He has backed out on a couple of campaign promises this week - first saying he will not release photos that he had said he was going to release, and now saying that he is not going to shut down the system of prosecution that the Bush administration set up for the Gitmo prisoners and have them tried in the American court system.

He wants to make evidence obtained because of statements made by the prisoners while being interrogated under extreme duress inadmissible, which I disagree with, especially in cases where the prisoner might have uttered something that led to them discovering evidence legitimate terror plots.

But still... it's a start. Maybe he's a closet right-winger after all?

You misunderstood. He is keeping military tribunals, but he is getting rid of the Star Chamber methods Bush used to run them. Big, big difference.

I'm sure he's so sorry to have disappointed you.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

lol................

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

Barack Obama does U-turn on Guantanamo Bay terror trials | Mail Online

Funny -- are you really trying to say that an accusation makes something fact? You weren't making that argument when some of us accused Bush of treason. What a difference a new president makes.


Obama to Revamp Military Panels for Detainees - WSJ.com

Obama to resurrect military commissions for terror suspects - CNN.com

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

obama is a real mr flip flop

Hey, it's a foreign newspaper, and I know it's all about what the foreigners are saying about us, so I thought you'd want to know....

I'm not following your logic here..... he is still going to try them under the Bush method, so to speak, just with a few new wrinkles. He is revising the tribunal system, but, still keeping it.

"Barack Obama has incurred the criticism of civil libertarians for the second time in a week by confirming that he is to continue to try Guantánamo detainees under the widely discredited military tribunal system set up under George Bush.

The Obama administration said it would introduce a number of reforms to the military commissions that are already processing 13 of the most serious cases of terrorist suspects held in the US base in Cuba. The reforms would make the system fairer and more in line with US justice, the administration insisted."

"Constitutional lawyers however have rejected the argument that the
tribunals can be improved to make them acceptable and workable. Shayana Kadidal, a Guantánamo lawyer with the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, said that fairness was clearly an issue but no matter how extensively the system was reformed "there is a problem of public confidence in the process both here and overseas".

Kadidal said the tribunals were a "disaster" that played into the hands of the terrorists. "By trying them in a military setting, it allows terrorists to portray themselves as military figures and their victims as 'collateral damage'."

"Only a small number of the detainees are expected to fall under the revised tribunals. Most of the Guantánamo prisoners are likely to be sent back to their countries of origin or, if deemed unacceptable for human rights reasons, to third party countries where those can be found.

Among the reforms that the administration is proposing are block on the presentation of evidence obtained from harsh interrogation techniques in line with Obama's promise to ban torture; restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence; greater choice for prisoners over their military lawyers; and extending to defendants the right not to incriminate themselves should they refuse to testify."

from: Obama to continue military tribunals at Guantánamo | World news | guardian.co.uk

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Thank you so much. It's nice that you suddenly care what the rest of the world thinks.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

That's President Flip Flop to you. Suck it up, it's at least 3.5 more years.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Obama, like all that came before him is *JUST* a politician. No more, no less.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I believe Obama is slowly realizing he cannot keep all the promises he made (and he made a LOT of promises). Once in office, he's slowly getting his eyes opened to what actually goes on behind closed doors and what the White House has privy to that the public does not. I believe we'll see more of this in the years to come.

I do think you are right, aia. Sometimes strongly-held philosophies have to find a way to make peace with stark realities that you didn't know existed.

I seem to remember - and I am certain I'll be corrected if I am wrong - that Obama spent a fair amount of his campaign trail time talking about the fact that Bush seemed to have forgotten about getting OBL.

I admit I don't listen to everything Obama says, but is he talking about OBL a lot? More than Bush did? The only reason to suspect Bush wasn't doing anything was because of the little Bush talked about OBL... but unless I'm missing something, Obama doesn't bring him up much, either.

And I think that's because both of them know he's been dead for years, but neither has had the freedom to just come out and say it because it would jeopardize the safety of many people, and would hinder covert operations abroad.

That's just a hunch, of course...

Bush has said the following about OBL, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 and

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02

Those comments are what led people to believe that he wasn't looking. In fact, it's pretty hard to conclude otherwise.

That said, it would seem probable that OBL would be dead. The CIA, however, doesn't think so. They believe that there would be a huge increase in "chatter" if OBL were to die. There has been none.

I guess he could have gotten a kidney.

Hold on - I thought you didn't believe the CIA told the truth all the time.

Nothing she said contradicts that, either.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

'Prisoner abuse' photographs surface as Barack Obama prepares to block publication - Telegraph

"They risk provoking renewed hostility in the Middle East as Mr Obama attempts to build bridges with the Islamic world."
"Mr Obama previously committed to allowing thousands of images to be published but changed his mind after senior generals warned that their publication could place US troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in greater danger."
..."Only by looking squarely in the mirror, acknowledging the crimes of the past and achieving accountability can we move forward and ensure that these atrocities are not repeated." (Anthony Romero)

New outrage over Iraq prison abuse photographs - Telegraph
This link has some of the pictures that are floating around the world.

What needs to change is our foreign policy. A real change not what we are seeing now.
YouTube - Ron Paul: Thought New Admin WE WOULD BE FIGHTING LESS WARS!

Jim Sinclair’s Commentary
"Rather than being less of a problem, Pakistan has been made more dangerous by the surge strategy.
This is exactly what extremists want. It falls perfectly into their aggressive strategy by alienating the displaced against the Pakistan Government on the basis of pain and suffering.
The West simply does not understand."

[quote=forrestlayne;3209995][

New outrage over Iraq prison abuse photographs - Telegraph
This link has some of the pictures that are floating around the world.



I went & looked at the pictures on the above link. They look like the same pictures that were realeased from Abu Gahrib. Some of the soldiers are the same ones that were in the pictures released when the story broke about the "abuse" at Abu Gahrib. Before someone jumps on my way of writing "abuse" in the other sentence, I do believe that there was some form of abuse on them yet I cannot bring myself to be overly upset about it. The images of what they have done and would do again to our service members are the ones that upset me. The release of these pictures will only end up inciting more attacks against our service members overseas. Shaking head.........

[quote=littlewolf;3210035]These pictures are certainly from Abu Gharaib. Let's see, you don't mind that we tortured these Iraqis.

Our service members, on orders from Pres. Bush, invaaded Iraq for no good reason at all. We dropped bombs on their homes. We destroyed their infrastructure. We killed their children, their mothers, their fathers, their cousins and their neighbors. We blinded some; we crippled others. What exactly did the people of Iraq do to deserve any of this? What exactly did they do to deserve the further insult of torture? What do you think they did to our servicemembers besides shoot back?

[quote=kvmj;3210115]kvmj, what I stated was that I am not overly upset by the pictures due to the fact that I have seen pictures that depicted worse things done to our service members.

You stated all of the things that we did to the Iraqi citizens BUT have you completely forgotten about what Saddam was doing to his own people before we invaded the country? You mentioned the insult of torture yet overlook the fact the people at Abu Gharaib were criminals and not random people that the soldiers picked up off of the streets and arrested. Oh, wait.....that was the very thing that Saddam and his regime did though to his own people. I suggest you read up on some of the things that were done to the Iraqi people before we went over there.

As far as what have they done to our service members besides shoot back at them, I guess you have forgotten about the POWs at the beginning of the war that were tortured by them. Guess you have forgotten about the Blackwater personnel that were hung and burned on the bridge in Fallujah in March 2004. Have you forgotten the beheading of the American civilians in Iraq? I could continue listing the things that have been done to our service members and civilian workers over there BUT I am sure that what the Iraqis did to them was okay with you.

Here are links to back up what I stated in the above paragraph:

From 2006:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/world/20cnd-iraq.html

Blackwater Incident...warning that there is very graphic piture on the page
frontline: private warriors: contractors: the high-risk contracting business | PBS

American Beheaded In Iraq..from 2004..Nick Berg
American Beheaded In Iraq - CBS News

Another American Beheaded in Iraq.... Eugene Armstrong
CNN.com - Video shows American hostage beheaded - Sep 20, 2004

American that was beheaded at the same time as Eugene Armstrong..Jack Hensley
FOXNews.com - Video Purports to Show U.K. Hostage; 2nd U.S. Hostage Slain - U.S. & World

Good points, littlewolf.

I find it fascinating, as well, that the liberals here give foreigners so little credit.

Somehow, they can find it in their hearts to think no ill of the people who torture and kill our citizens abroad. They want us to stick to the Geneva Convention rules and regs (are the terrorists uniformed combatants?? If not.... does the Geneva Convention apply???) but are more than warm towards people who do *our* people harm. Contractors who were over there rebuilding the infrastructure were heinously murdered... and yet the liberals in America don't ever, ever get angry at them and they don't ever, ever hold it against them.

The only hold it against Bush. Never, ever, ever the ones who did the beheadings.

So... I guess I don't understand why the liberals assume that the liberal people in foreign nations would be mad at *us* for scaring prisoners who were withholding critical information. If they can behead people and we don't seem to care, SURELY those nice people in the foreign press will find it in their hearts to overlook *our* less-horrible-than-a-beheading photos....

One would think, anyway....

I just heard on a talk show yesterday that the Geneva Convention does not apply to these people. Waterboard or behead??? Ummm, I'll take waterboarding.

You can write this kind of nonsense all you want if it makes you feel good, but it's absolutely ridiculous and just makes you look uninformed. You have no basis to say such outrageous things as "they can find it in their hearts to think no ill of the people who torture and kill our citizens abroad."

Try sticking to things that are instead of the claptrack nonsense that people like Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck make up to support their ramblings.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

[quote=littlewolf;3210173]Ah, so all Arabs are guilty. It's okay to kill or torture any of them if they happen to look Middle Eastern? Nick Berg was not beheaded by Iraqis. Eugene Armstrong was not beheaded by Iraqis. The Blackwater guards went into Fallujah basically underarmed and undermanned. Their bodies were most definitely abused. We took 1500 lives in Fallujah for those 4. Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker were the only servicemen that I know of who were who killed and mutilated by Iraqis. (Their bodies were booby trapped, their penises severed and placed in their mouths)

Menchaca and and Tucker were killed for revenge by the Uncle of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. They were in the same unit as PFC. Steven Green who raped and murdered 13 year old Ameer and then murdered her mother, father and 5 year old sister. Neither we nor the Iraqi government ever brought charges against Ameer's uncle.

You say that wasn't I aware of how Saddam treated his people? Of course I was; he supposedly killed a million of his countrymen during his 20 year reign. On the other hand, we had killed a million Iraqis in only 5 years. And, if you object to the torture of Iraqis by Saddam, in what universe can you approve of the torture of Iraqis by Americans?

We signed the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against torture; Saddam did not. By the way, no one from Bushco ever claimed that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Iraqi detainees.

We did a lot more than "scare" the prisoners we held. They were tortured; some died.

As far as other countries being "mad" at us for our lack of honor in the way we treated prisoners in our charge, I don't think that's the case. I think other countries are disgusted and horrified by what we've done.

We used to stand for something.

First of all, the Geneva Conventions apply to the citizens of iraq. Bush claims that they do not apply to those we picked up in Afghanistan (because they don't wear uniforms). Not many agree with him.

I didn't read any of the 26 posts already here....but based on the title alone, for heavens sake, there should always have been hope for Obama. If you don't have hope for Obama, you have no hope for this country - whether you desired him to be president or not. Get with the program and get on with being positive!! grrrr....

__________________
I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. -Emo Phillips