result in only a fraction of detainees who ever will go to trial.

The rest of the detainees would either be released, transferred to other nations or tried by civilian prosecutors in U.S.

Federal courts, an official said. It's also possible that some could continue to be held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions protections, according to another senior U.S.

Official. The decision to restart the process puts the administration in a race against the clock to conclude commission trials before the Navy prison is closed, by January 2010.

If the trials are still going on, the detainees might have to be brought to the United States, where they would receive even greater legal rights. Since Obama's executive order to close the prison, Republicans have focused on the issue of where the detainees would go — and the new Democratic administration's lack of a plan to deal with them.

In his Thursday statement, Graham said he would not support allowing detainees to be released into the United States. "I believe a comprehensive plan should be in place before Guantanamo is closed," he said. Obama was already up against a May 20 deadline, when the initial 120-day review of the tribunals will end.

The trial for Ahmed al-Darbi, a Saudi accused of plotting to attack a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, was scheduled to begin May 27.

Complaining??!?!?!?11?!!

Or would context be too much for you to include as it might mess up your overall Obama=Bush wetdream? Just one more DUer doing his upmost best to deliberately misinform other DUers by attempting to sell one more of the Corporate media's attempt in turning Obama's base against him. Fucking Vichy Democrat and yes, Fucking amazing... I personally don't have a problem with Tribunals if they afford defendants reasonable due process, although I also concur with those who agree that these folks are not American Citizens, and therefore may not be afforded all rights currently given to American Citizens. FROM THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED The military trials will remain frozen for four more months as the administration adjusts the legal system that is expected to try fewer than 20 of the 241 detainees currently at the U.S.

Naval detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Thirteen detainees — including five charged with helping orchestrate the Sept.

11, 2001, attacks — are already in the tribunal system. Two senior administration officials outlined several of the rules changes, which are being carried out by executive authority, to The Associated Press on Thursday night.

They include: Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees. A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding. Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel. Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices. White House may seek more changes The White House may seek additional changes to the military commissions law over the next 120 days, but it was not immediately clear Thursday what they could include. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356

*sigh*

You know the OP is a good guy, not a Freeper, and an Obama supporter since the Primaries.

He posted an article, he didn't lay bait.

I know he's a good guy...

But he got played. There is no 'broken promise' here. This is just more divide-the-left bullshit...

Which is all too popular around here.

Even better.

You buying what they are selling is what makes them happy. Nothing better than for the GOP to have some self righteous Lefties who don't bother reading beyond the headlines;

That's exactly what the GOP wish for.

You should be proud of yourself.

They are happy with you today.

About what I am buying. It was sarcasm.

Sorry you did not pick that up.

I posted a link, as we are required to NOT post the entire article, per copyright rules. But you knew that and figured it was a nice snaky deflection... Campaign promise: Broken. Get used to it... RL

Http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/14/obama-resuming-...

/ The administration officials stressed that the updated system will include expanded due-process rights for the terror suspects, which administration officials note is consistent with what Obama pushed for as a Senator in 2006 in order to improve upon the widely-criticized approach created by the Bush administration.

...but not one that Obama ever actually DID make.

Yes. Yes it is.

You chose not to. Propaganda accomplished. But I'm getting used to it....NOT!

I'm just a spreader of propaganda... RL

Part of the Grand DU Homosexual Agenda, as spelled out by our #1 homosexual male, RetroLounge.

It seems a strange non-sequitur.

I was unaware of RL's sexuality.

I don't think anyone but you has mentioned it.

"Let's forget all that...

And start playing snark games!" The Lounge is boring lately...

Guess I can't really blame 'em.

The homosexual male did.

Redqueen get a hold of yourself.

This entire forum is disgusting.

The behavior of posters I used to respect makes me want to puke. Try posting a thread calling for reality and get the irrational responses of the truly obtuse. Take a step back and look at how freaking ridiculous all this blind worship and personal attacking is. Thanks...or not, MrsG

And which ones you still respect...

I have no idea. This thread was about a bullshit M$M spin job, portraying Obama's decision as some broken promise.

After the nonsense was shown for what it was...

Lost and Haruka showed up and started talking about homosexuality. I tried to be serious in this thread, but RL responded with snark, insults and emoticons.

So I eventually responded in kind.

I'm not sorry for it. I would like to know why you jumped all over me for calling the sudden diversion into the topic of homosexuality an attempt at distraction by snark.

I was only being honest...

That is what it seems to be. Thanks.

...and I frankly don't care. What does that have to do with anything?

It's part of the Grand DU Homosexual Agenda.

Time to move on. This subthread is all the evidence needed that RL and his defenders realize they've lost the original argument. RL: Obama broke a promise Us: No he didn't.

Here's proof. RL and friends: You're disagreeing with RL because he's gay. Can't argue with that logic.

This sub-thread is priceless.

Wish I knew what the hell you were talking about. I think RL's OP is a distortion of facts.

I don't really give a shit who he likes to fuck. Why was his sexuality brought into the discussion? Seriously..

Without snark one time...

Can you answer that? I'm guessing no.

Have you ever seen his smile? *swoon*

You can't answer without snark.

He's dreamy.

I wish I were "dreamy" too. He's still wrong.

Frenchie got in there first.

Need to barf on everything.

Sorry it upset you so... just for good measure. RL

You chose to only print one paragraph one where one couldn't read about any proposed changes. Was that by design that you chose not to highlight any changes being made, considering that you had the capability of pasting three more paragraphs in upholding DU's copyright rules, but chose not to?

I posted the link.

Have clicking issues? RL

...only in your agenda.

And a link. Have problems clicking and reading? Your selective reading shows you would rather attack me because I posted an article about Obama that you don't like. Tough shit. RL

It tells of Obama doing EXACTLY what he promised to do. Reform the tribunal process.

Of course, paragraphs three and four provide context for Obama's decision, so I can understand why you'd only want to post two.

Unlike us dullards, you are not bound by the mundane restrictions of things like "what Obama has actually said" and "what Obama is actually doing." You're just bursting with original interpretations of the past and the present.

Stings, I hope.

Sorry. RL

Have at it. You're in good company.

Reality: Obama back tracks...

Promise broken. Did that elude you? RL

Thanks.

Please, pray tell... RL

And your misleading or don't have any understanding or just want to start shit up.

"Later, on the presidential campaign trail in February 2008, Obama described the Guantanamo trials as "a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges." Just more wishy washy weasels words from a typical democratic politician, I guess. RL

Obama is moving to fix the flaws by adding the legal protections Bush ignored.

I don't see a problem with Obama saying "these are flawed," then Obama saying "here's how I'm going to fix the flaws." You're not upset he broke a promise.

You're upset he followed through on one.

Typical Democrat, indeed.

There's a smiley for you!

But then that's the problem now, isn't it? RL

Can't tell when you're being played by the M$M...

Can't detect sarcasm. I actually feel sorry for you now.

Fucking barf bag.

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive. Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest. New prizes daily! No purchase or donation necessary.

Void where prohibited.

Click here for more information.

Time to make a donation to them.

That they would have to be fighting an Obama Administration as fiercely as a Bush Administration is a very sad state of affairs.

When DU'er start siding with a President against the ACLU, sad. I guess when he decides that some of them will be held indefinitely without trail, they will throw a party.

Sub-headline: "Keeps campaign promise to fix flawed tribunal process" At least my headlines are true.

Take it up with them. RL

It's so... so... new. It's not like we should expect anyone to have caught on to this shit by now.

Heavens no.

You win. RL

"Surely Pelosi is guilty of something or other and Obama is just like Bush.

After all, if Republicans say it to the media, and if the media then reports it with the exact same content and tone of the latest RNC press release, then who am I to disagree?

Why bother analyzing it?

They report, I decide!"

Or can you provide where that was said? RL

This is sad. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, only the fish doesn't have a functioning nervous system and doesn't even realize when it's been shot.

Or more naked mockery? I'm so confused... RL

All joking aside...

Very depressing.

But hey... enjoy being tweaked by the media. It pays off for you somehow, I imagine.

Wow, no wonder you're depressed, all joking aside. RL

You *are* aware that your comments are available for *anyone here* to respond to, right? Christ.

That's odd... RL

"Christ." was an expression of disbelief. I was taking you seriously. Now I get it...

You're just trolling. Nice.

Real nice.

It's not my year.

But these elections keep getting in the way.

One is looking at the actual words of Obama and his actual actions regarding tribunals.

The other is simply taking it as matters of faith that he promised something he didn't, and that he's reinstating the tribunals exactly as Bush instated them. Who's "the truly faithful," again?

The OP thought he "heard" a promise that Obama never made. Don't you see?

Obama broke an imaginary promise that was only in the OP's head.

You can't win an argument with that.

Freeper!

There is absolutely no way an Arab has a chance with a jury full of military-indoctrinated fundies.

How much of the military voted for Bush twice? Yes, those same people who gave us Bush will now be the arbiters of justice.

What a fucking joke, and so are the people who go along with this. I challenge anyone: would you want to be judged by the Bushie fundies if you were Arab?

Of course not, you know that you have no chance in hell of acquittal.

What matters are the same things that matter in a courtroom: the rights afforded to the defendant.

(In fact, Geneva seems to be suggesting that special courts would be set up as a matter of course, since it does not demand that detainees be tried in civilian courts).

The fact that rank-and-file soldiers voted more Republican than Democratic is completely and utterly unrelated to the Geneva conventions.

No matter what the Geneva Conventions say. There is not a chance in hell you're getting an unbiased jury with a Muslim as a defendant.

If United States law does not require it, and if treaty obligations do not require it, than the defendant does not possess such a right.

It is impossible to strip any jury of all prejudices;

All that can be done is to make every reasonable attempt to minimize the bias of the jury.

Using civilian juries (and thus eliminating any ability to present classified information to the defendant and to the courtroom) is not a reasonable step to take.

To minimize prejudice. That "classified information" excuse is garbage, it's what Bush used for years to hide the truth.

There is logically no classified information (do we have informants?

Evidence said we did not) that could be exposed during such a trial.

The truth hurts: they don't have the evidence outside of what they've extracted by torture.

I said that a civilian court is not reasonable, given that much of the evidence would relate to ongoing military and counterterrorism operations, which is not open to public review. Your final sentence does not make much sense at all, given that the military tribunals will be explicitly forbidden from admitting evidence gained from torture.

.

'including barring statements obtained using cruel interrogation methods and making it more difficult to use hearsay evidence. "These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law," said Obama, who had opposed the Military Commissions Act enacted during the Bush administration. "He (the president) is determined to reform the military commissions as an available form, along with the federal courts, for prosecution of detainees at Guantanamo," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.' http://nytimes.com/reuters/2009/05/15/news/news-us-usa-...

Of course everything else, like substantial issues, are completely different.

I love you, Retro.

Not sure why though.

And your mother dresses you funny. RL

Oh you can talk about my late Mother..But I draw the line at the Pretty bug!!

And yet another alignment with the bushies. BIGGEST BAIT AND SWITCH IN HISTORY!

But don't let a little thing like reality interrupt your agreeing with the M$M chum-o-the-day.

Of your hero-du-jour The M$M chum today is 100% Pelosi, BTW chump.

*sigh* Look... he never promised to "do away with" tribunals.

So this is not news of a broken promise unless you're part of the M$M split-the-left brigade.

If so... then feel free to keep going along with the ruse.

Not everyone here is an unwitting rube, though. Peace.

Obama explicitly promised, in at least one of the campaign debates against mcsame, to use the US legal system to try accused terrorists instead of subjecting them to military tribunals.

Thanks.

Can you read?

Thanks for asking... RL

Ha ha ha! Get it? Neither do I.

Another circular firing squad with the usual suspects & a never ending debate on whether some key paragraphs in the article were omitted & if so, does it matter. best, wakemeupwhenitsover




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet