U.S. Politics

[Ran]

Rachel Maddow in Obama's "Prolonged Detention". Pretty spot on here. And the kind of editorial commentary one should expect from any honest and thoughtful pundit, regardless of their biases -- good on Maddow.

My own view is that the Obama administration is in any incredibly difficult position, and that it's ultimately making a political decision to the detriment of its positioning itself as an example of "change we can believe in." This is naked politics, really. Too many people will be pissed off if the prisoners are let go when they've been assured up and down that these are terrorists, and so they aren't going to be let go.

It's disgraceful.

[Shryke]

I think this whole mess of issues from Bush's era has (and will continue to be) handled in this way though. Because, largely, I think Obama doesn't care that much about it.

He's not interested in being Bush's Mexican Nanny, sent in to clean up the fucking Augean Stables he's left in his wake. He's probably far more interseted in, you know, getting his own shit done.

So if prosecuting torture or releasing some of these Gitmo guys or whatever will get in the way of, say, his Health-Care Reform, then he's going to compromise on the stuff he thinks is less important.

[K26dp]

Someone asked how we can "know" that some of these detainees are harmful to America, but we can't prove it in either a civilian or military court.

The answer is that we know because of information obtained either by torture (I'm sorry, "enhanced interrogation techniques :rolleyes: ), or through evidence supplied by allies or other intelligence operations that cannot be revealed even in a military tribunal.

In these cases, I do believe that the government's obligation to protect its citizenry is a little higher than it's obligation to due process of the law. It's a tough situation, and as usual it's in large part because of Bush administration screw-ups, but these detainees are terrorists. No, they should not be tortured, but it would be completely irresponsible to just let them go free.

[Ckrisz]

Well Cheney is claiming intelligence about specific attacks was obtained from these methods. He asked Obama to release that information so people can make an informed judgement about the value of those actions.

Dick Cheney is quite unreliable. Other folks have said differently, including FBI Director Mueller and many others quoted here.

Soon, Bush went on, Abu Zubaydah “began to provide information on key al-Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September 11.†Among them, Bush said, were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, and his fellow conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh.

In fact, Binalshibh was not arrested for another six months and K.S.M. not for another year. In K.S.M.’s case, the lead came from an informant motivated by a $25 million reward. As for K.S.M. himself, who (as Jane Mayer writes) was waterboarded, reportedly hung for hours on end from his wrists, beaten, and subjected to other agonies for weeks, Bush said he provided “many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans."

K.S.M. was certainly knowledgeable. It would be surprising if he gave up nothing of value. But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total fucking bullshit.†A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.â€

...

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques�

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,†Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.â€

What "other factors" besides a counteroffensive would cause Al Quaeda not to attack us since 9/11?

I'd imagine the biggest problem is the lack of motivated English-speaking operatives who could gain access to the U.S.

Obviously taking the fight to al-Qaida would be a good thing, and I'm glad we have an Administration that now takes that seriously. Turning left and invading a country that had zero operational ties to al-Qaeda, thus sparking a worldwide backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world, I'd imagine that hurt us quite a bit. There is, after all, a reason why a pack of fanatics living in caves remains not only on the loose but the country's No. 1 enemy almost a decade after killing 3,000 Americans. We've wrapped up far worse, more capable enemies in far less time when we had capable leadership.

[Shryke]

Btw, cool new site from the US Federal Government:

www.Data.gov

The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Although the initial launch of Data.gov provides a limited portion of the rich variety of Federal datasets presently available, we invite you to actively participate in shaping the future of Data.gov by suggesting additional datasets and site enhancements to provide seamless access and use of your Federal data. Visit today with us, but come back often. With your help, Data.gov will continue to grow and change in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

[Inigima]

Someone asked how we can "know" that some of these detainees are harmful to America, but we can't prove it in either a civilian or military court.

The answer is that we know because of information obtained either by torture (I'm sorry, "enhanced interrogation techniques :rolleyes: ), or through evidence supplied by allies or other intelligence operations that cannot be revealed even in a military tribunal.

In these cases, I do believe that the government's obligation to protect its citizenry is a little higher than it's obligation to due process of the law. It's a tough situation, and as usual it's in large part because of Bush administration screw-ups, but these detainees are terrorists. No, they should not be tortured, but it would be completely irresponsible to just let them go free.

Right, I understand that, but I'm no longer willing to trust that we're being told the truth. You think these people are terrorists because George Bush and his friends said so -- I think he's lied to us too many times to believe it's true just because he says it.

That said, it doesn't fucking matter. We absolutely must have trials, because otherwise there's nothing stopping you and me from ending up in prison hell limbo forever. If someone screwed up and listed you as a terrorist, you'd never get the chance to prove otherwise without a trial. I really do think even Bush meant well -- but it's just too dangerous to operate this way. Accidents happen, and they fuck people. That's why adhering to the rule of law is so important.

[Annelise]

The problem is politics. Prosecuting a previous administration is a political clusterfuck that nobody wants anything to do with. And that's not limited to when their out of power. It's just as applicable when their in power.

The only way to pull it off is to get public support so high for prosecution that trying to oppose it becomes politically untenable for most, and turn the "anti-investigation" side into something people roll their eyes and laugh at.

I agree Shryke. I'm just wondering why, if that public support comes once they are out of power, why should it still be taboo? That's what I take away from Starkimus' posts, that previous administrations should not face prosecution regardless, due to.. tradition (if I understood his last post correctly). This sort of mindset seems to damn near gaurantee admins will always be above the law. But I suppose those who approve of illegal activities wouldn't have prosecution high on their list.

[Shryke]

I agree Shryke. I'm just wondering why, if that public support comes once they are out of power, why should it still be taboo? That's what I take away from Starkimus' posts, that previous administrations should not face prosecution regardless, due to.. tradition (if I understood his last post correctly). This sort of mindset seems to damn near gaurantee admins will always be above the law. But I suppose those who approve of illegal activities wouldn't have prosecution high on their list.

Oh, yeah, I don't see it as a matter of tradition at all. That's bullshit. But then ... it's Starkimus.

The problems for this kind of thing are not moral or ethical or whatever, they are practical. Ignoring the practicalities of the situation, there's no reason you SHOULDN'T prosecute administrations for breaking the law.

In reality, it's a clusterfuck of epic proportions, hence why no one really goes for it.

[Lord Mord]

Ser Scot,

I wish Sologdin would post this is his area of law. But if I remember correctly the laws of war apply to combatants in declared and undeclared conflicts hence my question above. If someone detained as a POW were to prove they were not a combatant would they have to be released?

I don't know that, but the point is that these people aren't being given the chance to prove their nature as a combatant or otherwise, because they aren't even being charged! I mean, if the government up and invented a charge right now and got an arraignment or however it's handled in a military court, then howevermuch I may hate the way things have gone to date, I'd be tempted to say that a trial would have to go forward and the suspects, most likely, best remanded.

In the absence, not only of a charge, but of any apparent intent to formulate one, the only reasonable option I see is summary release.

I mean, isn't that what you, as a jurist, would prefer happen in the civilian sector? So what's the difference here?

[lordofavalon]

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservat...s-waterboarded/

[Horza]

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservat...s-waterboarded/

:rofl:

I love this.

Everyone who's ever been waterboarded will tell you that it's torture. The professionals who waterboard people as part of SERE training will tell you that it's torture. And yet these macho douchebags still put themselves through agony trying to prove that it's just a splash in the face. Too sweet for words. :lol:

[Shryke]

At least, after the experience, he admitted it was torture. A few more of these blowhards stepping up to the plate, and we can confine this whole "Waterboarding =/= Torture" belief to the loony fringe.

[Horza]

At least, after the experience, he admitted it was torture. A few more of these blowhards stepping up to the plate, and we can confine this whole "Waterboarding =/= Torture" belief to the loony fringe.

He admitted albeit grudgingly and the list of blowhards who think this stuff is a frat prank is a couple of phonebooks at least, so I'm not particularly optimistic.

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

The upshot? "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke," Mancow told listeners. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

[Shryke]

I think Hannity pussying out on his waterboarding and trying to pretend he never said anything about doing it in the first place is even funnier.

I mean, seriously, did he really think their wouldn't be thousands and thousands of people out there who would pay money to see him voluntarily get tortured?

[Annelise]

Ok, who made this call? Steele? Someone else? Because ... :mad:

She’s the 69-year-old speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the line of succession and the most powerful woman in U.S. history.

But when you see Nancy Pelosi, the Republican National Committee wants you to think “Pussy Galore.â€

At least that’s the takeaway from a video released by the committee this week – a video that puts Pelosi side-by-side with the aforementioned villainess from the 1964 James Bond film “Goldfinger.â€

The RNC video, which begins with the speaker’s head in the iconic spy-series gun sight, implies that Pelosi has used her feminine wiles to dodge the truth about whether or not she was briefed by the CIA on the use of waterboarding in 2002. While the P-word is never mentioned directly, in one section the speaker appears in a split screen alongside the Bond nemesis – and the video’s tagline is “Democrats Galore.â€

The wisdom of equating the first woman speaker of the House with a character whose first name also happens to be among the most vulgar terms for a part of the female anatomy might be debated – if the RNC were willing to do so, which it was not. An RNC spokesperson refused repeated requests by POLITICO to explain the point of the video, or the intended connection between Pelosi and Galore.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22882.html

Jesus F Christ ... Really? My republican girlfriend's reaction was, "Hey, what the hell?"

More:

But what isn’t open to debate is that the waterboarding conflict has been accompanied by a cascade of attacks on the speaker, not as a leader or a legislator, but as a woman.

Earlier this week, Pittsburgh radio host Jim Quinn referred to the speaker on his program as “this bitchâ€; last week, syndicated radio host Neal Boortz opined “how fun it is to watch that hag out there twisting in the wind.â€

There has also been a steady stream of taunts about the speaker’s appearance, and whether it’s been surgically enhanced. On CNN’s “State of the Union,†Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said, “I think if Speaker Pelosi were still capable of human facial expression, we’d see she’d be embarrassed.â€

Even erstwhile presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee took the time to pen a poem that begins:

“Here's a story about a lady named Nancy / A ruthless politician, but dressed very fancy.â€

One might argue that face-lift and fashion gibes are just sauce for the goose these days – especially given the president’s crack about John Boehner’s perma-tan during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.

But “hag� The P-word? Really?

Not only is it bad form, say Democrats and women’s advocates, it’s bad politics.

“They can’t seem to distinguish between a backroom smirk among the boys and something you put out in public,†says former Hillary Clinton senior adviser Ann Lewis of the RNC video.

“It’s an attempt to demean your opponent, rather than debate them. If they’re serious that this is an issue of national security, then you’d think that one would want to debate it on the merits,†she says.

Ben Smith had a link to the video, but it's been pulled.

[gladius]

:stunned:

US politics never cease to disgust me. Our politicians may be childish idiots but they don't use personal attacks to discredit opponents.

[Commodore]

LINK

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.

So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now.

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything...

This seems to have been the goal all along, use massive deficits as a justification for nationalized rationed health care. I can't wait to see what kind of system they are gonna come up with, how it will save cost, and how they will collect the money to pay for it, and from whom.

[Shryke]

Well, originally they were using universally predicted FUTURE deficits as justification for nationalized health care (Health Care is already Rationed FYI), but Bush was nice enough to create deficits in the here and now for Obama.

[Inigima]

This seems to have been the goal all along, use massive deficits as a justification for nationalized rationed health care. I can't wait to see what kind of system they are gonna come up with, how it will save cost, and how they will collect the money to pay for it, and from whom.

There's a difference between an inevitability and a plot.

[lordofavalon]

I was just wondering this the other day...

would bush' head be on a pike right now if he was able to privatize social security? Would their be mass riots and revolts?