Only Six Stood Up: Live-Blogging the President's Speech on Guantanamo

Shows you how far we really have to go -- the US Senate is the single most reactionary institution in our government, capable only of protecting the elites from the rightful consequences of their screwups. I sincerely hope Harry Reid is defeated next year -- it's too much to hope for a Democrat to defeat him in a primary in that machine state -- his comments on not releasing terrorists into the US mark him as an idiot, a moral leper, or both. Why is it so hard for politicians to stand up for due process and the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, the rights that demarcate us from our unlawful foes? How hard is it to get on TV and say "Yes, our courts are capable of adjudicating these issues and separating the wrongly accused from the true lawless rogues -- and even if a court errs, the worst that occurs is these defendants are sent back to their home countries, not released into America." ?

 

Disgusting, yet again. It's amazing Obama can get anything done with this ship of fools. Very disappointed in Sanders, Feingold, Cardin, and my two Senators, Webb and Warner.

...why Obama is blamed by certain bloggers for what Congress does. It seems to be the same people that think Obama not only can but should just dictate things - make it so and it is - without regard to the democratic process. In this case, the Senators seem to be the worst kind of cowards; they claim to want Guantanamo closed but they want Obama to be the only one taking heat for it. Shameful!

As a Portuguese (and European), I fail to understand the big issue now surrounding Gitmo. So, Barack wants it closed and so many democrats. That makes sense, after Gitmo being "exposed" as an epicenter of torture. Now, here are the interesting parts:

• Why is "releasing" the detainees into US a issue?

I mean, you're not actually releasing them, you're just transferring them into high-security prisons where I have no doubt more dangerous criminals are being held. If anything, putting some of them in US jails across the country, spreads the risk of them communicating and allows a better monitoring from US officials, right?

• Like Al stated, why are Senate Dems (especially) backstabbing Obama on the issue of closing the infamous detention camp?

Anyway, I'll be following Obama's words, because I am sure he will have something important to say to turn the tables...

Dan Froomkin nails it.  

Here's one thing that hasn't changed in the Obama era: Republicans are still able to come up with scare tactics that turn Senate Democrats into a terrified and incoherent bunch of mewling babies.

It's hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than the suggestion that bringing some of the terror suspects currently incarcerated in Guantanamo to high-security prisons in America will pose a threat to local communities.

It is nothing more than a bogeyman argument, easily refuted with a little common sense. (Isn't that what prisons are for?) But that's assuming you don't spend your every moment living in fear of Republican attack ads questioning your devotion to the security of the country. Or that you have a modicum of respect for the intelligence of the American public.

Ah well. Old habits die hard, I guess. And Senate Democrats apparently remain an easily frightened bunch, after eight years of faint-hearted submission.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/

 

    

I'm out of the country for a week and come back to read about this craziness of the U.S. Senate scared of it's own shadow.  Al, I wouldn't go so far as to imply by "stood up" that the six are profiles in courage in any way.  This is a bogus argument about U.S. security no less bogus than the "Obama is a Muslim palling with terrorists because of Bill Ayers" b.s. prior to the election.

Ron, your "ship of fools" statement is sadly accurate.  For God's sake, don't these Senators realize that almost every speech for two years during Obama's election run, he included the words "close Guatanamo" and almost every time it got a huge applause?  Do the Senators think we just were going to close it  by locking the front gate and going home and leaving the prisioners there?  I think the American public knew at that time that "closing it" meant moving the prisoners here. (!!!) Sheesh.

That silly other Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris decided to vote against Obama and Durbin on this!? Bizarro World in the U.S. Senate. 

 

I have heard speculation that this might be a turf war between the leadership and the White House. Under Bush the Congress had zero input on Guantanamo and the detainees. Everything was done by Executive Order and Congress was expected to cough up the cash and keep their mouths shut. Apparently Obama began in the same fashion and this got some senatorial noses out of joint. I have to assume Congress will eventually get what it wants from the White House and then Obama will get the cash, hopefully in time to meet the closing deadline.

Some of the reaction that I've seen in the blogistan goes farther on this than a support of the Dems in the Senate.

Too many of those who are ranting about torture and human rights are actually blaming Obama for this...go figure.

I truely hope we see the President take a nice big wack at the totally absurd arguement about "releasing" these suspected terrorists in the US.  Something simple about it's blatent and ignorant fear mongering...and, more importantly, his dissapointment with all those who seem to be going along with it.

 

I doubt I'll see it...but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

And also today, by coincidence, we have a headline in the New York Times trumpeting that "1 in 7 Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds".  The article suggests that this fact bolsters the arguments of those who oppose transferring prisoners from Guantanamo to maximum security in the US.

One in seven!  Oh noes!  In other words, 85% of the people we've released just want to be left alone, despite the fact that we kidnapped them and imprisoned them for years.

God help us, our national discourse is now dominated by the people who couldn't handle fractions back in grade school.

Whenever that is. Apparently they are piping sound from Obama's speech into AEI.

When the President speaks of "an extremist ideology threatening our people" I somehow don't think he is only referring to the "terrorist" threat.

Obama sounds a little pissed at having to educate politicians and pundits on the U.S. Constitution this morning.

This speech is so good, I'm putting $30 I don't have toward Al's Fund Drive.

he sounds similar to when he broke with Rev. Wright during the primary.  Frankly, he looks and sounds more annoyed than I've ever heard him.  And rightly so -- with at the Democrats ---screwing around with the wishes of the American people because of Reid and Co's own bedwetting problems.

I agree that Obama appears very irritated.  It's like he's saying "Listen dummies, I'll explain it again..."

Personally, I ignore those who are equating Obama to Bush, etc., but I'm very frustrated with the msm as they continue to give Cheney the platform to articulate arguments that have been discredited.  

 

President Barack Obama is embarrassing the Children's Tables, the cocktail weenie BigMedia, and insane Repubs (meaning 98% of the Repub Party), all at the same time.  A thing of beauty.

I agree, he does sound pissed he even has to say this stuff.  The adult is sending the naughty, pouting children to their rooms for a time out.

On with the serious business.

i confess that the lack of a panel / investigation did kind of bother me (but given everything else going on, wasn't terribly compelled to comment on it). however, the quote Al calls the "money point" is absolutely dead on.

WTF is with having to listen to Cheney. Simply having him on screen kind of makes the President's point.

If the DOJ started a full investigation to get to the bottom of the torture program (and it's propaganda aspect)...wouldn't every question to Gibbs then become "We do not comment on an ongoing investigation"?

Wouldn't that completely take the issue off Pres. Obama's plate for likely months and months and months?

I don't know...I'm really asking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html?scp=2&sq=terr... The really infuriating part of that article is that there is no evidence that those people were terrorists BEFORE being taken to Guantanamo. The real headline should have been 1 in 7 innocent civilians tortured by the US BECOME terrorists. Why would these people be released in the first place if the evidence existed that they were terrorists? The very fact of their release precludes any BS about recidivism. Does anyone actually believe that Cheney is going to hurt Obama with all his appearances? It seems insane that he is drawing so much attention to himself when he is probably the most hated public official in history. Every time he appears on tv more people abandon his party...

@Ron

"US Senate is the single most reactionary institution in our government"

Feh. Senate is merely chickenshit. SCOTUS, now that's reactionary.

 

It is so ridiculous.  And don't they think they are completely playing into Bin Laden's plan - "ooh, ooh, ooh, these guys are so scary, scary, scary, we'll never be able to contain them in our US prisons, they're so clever, they'll break out and hatch their dastardly plans" - it's complete BS.  I say bring them here, bring them to NY, NJ, Texas, wherever.

Spineless.

I haven't seen the President's speech yet but I'm looking forward to watching it on Youtube.

KD

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/21/733145/-A-Justice-Dept.-Attorneys-Take-on-Obamas-Speech

 

 

"We TOLD you so..."

Awesome speech.  The guy consistently brings it.

I am one proud voter.

I couldn't be prouder of President Obama and my Senator Durbin--I just e-mailed him to thank him for his vote on this yesterday.  And I second, third and forth the sentiments that Cheney goes back to his undisclosed location.

"We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends.  On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

"Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems..."

 

A thing of beauty that quote is.  It's something I never been able to get my head around about the Repubs.  How is it that they can't see that an increase in executive authority is a dangerous thing when it's not your guy running the show??  Likewise with the near removal of the fillibuster a few years back.  So short sighted.

 

I've always loved how Obama expects more from people.  He demands that people accept nuance and, as the election showed, most are willing to go there.  It really is an advanced thought process though...most people are much more comfortable with black and white.

in my opinion because his speech seemed to have dominated as much as Obama's did and a lot of his absurds talking points is gaining traction especially in our unhelpful media. I hate how they give his arguments credit and it's frustrating because he should be laughed out of any room.. They seem to think he won the day and keep saying that his approval numbers have gone up... This worries me and I don't think we should keep letting him spread lies...

It seems to me that Prez. Obama really does believe in the Constitution and seeing as how there are 3 seperate parts of government, he expects the congress to step up.  He expects them to do the investigations ( isn't that what oversight committees are for after all) and work with the DoJ if they have evidence of a crime.  I think congress has some sort of PTSD from the Bush/Cheney era.

And I really don't understand why they held the vote before he gave the speech. 

http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=313327

 

I believe it is time for Guantanamo to be closed.  Sen. McCain, Sen. Graham, Colin Powell and James Baker share this view. The facility has become a rallying cry and recruiting tool for al Qaeda.  It contributes to extremism, anti-American sentiment and undermines our ability to build the international support we need to defeat al Qaeda.  

Sec. Gates has testified that “the announcement of the decision to close Guantanamo has been an important strategic communications victory for the United States.”  The Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has stated that “the detention center at Guantanamo has become a damaging symbol to the world and that it must be closed.  It is a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security, so closing it is important for our national security.” And, Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”

There are many unresolved questions about the process we will use to prosecute these detainees.  We need to resolve those tough questions, but we should not use them as an excuse to avoid taking a step that is so important to our national security.Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

1. Return the 45 square miles to Cuba.

2. Send a couple ships to evacuate US personnel.

3. The detainees are subject to  Cuban Jurisdiction.

It's too late to try them in regular US Courts. 6th Amendment Right to a Speedy Trial.

 

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Most of leftblogger-activist uproar-poutrage is a reaction to Obama's fifth category, "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. . . . These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

"Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al-Qaida terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again. . . .

"If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

What Obama describes is ugly, but light-years from the "Obama is Bush" meme that's floating around certain precincts. At the same time, I'd like to know what the endgame is. Thoughts?

I'm guessing we'll eventually classify them as prisoners of war.

Predicably the mainstream media, particularly The Washington Post, gave equal billing to Cheney's rant yesterday as to President Obama's speech.  "Dueling speeches" was the meme.  But it forces us to look at Cheney's speech.  Andrew Sullivan nailed it:  http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-unbalan...

Sullivan says that Cheney remains a "threat".  Think about that: A former conservative Republican, now Obama supporter, believes Cheney may help disrupt our transition to a saner period of national security policies.  And that means that all of us who are now expending a lot of our energy taking exception to this or that aspect of the president's policies cannot neglect the important work of refuting the arguments from the right.  We may know they don't make sense, but not so the general public.

Here's a taste of how insidiously persuasive Cheney tried to be yesterday: "You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States...When just a single clue that goes unlearned…one lead that goes unpursued…can bring on catastrophe -- it's no time for splitting differences. " In other words: Obama won't torture, so he will cause a nuclear attack on an American city. This represents the single most demagogic political attack on an American president, by another American political leader, in living memory. That its central charge was insinuated and not directly stated does not dilute its malice.

The mainstream news media seem oblivious to these back alley methods of Dick Cheney's political rhetoric, so mesmerized do they appear to be by his buttoned-down corporate style. But make no mistake about it: The former vice president realizes that the new president is well along in forging an entirely different public consensus about how the United States should conduct itself in the world. It isn't clear if the fear-ridden, hostility-feeding language which Cheney deploys comes from his own need for self-justification, or whether it's part of a deliberate strategy by him and his acolytes in the conservative movement to try to reignite the recriminations and hostilities that surged back and forth when he was in office. But whatever the reason, Cheney's belligerent speech raises the stakes for those who would prefer to have America steered by the rationality and composure of Obama's approach. The bile he's aimed at the president, and the rancor against Obama that it may further stir on the right, should make clear to all of us who prefer a stable new course for our country that the president deserves our support as never before. We have to make the choice we made last November again, and again -- because those who lost have not conceded.

@ Tribunus Plebis

Cheney's "You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States," etc., has a distinguished pedigree:

"My good friends, I say one Communist in a defense plant is one Communist too many. One Communist on the faculty of one university is one Communist too many. One Communist among the American advisers at Yalta was one Communist too many. And even if there were only one Communist in the State Department, that would still be one Communist too many."

--Senator Joseph McCarthy, from a speech to the 1952 Republican National Convention

We know well that worked out.

I think that you are most likely correct, as the Administration has already made several legal arguments in that direction. The response to the habeas corpus petitions was basically that they were being held as POWs. The military commissions, as Obama described them in this speech, follow historical precedent in that they are for those who have committed war crimes. And although many bloggers do not seem to realize it, prisoners of war can be held indefinitely without trial, as long as certain conditions are met.

I could not agree with you more.  I am very concerned about the fact that the far left and the far right are now BOTH pushing the talking point that Obama = Bush/Cheney, at the very same time.  Frankly, it is frightening.  For the left to be so oblivious to the game that the Republicans - through Cheney and Gingrich - are playing is worrisome.  In the left's quest to "push" Obama, a man who never professed their ideological purity, they are completely ignoring the TRUE enemy to their agenda and to America's progress.  Yes, we can turn on Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow, or read lefty blogs and catch what the Republicans are up to with a laugh and a belittling summary of the right's latest stunt.  But there is rarely any real analysis of the impact the Republicans are having on the public, if any, and what damage they are doing to the cause of the the Democrats.  It's as if some on the left think Cheney, Gingrich, and the rest of them are out there on some kind of comedy tour, as opposed to them trying to regain power and destablize Obama's Administration.

I am very sympathetic with the belief that Obama should be questioned and challeneged.  I sincerely believe Obama agrees with that.  However, we are now developing a situation where we are fighting amongst ourselves, and ignoring the source of the problems.   

I was struck by the account of a moment during the meeting that Obama had with major human rights groups at the White House on Wednesday.  Presumaby, he was seeking to forge some consensus or at least create a situation for a friendly debate going forward.  According to "sources" one member of one of the groups made reference to Obama's positions being like Bush's.  To that, Obama supposedly showed his displeasure and offense. 

Think about that.  Obama INVITES human rights groups to have a discussion about the detainee situation, something Bush never would've done, and when one of the members doesn't hear what he/she wants, that person pushes the Obama = Bush meme - to Obama's face.  To some "allies" on the left, battle lines have been drawn - Obama is, in essence Bush, so he must be fought like Bush was.

And in the meantime, Cheney is running around DARING terrorists to attack us, because he's creating a climate where the American people will blame their President, as opposed to rally around him at a moment where we would need to be unified and strong-willed.

I want to agree with your last point as well.  We do have to continue to make our choice as if it's November 4, 2008 again and again.  Obama was not a perfect candidate, and he is not a perfect President.  But as in the campaign, we must criticize his imperfections, but never lose sight of who the true adversaries are in our domestic political fight.  I am concerned that the left is believing that the Republicans are finished and are only focusing on Obama. 

I really hope the Gitmo vote is a wake up call.  The Republicans have managed to hijack the argument and alienate Obama from his own party in this situation - to the point where Reid was making the Republican argument against Obama.  We cannot afford to have many instances like that where Obama is left out to dry.  If the "no drama Obama" wears off, and all people see is drama on the left and right around him - his popularity with the general public could fade.  And his popularity is his Ace card.

I want to thank you, Al, for providing this place for many to share their views on this most amazing presidency, under this most difficult time in our history.  The stakes are so high, and it is nice to have a place where the discussion is thoughtful and nuanced.  I have to say that I have read certain blogs where it is almost as if some bloggers are sympathetic to Obama's positions (especially regarding torture prosecutions and Gitmo) but are too afraid to state their positions, presumably because their liberal card will be yanked away.  This is something that your blog can guard against, as it is providing a space for people to discuss all aspects of our problems and of Obama's decisions, without feeling as though one needs to prove themselves as a progressive, or defend themselves against charges of being "kool-aid drinkers" for Obama.

Further to this point, look at the language Obama uses to describe this group (emphasis mine):

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.  And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face.  We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country.  But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.  Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans.  These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat:  I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people.  Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again.  Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded.  They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone.  That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category.  We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes.  We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we.  But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred.  Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework.  In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.  If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.  And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

The terrorists can commit the crime of the century on American soil (surely these Senators realize that the WTC and Pentagon were on American territory?), but it is not appropriate to try and incarcerate them here?

The emerging problem with the Obama era lies not with the Administration, but with the fact that too many Democrats are stupid, callow fucks afraid of their own shadows.

 

 

The only MSM reporters to challenge and debunk the administration’s case for war in 2002 and get it right with solid on-the-ground reporting were Knight-Ridder’s Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel, and KR Bureau Chief John Walcott.

Knight-Ridder became McClatchy, and the Boys are baaaack doing what the NYT and WaPo failed to do: set the record straight after that disgraceful red-eye rant the Co-Opter pulled Thursday AM. And the McClatchy Boys dont mince words.

Cheney's speech ignored some inconvenient truths

By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel

“Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.”

 

In other words, Cheney lied, and they lay it out point by point. Normally, the MSM uses code words for lying by referring to the "statements" being incomplete, false, or whatever. But only a person can omit, exaggerate, or mis-state. And they say flatly that Cheney did exactly that, and then take him down with the facts.

Just a little prezzie from McClatchy to include in Cheney's upcoming legacy burner.

 

 

I'm reminded of the schoolyard recommended retort to a bully, "just ignore him, you will only encourage him by talking back".  Cheney is the big ass bully, the bully who has finally graduated but now shows up in the schoolyard at recess time.  I wish we could ignore him but hopefully, the very fact that Wheezer is out on the rampage and huffing and puffing trying to coerce people into believing that his Iraq lies and torture authorization were just "stuff happens", will be what actually gets him done in.

Since he thinks it's not torture, let's just waterboard him 93 times (and Bush maybe just 92 times?) between Memorial Day and Labor Day and then get back to cleaning up the rest of the mess.

BooMan has a short excellent piece on Germany in WWII and torture.   http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/5/22/103622/205

On a completely unrelated note, who the hell kidnapped fivethirtyeight.com??  There's some really snooze posts there by names other than Nate Silver and Sean Quinn.

IVA:  Thanks for the tip of the hat.  We're on the same page.  You're absolutely right that the Cheney-Gingrich-FoxNews wing of the Republican party is trying to inflame and even derange the public debate about Obama's national security-related decisions (having failed to do so about his economy-related initiatives), realizing that it is Obama's preternatural calm and rationality which impress the public.  If they can create the impression that Obama has failed to change Washington and our politics, i.e. failed to make it less intemperate, they can partly erode the perception that he is a new kind of politician and making good on his campaign promises (probably the most underappreciated strength that Reagan had, despite the destructiveness of many of his policies).  The problem with the part of the left that needs an authority figure to attack is that they don't realize that (a) the way they are trying to influence the White House isn't working, because criticism that's personally aimed at the president -- as in the example you cite -- will necessarily be refuted or defused by any White House, and (b) it adds to the political shrapnel flying around, and that only benefits the right.

@ Alexa:  I had a long meeting with Warren Strobel several years ago, and found him to be the smartest, least arrogant, and most open-minded foreign affairs reporter I'd met in Washington.  The McClatchy team is doing journalism the old-fashioned way.  They deserve the salaries that people like Wolf Blitzer are pulling down.