American Foreign Policy (Obama proposes new security guidelines)

[Netto Azure]

Obama vow on Guantanamo inmates

The US will find a way to cope securely with dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay, President Barack Obama has said.
He described Guantanamo as a "misguided experiment", but conceded some of those held still posed a threat to the US.
Some could be jailed in mainland US prisons, Mr Obama suggested, under a new legal framework for detainees that would see the camp close by early 2010.
Congress has rejected Mr Obama's move to fund the closure of Guantanamo, amid concern over moving inmates to the US.
Speaking afterwards, former Vice-President Dick Cheney strongly defended Bush-era security strategies.
He recalled the experience of being in a White House bunker during the 9/11 attacks and said this shaped the way he viewed his responsibilities.
And he defended the "enhanced interrogation" authorised by the Bush administration to extract information from terror suspects as "legal, essential, justified and successful".

Well with American Foreign Policy in full fledged debate yesterday...I just had to make this thread...

Opinions?

As for me. I basically support President Obama's Centrist path...

 

[Nicoleta01]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

Wouldn't think it'd take this long to find but:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1869519,00.html

I'm all for keeping Gitmo and it's people locked up there, but I am also for at least telling them what they are held for and continual review on whether or not the charges fit. But if Obama wants to close Gitmo, he needs to close Bagram's prison for detainee's.

 

[EmperorBob]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

Obama? Centrist?
Wow. That made my day.


Personally I think we could have done a lot worse to them. It's war. Bad stuff happens. Somebody has to be the bad guy so we can all sleep at night.

 

[the gadfly]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

Hmmm. Some people are arguing we should keep Gitmo open and people there indefinitely (read for life) without ever charging them for anything. And while we're at it, let's subject them to "enhanced interrogation".

Hey, why don't we do that here in the US too? Round up the alleged criminals plus anyone suspected of opposing the current government and send them to Gitmo too? Who knows, after waterboarding them, we might find more people to send to Gitmo.

Sounds like a winning answer to everything. We put people we don't like away for life and we don't have to spend money for courts.

 

[TTEchidna]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

I find it hilarious that there's a big stink about putting these asshats in prisons here, anyway. It's not like they're being invited out on parole if convicted. It's not like they're gonna convince the other inmates to rebel (because, shit, even as criminals, there's gotta at least be some patriotism there!).

Close Gitmo, give Cuba back its land, and stop torturing people so as to give the ter'rists more of an excuse to hate us. We need to prove to the world that we're not the gigantic morons that the past has painted us to be.

 

[Netto Azure]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

Obama? Centrist?
Wow. That made my day.


Personally I think we could have done a lot worse to them. It's war. Bad stuff happens. Somebody has to be the bad guy so we can all sleep at night.

Why yes he is. He has not initiated an FDIC receivership (Just following the advice of not using the "N" word) of Citigroup and Bank of America did he?

I'll make a domestic policy thread later to outline the ways Obama is quite centrist if you really think about it. He is walking a fine line in keeping the Democratic coalition intact while taking into account the vast amount of campaign contributions and lobbing done by the private sector. ^_^

As for foreign policy he has not called for prosecution and immediate committees to look on Bush era policies has he not? And the non-disclosure of new prisoner abuse photo's has certainly got him to take fire in the more liberal base of the Democrats.

Surprisingly, the Republicans still manage to set the initial debate in Foreign Policy after the Bush Era.

As for the "new and improved" Military Commission Judicial System...I abhor it. But there really isn't a clear way of prosecuting the more "radical" detainees since most of the evidence against them are tainted by the torture used on them. And these types of evidence can't certainly be used in either the Civilian Federal Court System or Military Court Marshal Systems.

And the US Congress cannot act fast enough (Already stretched with President Obama's ambitious domestic agenda) to create more appropriate FISA-like Courts to prosecute the detainees.

 

[Falconwing]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

Well, the thing is that Gitmo is a rather secure place right now. Moving the prisoners to the mainland isn't my favorite idea. I don't like the torture and stuff they are doing because there are far better ways to torture a person and you do not have to actually harm them. Yes, that sounded weird but honestly, you have four choices. Do nothing, release them, kill them, torture them. You can make a man feel terrible about what he has done and that is all the torture they will ever need. Doing nothing has no point, releasing them has no point, and killing them has no point.

Also, I think this is the most we have seen of Dick Cheney since that hunting accident in Texas.

 

[ImJessieTR]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

The only way it's good to be the "bad guy" is if we don't lecture other countries about being villains. Kim Jong-Il wants to nuke somebody? Who cares? Somebody has to be the bad guy! And we can kiss the moral high road good-bye.

What I've hated about this entire Gitmo thing (and not just Gitmo, but all the "secret" places too) is this "not in my backyard" thing. What exactly is being protested? There has been no due process. All we have to go on to believe their criminal status is the government's word. Like that's trustworthy. No one seems willing to put them on trial. Why? If the evidence is SOOOOOO overwhelming that they're guilty, why not try them? Why keep them in legal limbo? If they're that evil, why not just shoot them right between the eyes? And if they're not the criminals we thought they were, don't gripe that they'd go back home and turn against us. DUH. Gee, why would an innocent person resent being imprisoned and tortured for a reason that, the way the US puts it, sounds like "Hey, he was there and it was time for lunch, so we beat him over the head and called it a day."

 

[Netto Azure]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

DUH. Gee, why would an innocent person resent being imprisoned and tortured for a reason that, the way the US puts it, sounds like "Hey, he was there and it was time for lunch, so we beat him over the head and called it a day."

You mean like this?

 

[ImJessieTR]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

LOL ... yeah.

If we spent nearly as much energy protecting stuff as we do bitch-slapping "terrorists", no one would ever be able to do anything bad.

 

[the gadfly]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

It seems to me both Democrats and Republicans oppose closing Gitmo if that means those "terrorists" are put into US prisons.

What? Serial murderers, child rapists, arsonists, etc are more acceptable?

 

[Netto Azure]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

It seems to me both Democrats and Republicans oppose closing Gitmo if that means those "terrorists" are put into US prisons.

What? Serial murderers, child rapists, arsonists, etc are more acceptable?

That's one thing I don't agree with the more "moderate" Dems.

Seriously...common sense dictates that the Obama administration will keep the "terrorists" in some of our Maximum security prisons lest they incur the wrath of the voting public.

As I said the right-wing is still leading the Gitmo debate and the Dems just don't want to lose their new "tough guy" image. =/

Oh how much so that the US is militaristic...

 

[the gadfly]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

Seriously...common sense dictates that the Obama administration will keep the "terrorists" in some of our Maximum security prisons lest they incur the wrath of the voting public.

If only it was so simple.

What happens to the Uighers held at Gitmo who the Bush administration determined posed no threat to the US? They can't be sent back to China and nobody else wants them.

 

[Netto Azure]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

If only it was so simple.

What happens to the Uighers held at Gitmo who the Bush administration determined posed no threat to the US? They can't be sent back to China and nobody else wants them.

Oh yes. Somewhat forgot about them. That's another reason we can't send them back to the home countries or the dictatorships...they'll be tortured before they even get out of the planes. D:
If only some of the Europeans would. D:

Not sure about Saudi Arabia though after watching this: NOW: Rehab for Terrorists.

Maybe some form of refugee status?

 

[Netto Azure]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

Also a list of Torture arguments:

We Did Not Torture

A. We did not torture because:
1. SERE training proves these techniques are not torture.
2. OLC memos say it isn't torture.
3. "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are not the same as torture. (Just look at the name, guys!)
4. These techniques do/did not cause permanent or lasting harm.
5. Psychologists said it was all right.
6. If you call it torture, you will have to prosecute (and you don't want to do that).
7. It's unpatriotic to say Bush officials authorized torture.

We Did Not Break the Law

B. What we did was legal because:
1. OLC memos say it isn't torture.
a. They were sound legal positions.
b. They were written in good faith.
2. There's no precedent for prosecuting such abuses.
3. American legal statutes are unclear on torture.
4. The Geneva Conventions:
a. Define torture vaguely.
b. Do not apply to these prisoners (nor do other legal protections).
5. Torture is in the eye of the beholder.
6. Psychologists said it was all right.
7. When the President does it, it's not illegal.

We Did Not Endanger the Country

C. What we did was necessary because:
1. We were panicked after 9/11.
2. There was an imminent threat (and only this would work).
3. There might have been an imminent threat.
4. The CIA requested these techniques.
5. We obtained key information that saved lives.
6. We obtained confessions necessary to justify a war.
7. Abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo:
a. Were the result of a few bad apples and not official policy.
b. Should not be conflated with our "interrogation" of high-value prisoners.
c. Did not radicalize insurgents who attacked American and coalition troops.
8. Bush kept the country safe.

We Were Not Reckless

D. We treated these prisoners decently, because:
1. Extreme techniques were only used when other methods didn't work.
2. This was an emergency (tick tick tick…).
3. Waterboarding was only used on three prisoners.
4. These methods were never used more than necessary.
5. These techniques do/did not cause permanent or lasting harm.
6. These were bad people who deserved far worse. (Why do you care?)
7. They don't observe the Geneva Conventions, why should we?
8. Guantanamo is like a holiday resort.
9. Reports? What reports? (Red Cross, Senate, JPRA, etc.)

We Were Not Immoral

E. Torture is not immoral because:
1. Torture is not inherently immoral.
2. It is immoral, but in special circumstances, it's necessary.
3. These people are not like us and do not deserve humane treatment.
4. Treating these bad people harshly or humanely does not:
a. Dissuade their fellows from bad conduct.
b. Affect our relationship with allied countries.
c. Endanger our troops.
5. The prisoners aren't saying what we want them to say.
6. Torture is a kindness, giving prisoners an excuse to confess.
7. We needed to justify a war.

We Are Not Arrogant

F. Torture opponents are more sanctimonious than torture apologists because:
1. Remember 9/11. (9/11! 9/11!)
2. What we did was necessary.
3. What we did worked.
4. Torture "works" (in general).
5. Compared to rapport-building techniques, torture is:
a. More effective (obtains information humane treatment will not).
b. Quicker (it's an emergency).
6. The Constitution is not a suicide pact (civil liberties are a luxury).
7. They want the enemy to win and hate America.
8. All of the abused were guilty; all of the tortured were bad men.

We Should Not Be Held Accountable

G. Prosecutions (and/or investigations) would be bad because:
1. It would criminalize policy differences.
2. It would create a chilling effect on counsel.
3. It would infringe on the powers of the presidency.
4. Holding leaders accountable would:
a. Create a bad precedent politically.
b. Disgrace America.
5. It won't happen again.
6. The torturers have learned their lesson.
7. It would be divisive (Broder and Rove will be upset).
8. Both parties are (equally) culpable.
9. It will reveal our secrets to the enemy.
10. We're all going to die if you do! (And it'll all be Obama's fault)

 

[Netto Azure]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

Well since the Justice Department should at least be somewhat independent. XD

US names CIA abuse investigator

A special US prosecutor has been appointed to investigate allegations of abuse of terror suspects.

The announcement of John Durham's selection came as a report was published detailing the allegations of abuse by CIA agents.

Agents threatened to kill a key terror suspect's children and sexually assault another's mother, it is claimed.

The report was made in 2004 but only a heavily censored version appeared and a judge ordered fuller disclosure.

The justice department is reported to be reopening about a dozen prisoner abuse cases.

Also on Monday, President Barack Obama approved a new elite team to question terror suspects.

The team includes members of agencies other than the CIA. It will be led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and supervised by National Security Adviser James Jones.

The administration has vowed that in future interrogations will be strictly in accordance with the army's field manual, and adhere to strict rules on tactics.

Republican anger

Mr Durham, who is already investigating the destruction of videotapes of CIA interrogations, was picked by US Attorney General Eric Holder.

Mr Holder said: "I fully realise that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial.

"In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take."

Special prosecutors in the US are independent figures appointed to investigate the possible wrongdoing of government officials or agencies.

Senior Republicans have already expressed anger at the decision.

Nine signatories of a letter to Mr Holder said they were "deeply disappointed" at a decision that "could have a chilling effect on the work of the intelligence community".

'Aggressive'

The declassified document released by the justice department said that one agent told key terror suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that "we're going to kill your children" if there were further attacks on the US.

Another agent allegedly told Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him. The agent has denied the allegation.

In other incidents involving Mr Nashiri, he was allegedly threatened with an unloaded gun and had a power drill held near him which was repeatedly turned on and off.

Another incident involved an agent pinching an artery in a detainee's neck. As the man was passing out, the agent shook him awake, then repeated the action twice.

Ahead of the document's release, CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote on the agency's website that the report was "in many ways an old story" and that he would make "no judgments on the accuracy of the report or the various views expressed about it".

He said it was clear that the CIA had "obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qaeda was in short supply".

Mr Panetta said the CIA had been "aggressive" in seeking regular legal advice from the department of justice on its techniques.

He said his primary concern was "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too."

But Mr Panetta also said: "This agency made no excuses for behaviour, however rare, that went beyond the formal guidelines on counter-terrorism."

Earlier on Monday, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton confirmed there would be a new interrogation team for key terror suspects.

Correspondents say Mr Obama was concerned at the number of different agencies involved and he wanted to bring them together.

The new team will be called the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

It's extremely disingenuous for the Obama administration to raise a stink about this when they're getting cracked open on healthcare. It stinks of political misdirection.

 

[Fig]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

It's almost like he wants to remind some people which party has been supporting real actual, life-threatening, anti-constitutional atrocities, as opposed to entirely fictional Death Panels...

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

And dramatically weaken our national security by instituting a political witch hunt.



Really, this is BS. Friendly intelligence from other countries is going to pull back from this. They won't want to have their intelligence reports being posted on the evening news. This will damage our ability to fight terrorism, and we could end up with the Empire State Building being blown up next.

 

[The Big Al]

Re: American Foreign Policy and Torture

The end is near! We're all gonna die!

Listen to yourself. You are justifying letting people break not just international laws, but our own laws and get away with it. I don't understand how the Republican party can have such contempt for the rule of law.