Any Tubes on BO's rant about Gitmo today?

[Deborah K]

Didn't see it and just wondering how he wriggled out of explaining how he was going to close it w/out a plan....

I want it closed, but not before they know where the prisoners will be relocated. I mean DUH!!!

 

[angelatc]

Here's the raw text: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-president-obamas-speech-national-security/

 

[Deborah K]

Thank you, Angel. When I have an extra 3 hours that I want to spare on this diatribe of a speech....I'll read it. sheeeeeesh!

 

[angelatc]

Thank you, Angel. When I have an extra 3 hours that I want to spare on this diatribe of a speech....I'll read it. sheeeeeesh!

Googling to see what the bloggers are saying makes me a bit ill. Apparently Cheney made a speech today too, and the neocons are very excited because they can say "Ha ha! Bush / Cheney were right!"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0521200...ing_os_nominees__gop_recipe_170288.htm?page=0

A poll released this week shows Democrats have closed the gap with Republicans on national security. There are few media circuses like Supreme Court hearings — and if the GOP seizes the spotlight to focus attention on some of the left’s more bizarre and dangerous legal theories on the War on Terror, it can only work to its advantage.

After all, by placing terrorism center stage, they might just accomplish one more thing: reminding Washington, and the American people, that we are still at war.

Ick.

 

[Deborah K]

Is ANYONE talking about having the UN handle this mess?? I hate the UN but if we're going to subsidize them then I think this is an appropriate issue for them to deal with. I mean, wasn't their originally intended purpose to handle and resolve disputes between nations?? Since none of the other nations from whom the prisoners were originally spawned, want them - and those who will take them, intend to kill them - then doesn't it make sense for the UN to step in and 'insist' that these nations take their sons back - give them a proper trial - and convict or acquit??

Am I off base here?

 

[Deborah K]

Googling to see what the bloggers are saying makes me a bit ill. Apparently Cheney made a speech today too, and the neocons are very excited because they can say "Ha ha! Bush / Cheney were right!"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0521200...ing_os_nominees__gop_recipe_170288.htm?page=0



Ick.

Geezus!!! Can they JUST ONCE stop with the politicizing and deal with the freaking problem?????

 

[angelatc]

Is ANYONE talking about having the UN handle this mess?? I hate the UN but if we're going to subsidize them then I think this is an appropriate issue for them to deal with. I mean, wasn't their originally intended purpose to handle and resolve disputes between nations?? Since none of the other nations from whom the prisoners were originally spawned, want them - and those who will take them, intend to kill them - then doesn't it make sense for the UN to step in and 'insist' that these nations take their sons back - give them a proper trial - and convict or acquit??

Am I off base here?

No, one of the main neocon objections to Harold Koh's nomination for Legal Advisor to Something Important Somewhere is his insisitence that the US acted illegally in invading Iraq.

http://preservesovereignty.wordpress.com/

Why are some people concerned about this nomination?
Here are a few representative legal opinions held by Koh regarding international law:

That the congressionally authorized 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq “violate[d] international law” because the U.S. had not received “explicit United Nations authorization” (“A Better Way To Deal With Iraq,” Hartford Courant, October 20, 2002);

But that's not necessarily a plus - he is a globalist.

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Howdy,

Some highlights from the speech:

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

...

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

...

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

...

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo...

Not so good:

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The bolded portion sounds okay, though. Can anyone tell me about the underlined bit regarding Military Commissions throughout early US history? How are today's Military Commissions the same or different from George Washington's time?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Omphfullas Zamboni

 

[slacker921]

I watched some of both..

A whole lot of rhetoric and doublespeak, and a lot of vague "facts" from both. In the end I think they were doing their jobs lining it up for the media to talk more about torture, terrorists, etc and raise the fear level. The state won, the people will continue fighting against each other for the same end.

I'm expecting a false flag even more after hearing Cheney speak.

 

[Aratus]

a rough rule of thumb. the conspiracy to kidnap abraham lincoln transformed into
a plan to assassinate the potus and several top administration people. it was a
military tribunal that had four people deemed to be conspirators hanged. mary surratt
is hanged in the summer of 1865. her son, john surratt jr. is tried in a civilian court later
and does not go to the gallows. he had been in canada when john wilkes booth shot
abraham lincoln. we can assume mary surratt knew her son was a confederate spy and
a blockade runner, yet its a debate as to how deeply involved she was inside the conspiracy
that john wilkes booth and lewis powell primarily acted upon. civilian courts tend to have
more leeway and are less strict than military tribunals perhaps due to the way martial law
is enforced. there are things that stand up inside a military tribunal that perhaps might
not inside a civilian courtroom. the rules and regulations can overlap at times although both
institutions have a different focus. if barack obama is codifying things in our post 911 milieu...