Steve - grow up....change does NOT = a lie

So they're tried in a military court. There's a judge, there's lawyers, there's the rule of law.

Legally (NOT politically or emotionally) speaking...what difference does it really make?

I heard he's running on a promise to make Guam the 58th state.

CNN defines Obama’s changing his mind on Gitmo, the Debt Ceiling, health care, the budget, on and on , as “Shifts” in his position.

Others call them lies, or stupidity.

And elections are’a com’in.

Of course Obama wanted to try the terrorists in New York City. Someone made the following comment regarding that position of Obama’s:

"I think the president will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come."

That quote of course was made by former VP Dick Cheney in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in 2009. Smart man, that Mr. Cheney. A smart man indeed.

Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/04/gitmo-tribunal-move-the-latest-in-a-long-line-of-obama-shifts/

Would be the same Dick Cheney who let it all ride on "Curveball"?

Why anyone considers him to have a shred of credibility is beyond comprehension.

OK, try them in Gitmo. No, let's try them in a US court in NYC. No, let's now use a military court in the Gitmo. Nope, we are not closing it soon.

You libbies out there must be livid by now with the switching of this guy. But, if you look closely at the Bushie policies, you must really be livid. Your guy has expanded the efforts in the existing two mid-eastern wars, now he's expanding into a 3rd mid-eastern war with the possibility of increasing the economy by going into Syria and other nations. So much for letting other countries work out their differences without a US police action.

Now we all need to spend tax dollars helping other foreign countries explore and drill for oil when we can also accomplish the same in our country, helping drive down the gasoline costs while also employing many Americans in this and related industries.

Gosh you Progressives are too much. Why are you not complaining about all of this? Or are you writing your apology letter to George, admitting you were wrong?

John B, Des Moines, IA "Would be the same Dick Cheney who let it all ride on "Curveball"? Why anyone considers him to have a shred of credibility is beyond comprehension."

Yeah, except that everything that Cheney has said about Obama and his policies has proven correct.

Isn't it amazing that someone that is virtually always right (Cheney) has no credibility with some people, while someone that is almost always wrong (Obama) is considered by those same people as 'credible'. What's that old saying about "You can fool 'some' of the people ALL of the time"?

Go figure.

Roy, I see your problem. You can't tell the difference between truth and lies.

It's easy to get cynical about politicians lying, but last night's debate was remarkable for the number of times Dick Cheney told flat-out fibs.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004860.php

Seven years ago today Dick Cheney assured us Saddam Hussian had WMDs and was friends with al-Qaida. Whoops

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/16/dickcheney-iraq

Cheney's broadside opens with a big lie, which he then repeats throughout. It is as if he believes that saying something over and over again, in a loud enough voice, magically makes it so.

"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war," Cheney begins.

Flat-out untrue.

The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are at war against terrorists. He said it as a candidate. He said it in his inaugural address: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." He has said it since.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123001696.html

Cheney is practicing historical revisionism at its most despicable. Why does anyone believe anything he says?

http://www.alternet.org/story/140499/when_will_dick_cheney%27s_tower_of_lies_come_tumbling_down/

The only thing that Dick Cheney is "virtually always," is lying. Apparently you're one of the people Dick can fool all of the time.

Not. I meant, not.

Two. I meant Two.

Geez.....

Military trials then Gitmo for life.

As Obama is finding out - the world is a very scary place. There are really bad guys that want all of us dead. Hence he no longer seeks to close Gitmo or offer civilian trials for those people.

Talk is cheap. Governing is hard. The longer he governs the more he adopts Bush's policies - you know DBO all those policies the Libbies hate, unless it's their guys doing them.

Which is why although I hate, hate, hate Libya is is fun to watch the contortions.

How about you DBO - good with Gitmo and military trials? Good with Libya intervention? Let's assume we get us some libyan "convicts." Shall we put them in Gitmo? If not there, then where?

Looks like Republicans succeeded in blocking the closure of Guantanamo...so why aren't they taking credit for the victory? Instead they're painting the continued operation of this facility as a negative and pinning it on the President.

If Conservatives worked that hard to do something they now disown, what does that say?

Spanky:

Military trials then Gitmo for life.

So why do we need the trials? Sounds like a big waste of money to me.

And if they sentence them to life at Gitmo, where will I put my school? Sigh.

Ask Spanky, John B- I bet HE knows.

Problem for Obama is the answers were so obvious and simple before he took over command.

Now all those stupid moves done by that idiot Bush are not so stupid.

Glib is no way to run things, right DBO?

What school AM? You looking to teach the gitmo fellas? I don't think they take too kindly to your kind.

So Spanky, you're saying sabotaging America is fine, as long as there's a political gain?

What school AM? You looking to teach the gitmo fellas? I don't think they take too kindly to your kind.

No, not the gitmo fellas. Never mind.

But isn't that interesting? Conservative fellas -- at least the ones out here -- don't usually take too kindly to "my kind," either. I wonder what that says.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Oh wait, nowhere in my comments did I either say it, or imply that, so what the heck are you talking about?

Elaborate please John. Cause it seems Obama sought political gain by throwing out the libbie red meat - closing Gitmo. That is until he figured out he couldn't. Or is it just wouldn't John?

John please tell us why he has chosen, despite his prior position, to not just leave Gitmo open, but to go with military trials. Did the Tea Party of Bush make him do these things?

And Am - I love your kind: pushy female lawyers. Problem is the Gitmo crowd doen't like-y women. Unless you got a Burka. Do you AM?

And I know you are not equating consevatives here with Gitmo detainees.

I'll let John McCain explain it;

If there was one thing both presidential candidates agreed on last fall, it was the need to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But almost as soon as President Obama took office and ordered the camp shuttered within a year, Congressional Republicans — including his former opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona — saw a singular political opportunity.

“Where are we going to send them?” Mr. McCain said in an interview on Fox News, just days after the inauguration. “That decision I would have made before I’d announced the closure.” Referring to the not-in-my-back-yard uproar over the proposed nuclear waste site in Nevada, he added: “You think Yucca Mountain is a Nimby problem? Wait until you see this one.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24gitmo.html

Who's just exploiting the issue to throw red meat at the base?

ah, you beat me to it Spanky, I was reading John B's comment and then looked thru yours, in John B's defense maybe he has you confused with some other Spanky?

Don't know how Gitmo is a political thing in away, Obama made it political, the public sees it as keeping the terrorist off of American soil.

"Looks like Republicans succeeded in blocking the closure of Guantanamo."

__________________________________________

John B: Life is wonderful when you live in the fantasy world of Plane Liberal. It was the DEMOCRAT controlled Congress that refused to appropriate funds to hold the trials in the U.S. THAT is what has kept Gitmo open: DEMOCRATS.

And I know you are not equating consevatives here with Gitmo detainees.

Who, me? I just asked what it meant. You drew the inference.

Problem is the Gitmo crowd doen't like-y women. Unless you got a Burka. Do you AM?

Do I? No.

Good thing AM:

1. you are a woman so going outside without Burka means the fine gentlemen can rape you;

2. You can read, so they can kill you.

Allow me to infer that the fine conservatives up in Wisconsin, although seeking to strip your public union friends of collective bargaining, have not, as of yet, tried to rape or kill you because you are a girl.

Isn't that nice?

And John B - really? you have to resort to using McCain word's to explain your position? So sad. COme on my man use your own words. I'm sure you can do a better job.

Or is it Obama's red meat regarding taxes or war you'd like to discuss?

You Chickenhawks got your wish...military tribunals and Gitmo...can't you just be happy for once?

I guess you're glad you don't live over there, then, huh Spanks? I know I sure am. How about you, Anna- you glad you live here, too? I bet we all are. Just seems a shame, somehow, that we can't go over there, and make them more like us. Get 'em to get rid of all that stupid religious upbringing they've had and all.

Again the question; Why are Conservatives working SO HARD to distance themselves from what they've done? Aren't they proud of their work? Is there some reason why they want to avoid responsibility in the eyes of the American public?

Republicans in Congress started laying plans even before the inauguration to make the debate over Guantánamo Bay a question of local community safety instead of one about national character and principles.

Talk radio and cable news hosts warned viewers that dangerous terrorists might end up in a neighborhood jail, with Sean Hannity of Fox News even broadcasting an online video from House Republican leaders that juxtaposed the security of the detainee camps with images of the twin towers in flames.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24gitmo.html

Anna Molly

What school AM? You looking to teach the gitmo fellas? I don't think they take too kindly to your kind.

No, not the gitmo fellas. Never mind.

But isn't that interesting? Conservative fellas -- at least the ones out here -- don't usually take too kindly to "my kind," either. I wonder what that says.

Anna, you are entitled to your opinion without any negative comments raised against your opinion. I happen to have many Democratic friends and family, and I don't happen to hold that against them, no matter how wrong they may be.

But how does a liberal justify the Obama administration when he is closely following the Bush plan?

Sigh. I'll have just have to wait longer to open Anna Molly's School.

And what do you suppose will become of all those hot dogs I bought? Goodness, gracious.

Send your hot dogs to Gitmo, I hear Muslim love hot dogs!!!

Liberal/progressives used to care, Grand Moff.

Some still do...most of them aren't here, though.

Try Firedoglake.com, Grand Moff.

Trust me...the liberal/progressives there most definitely care.

Mixed Bag-

Can those terrorist/prisoners tried in civilian courts have evidence produced against them if they had come under the duress of torture ie. enhanced interrogation techniques? If not,I understand that it would be a violation of the 5th, that said perhaps the only way to try them is to go forward with the military commissions.

However, I understand that unlike in federal court, there have been no sucessful prosecutions of Guantanamo or terrorist related defendants due to military tribunals. In fact the right leaning SCOTUS disallowed the conviction of a Guantanamo prisoner found quilty by a military tribunal.

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld

On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld... In a 5-3 plurality, the Court held that the military commissions which were established to try the detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."[16] The ruling specifies Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention as the provision that was violated.

Bush's justice department proposed the 2006 Military commissions act to address the justices concerns but I ask, if these commissions go through in spite of the Hamdan ruling will they pass muster with the SCOTUS this go around? Isn't it time and money wasting to go forward with a tribunal if its preceding system was found unconstitutional.

Best trick ever? Turning this into a liberal vs conservative debate rather than a rule of law debate. Debate: Is torture illegal anymore in America? Is indefinate detention or rendition? Do we still believe that our Constitution states that treaties are the Supreme Law of the land in concert with our Federal Constitution or do we really believe it is OK to ignore treaties and Constitutional limits on Executive power and the President can invade, police, bomb, enforce (a no fly zone) etc where ever he sees fit as suggested by the War Powers Resolution Act and the Iraq War authorization? Do we really care what the Constitution says if it is our team violating it or is political gain all that matters?

Everything else is obfuscation and noise. Focus on what matters or lose it.

umerkin - Do we really care what the Constitution says if it is our team violating it or is political gain all that matters?

We should. Agree with your posts 6.3 & 9.1.

Mixed Bag care to opine?

Mark-

Attorney General Holder has decided that his best option to obtain convictions for the 9/11 conspirators now lies in military tribunals at Guantanamo. I believe that was his best option all along...but I'm not an attorney, Mark.

I would simply say that having a conviction overturned for Mr. Hamdan in 2006 is a great deal different from having a conviction by military tribunal of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed overturned by the nation's Supreme Court.

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if that happened.

But again...I'm not an attorney nor do I have any legal training (I'm sure that's pretty obvious to those who do, AM :-]).

Anyway, those are my thoughts, Mark.

Thanks for asking, by the way.

And, thanks for representing the Firedoglake.com view, unNmErkin...it isn't heard here all that often.

First Read is primarily about unequivocal support of President Obama.

Period...no matter what.

You really, really want a dictatorship huh?

It isn't even that simple. There is very little evidence that isn't tainted by torture with which to try any of the detainees. The ping-pong we are seeing is nothing more than shopping for a judge or tribunal that will hear evidence gathered using torture. That is the reason we see convictions on one count out of a hundred and the reason they have not been tried (some nearly a decade later) in any forum as of yet.

Progressive,

Swift justice? How many years have gone by with the Obama administration waiting to decide what to do? Before these guys go to trial under this administration, most may expire from old age.

And according to the AG this morning on the boob-tube, they still have rights. Did you hear him attempting to spin this decision favorabilty for the Obama camp? What a joke.