'Change' or just 'Bush-Lite'? - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2009, 07:46 AM   #1 (permalink)
Samyaksambuddhas
 
PaoloSmythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Only British blaady Columbia!!!
Posts: 4,622
Default 'Change' or just 'Bush-Lite'?

Take a deep breath Wolfie, you'll probably think i'm being pessimistic again

Quote:
Barack Obama will restart Bush-era military tribunals , reviving a fiercely disputed trial system he once denounced.

Two senior administration officials outlined several of rule changes:

* 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.

* Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.

* Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.

The tribunal system has been under repeated challenges from human rights and legal organizations because it denied defendants many of the rights they would be granted in a civilian courtroom.

In a statement late Thursday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham called Obama's decision a step toward strengthening US detention policies that have been derided worldwide.

Yet the move by the new Democratic president is certain to face criticism from liberal groups, already stung by his decision Wednesday to try to block the court-ordered release of photos showing US troops abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. That decision marked a reversal of his earlier stand on making the photos public.

"It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz, a national security attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "There's no detainee at Guantanamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system. This is perpetuating the Bush administration's misguided detention policy."

It's possible that some could continue to be held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions protections, according to another senior US official.
Obama to revive terror tribunals - Americas, World - The Independent

i find it interesting how promises once made, are having to be compromised by the realities of holding office.

the release of fotos is being blocked even tho the legal system approves it. shouldn't politics and judiciary be seperate? for sure such fotos will provoke negative sentiments, but would this not highlight any sense of change between the current administration and the previous one that allowed such scenes as photographed to come about?

and now we have military tribunals being continued, even tho these were once criticised as a prominent electioneering policy and are still found to be directly objectionable and indirectly provocative.

same shit, just a more eloquent spokesman... aka:
Bush - Lite for the masses.
__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!
PaoloSmythe is offline  
Old 05-15-2009, 08:26 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
justdust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Albany
Posts: 494
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Nah.

I don't think calling Obama "bush-lite" gives due recognition to the enhanced due process afforded under the revised tribunals. I don't follow the logic that detainees detained because they are accused of being hostile foriegn agents in a military conflict should be treated exactly the same as U.S. citizens accused of violating criminal law. To restore some moral authority to the situation, we do need to hold fast to fundamental principles of due process, but that does not necessarily mean that detainees need to be tried in federal court.

And I disagree that objecting to the release of photos is a purely political action by Obama. Obama is a politician, but he is also Commander-in-Chief of our military, and it would be irresponsible of him not to take into consideration the increased hostility against our service members, who are presently in harm's way, that will unquestionably result from further dissemination of the photos. I suspect you have seen them. Many are utterly horrific and absolutely shameful. Obama is not in any way trying to deny abuses that happended...but it is prudent of him not to throw gas on the fire here and increase the risk to our servicemembers unnecessarily, in attempt to satisfy various critics, some of whom will never be satisfied no matter what the man does.
justdust is offline  
Old 05-15-2009, 08:57 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
danielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 172
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justdust View Post
Nah.

I don't think calling Obama "bush-lite" gives due recognition to the enhanced due process afforded under the revised tribunals. I don't follow the logic that detainees detained because they are accused of being hostile foriegn agents in a military conflict should be treated exactly the same as U.S. citizens accused of violating criminal law. To restore some moral authority to the situation, we do need to hold fast to fundamental principles of due process, but that does not necessarily mean that detainees need to be tried in federal court.

And I disagree that objecting to the release of photos is a purely political action by Obama. Obama is a politician, but he is also Commander-in-Chief of our military, and it would be irresponsible of him not to take into consideration the increased hostility against our service members, who are presently in harm's way, that will unquestionably result from further dissemination of the photos. I suspect you have seen them. Many are utterly horrific and absolutely shameful. Obama is not in any way trying to deny abuses that happended...but it is prudent of him not to throw gas on the fire here and increase the risk to our servicemembers unnecessarily, in attempt to satisfy various critics, some of whom will never be satisfied no matter what the man does.

ITA with all of this.
danielle is offline  
Old 05-15-2009, 09:32 AM   #4 (permalink)
snaplok
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justdust View Post
Nah.

I don't think calling Obama "bush-lite" gives due recognition to the enhanced due process afforded under the revised tribunals. I don't follow the logic that detainees detained because they are accused of being hostile foriegn agents in a military conflict should be treated exactly the same as U.S. citizens accused of violating criminal law. To restore some moral authority to the situation, we do need to hold fast to fundamental principles of due process, but that does not necessarily mean that detainees need to be tried in federal court.

And I disagree that objecting to the release of photos is a purely political action by Obama. Obama is a politician, but he is also Commander-in-Chief of our military, and it would be irresponsible of him not to take into consideration the increased hostility against our service members, who are presently in harm's way, that will unquestionably result from further dissemination of the photos. I suspect you have seen them. Many are utterly horrific and absolutely shameful. Obama is not in any way trying to deny abuses that happended...but it is prudent of him not to throw gas on the fire here and increase the risk to our servicemembers unnecessarily, in attempt to satisfy various critics, some of whom will never be satisfied no matter what the man does.
What a perfect statement.

"The tribunal system has been under repeated challenges from human rights and legal organizations because it denied defendants many of the rights they would be granted in a civilian courtroom." You are also talking about the same people who use women and children as human shields, and consider matyrdom a their Allah given right. What about the rights of those innocents?

Obama inherited all the sins of the previous admin. and is trying to sort, mend and fix the problems. That includes public opinion of the government. That's why he was elected. After Bush, how worse could he actually do? Btw that's rhetorical.

Bush was very petty, mostly because noone took him seriously. Comment on Iraq War, get your wife outted as a CIA operative. Need an excuse to go to war? We'll make up WMDs, fight on terrorism, someone forgot to give me my toy in my happy meal.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 10:16 AM   #5 (permalink)
Samyaksambuddhas
 
PaoloSmythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Only British blaady Columbia!!!
Posts: 4,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snaplok View Post
You are talking about the same people who use women and children as human shields, and consider matyrdom a their Allah given right. What about the rights of those innocents?
what about innocence until proven guilty? if the massive majority of people being released after several YEARS of imprisonment does not suggest that this entire episode is as bad as it has been portrayed, this point you make is on terribly shakey ground.

and i do not agree that the prisoners of war should be tried by any american body, be it military or federal. the accused were apprehended as part of an international conflict on the other side of the planet! just because the US took the illegal act of rendering them to Cuba, doesn't equate to their having sole authority in this world to deal with them.

they should be tried in an international court, as their alleged crimes are of such a magnitude or failing that, then in the country in which they were first arrested.

Quote:
Obama inherited all the sins of the previous admin. and is trying to sort, mend and fix the problems. That includes public opinion of the government. That's why he was elected. After Bush, how worse could he actually do?
when the success of an election is based upon a number of policies and promises, which are now being rescinded or diluted, there is an issue for you all to consider.

i foresee efforts of justification thru stating things not being black and white, but how content can you be to hear a politician trying to overide the judiciary? you think the judges are ignorant of the effects of publishing such images as those Obama is seeking to suppress and yet think 'meh'?

Quote:
Bush was very petty, mostly because noone took him seriously.
Bush is a criminal and has gotten away with everything absolutely scott free. this remains as the lasting stain on america's image and credability. and yet despite this, there appears to be efforts to sustain some of his illegal institutions AND to hide the results of others.

this is not 'change'. this is all the same, but with a different sales pitch. we've returned to the Clinton years....

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!
PaoloSmythe is offline  
Old 05-15-2009, 10:49 AM   #6 (permalink)
snaplok
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaoloSmythe View Post
what about innocence until proven guilty? if the massive majority of people being released after several YEARS of imprisonment does not suggest that this entire episode is as bad as it has been portrayed, this point you make is on terribly shakey ground.]
You know what I do like about some of the government misinformation, if you knew exactly everything that was out there that have been stopped because actions like this, you might want to start digging that hole to bury yourself in now. Not that that justifies it, but can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaoloSmythe View Post
and i do not agree that the prisoners of war should be tried by any american body, be it military or federal. the accused were apprehended as part of an international conflict on the other side of the planet! just because the US took the illegal act of rendering them to Cuba, doesn't equate to their having sole authority in this world to deal with them.

they should be tried in an international court, as their alleged crimes are of such a magnitude or failing that, then in the country in which they were first arrested.]
In a war against America, I do think they should be tried by America. An international body has no jurisdiction in this matter. I don't expect the international community to take part in trials in England( you know the whole liquid bomb plane fiasco.)Simple, to the point.



Quote:
Originally Posted by PaoloSmythe View Post
when the success of an election is based upon a number of policies and promises, which are now being rescinded or diluted, there is an issue for you all to consider.
The success of this election unfortunately was more so due to color than promises IMO. Record voters came out with one reason and one reason only, and the Democratic party picked the 2 canidates
that would stir up voters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaoloSmythe View Post
Bush is a criminal and has gotten away with everything absolutely scott free. this remains as the lasting stain on america's image and credability. and yet despite this, there appears to be efforts to sustain some of his illegal institutions AND to hide the results of others.
Wow, you feel that way too? I would hope one day that he will stand trial for being an idiot, but truth is is that he won't. Too many scapegoats out there to throw to the wolves will keep him out of harms way.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 11:36 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
justdust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Albany
Posts: 494
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaoloSmythe View Post
what about innocence until proven guilty?
That is the reason for the tribunals...to make that determination of guilt/innocence...finally.

Quote:
i do not agree that the prisoners of war should be tried by any american body, be it military or federal. the accused were apprehended as part of an international conflict on the other side of the planet! just because the US took the illegal act of rendering them to Cuba, doesn't equate to their having sole authority in this world to deal with them.

they should be tried in an international court, as their alleged crimes are of such a magnitude or failing that, then in the country in which they were first arrested.
First, the premise for detaining people is that they are a threat to the U.S., so that is the basis for U.S. action. I agree that the U.S. need not exercise exclusive jurisdiction, but as the primary target, we have the primary interest to prevent additional attacks against this country. I don't know anything about international law, but I would not object to an international tribunal provided it: (i)did not have an anti-U.S. bias, (ii)comported with fundamental principles of due process, and (iii) did not compromise ongoing efforts by the U.S. to defend itself from further attacks. This country was attacked by ruthless killers and will defend itself, to expect otherwise is silly. Of course, root causes are separate matter and are now being dealt with also.


Quote:
when the success of an election is based upon a number of policies and promises, which are now being rescinded or diluted, there is an issue for you all to consider.
We elected a president...not a king. He is not at liberty to completely avoid compromise in a representative democracy.

Quote:
i foresee efforts of justification thru stating things not being black and white, but how content can you be to hear a politician trying to overide the judiciary?
Exercising executive authority /= overriding judicial authority. The judiciary exists to interpret the law...it does not have primary responsibility for safeguarding military troops in our system of checks and balances... the executive does Different responsibilities generate different perspectives.

Quote:
you think the judges are ignorant of the effects of publishing such images as those Obama is seeking to suppress and yet think 'meh'?
Pretty sure nobody thinks that. Judges are responsible for deciding the legal question presented to them...that is all. They are not elected by the people to govern the country.


Quote:
Bush is a criminal and has gotten away with everything absolutely scott free. this remains as the lasting stain on america's image and credability. and yet despite this, there appears to be efforts to sustain some of his illegal institutions AND to hide the results of others.
I certainly do not respect what Bush did as president...whether he is a criminal is a legal question and I would not object to having a U.S. court rule on that question. Yes, he and a lot of others (politicians and regular U.S. citizens) have stained our image and our credibility. Obama was elected to turn this country in the right direction and that is what he is trying his damndest to do. To succeed, he needs support, domestically and internationally, for actions and programs that move us forward. Constantly painting him with a Bushbrush may provide some emotional gratification to some, but I don't think it is honestly productive.
justdust is offline  
Old 05-15-2009, 12:16 PM   #8 (permalink)
Samyaksambuddhas
 
PaoloSmythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Only British blaady Columbia!!!
Posts: 4,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snaplok View Post
You know what I do like about some of the government misinformation, if you knew exactly everything that was out there that have been stopped because actions like this, you might want to start digging that hole to bury yourself in now. Not that that justifies it, but can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
And I love my lucky key ring, because it has stopped me from being mauled by wild tigers on the underground.

Quote:
In a war against America, I do think they should be tried by America. An international body has no jurisdiction in this matter. I don't expect the international community to take part in trials in England( you know the whole liquid bomb plane fiasco.)Simple, to the point.
There is little simple in invading and occupying a country; issuing cash incentives for the apprehension of otherwise entirely innocent people, to the render them covertly thru interntional airspace on secret flights, to detain them in cuba for several years, whilst fighting the legality of the facility and what occurs there.

There is no war against america; america leapt into the fray, allegedly to defend another nation. If this was an accurate appraisal for the intervention, then surely the host nation is entitled to met out justice no? Otherwise the occupation is a dictatorship. And there we have it.
__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!
PaoloSmythe is offline  
Old 05-15-2009, 12:29 PM   #9 (permalink)
Samyaksambuddhas
 
PaoloSmythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Only British blaady Columbia!!!
Posts: 4,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justdust View Post
That is the reason for the tribunals...to make that determination of guilt/innocence...finally.
But this is fundamentally compromised if such is determined in anything but an open court.

You have one country secretly / quasi-secretly trying people from a second country, who were arrested in a thrid country, being held in a fourth country.

There is nothing 'finally' about any of it!

Quote:
First, the premise for detaining people is that they are a threat to the U.S., so that is the basis for U.S. action.
Well this is of course dismissed as being course of the trial. But as precedent, we examine those who have thus far been released scott free…..

Quote:
I agree that the U.S. need not exercise exclusive jurisdiction, but as the primary target, we have the primary interest to prevent additional attacks against this country
But are the majority / entirety of those held not being held for the actions in war zones? Ie nothing to do with 'terrarist' efforts agaisnt public domains?

Quote:
I don't know anything about international law, but I would not object to an international tribunal provided it: (i)did not have an anti-U.S. bias
Bias can swing both ways. And thus far for as long as the current is maintained, there is palpable pro-US bias. The concession that hearsay and torture induced confessions are no longer admissible is to fall waaaay short of the simple base expectation.

Quote:
(iii) did not compromise ongoing efforts by the U.S. to defend itself from further attacks. This country was attacked by ruthless killers and will defend itself, to expect otherwise is silly. Of course, root causes are separate matter and are now being dealt with also.
But are those held, being held for domestic terrar efforts, or for their alleged participation in a foreign conflict, into which the US military willingly placed themselves into harms way; hence the US 'jurisdiction'?

Quote:
Exercising executive authority /= overriding judicial authority. The judiciary exists to interpret the law...it does not have primary responsibility for safeguarding military troops in our system of checks and balances... the executive does Different responsibilities generate different perspectives.

Judges are responsible for deciding the legal question presented to them...that is all. They are not elected by the people to govern the country.
And there lies a conflict of interest for which each ought to be exclusively concerned by; otherwise a copromise of both positions is unavoidable. Their judgement has been made and now efforts are underway to undermine the results of this judgement.

Quote:
I certainly do not respect what Bush did as president...whether he is a criminal is a legal question and I would not object to having a U.S. court rule on that question.
The crimes were not committed in the US, but were simply commissioned there. Many corrupt bankers and 'terrarists' have been extradited for similar such scenarios. The US ought not be the ones to judge Bush on his war crimes; it would be like friends and family being asked to judge an accused!

Quote:
Constantly painting him with a Bushbrush may provide some emotional gratification to some, but I don't think it is honestly productive.
There is no spite for Obama in my mind. I share the hopes held by many. But whilst I am disinclined to draw any comparison to him to Bush, other than due to close chronological proximity, I maintain that political leaders (and not just american ones) are all cut from the same cloth.
__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!
PaoloSmythe is offline  
Old 05-15-2009, 12:30 PM   #10 (permalink)
snaplok
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaoloSmythe View Post
And I love my lucky key ring, because it has stopped me from being mauled by wild tigers on the underground.



There is little simple in invading and occupying a country; issuing cash incentives for the apprehension of otherwise entirely innocent people, to the render them covertly thru interntional airspace on secret flights, to detain them in cuba for several years, whilst fighting the legality of the facility and what occurs there.

There is no war against america; america leapt into the fray, allegedly to defend another nation. If this was an accurate appraisal for the intervention, then surely the host nation is entitled to met out justice no? Otherwise the occupation is a dictatorship. And there we have it.
And I love my lucky bear finger puppet that I take backpacking, mostly because kids and girls love it and it confuses real bears.


As far as the war against America is concerned, do you happen to notice where I'm from? Let me just inform you as to what I've witnessed. I was blocks away from the World Trade Center when Sept 11 happened, I was there the day after as part of the recovery efforts(my previous employment was at a construction and demolition firm). I rode the trains to work daily with people who didn't survive. We still have a gigantic hole in our city to prove my point. Not angry about this, shit happens, and a true New Yorker carries on. But you cannot tell me that there's not a war against America. Or that terrorists won't try to do it again.

Last edited by snaplok; 05-15-2009 at 12:33 PM.
 
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums