Obama’s 250 Tough Calls

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Soldier's Mom @ 11/17/2008 2:03:09 AM

    to Gommy Goomy re: "These guys CAN NOT BE TRUSTED WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. PERIOD. "

    Well, ta-ta G-G. You all are jest gonna hafta trust US now. & We-all are gonna do everything above board, in front of God & everybody. It's called transparency, & it's the next thing.
    Get with the times.
    Lose the Cold War attitude.

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/17/2008 6:29:43 PM

      It's also called "stupid", and "giving the enemy the upper hand".

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 12:43:37 PM

        "It's also called "stupid", and "giving the enemy the upper hand". "

        And "adhering to the principles America was founded on".

        Stop hating America.

  • Posted By: tuckercook @ 11/17/2008 5:38:05 PM

    Last month, I visited with an old Dewey Republican. At the end of Second World War, he served in constabulary, more accurately as a prosecutor in the Military Governor???s Office in Germany, where he hunted down former Nazi officials among his duties. And, he explained to me how very disturbed he was with the wholesale activities that took place in Gauntanamo and Abu Graib Prisons. We were talking about the presidency of George W. Bush, when he said to me:

    ???Don???t waist your time comparing Bush [the 43rd] to a list of our worst presidents. He is the worst of all of them. Expand the field, he ought to be compared [in terms of infamy] to the most diabolical American whosever lived!???

    He got me thinking about John Wilkes Booth, and then I thought about what Bush and his circle of advisors did to John McCain???s campaign.

    One wonders how McCain might advise Obama, once the Bush/Cheney administation is out of office?


    • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 6:15:00 PM

      It is retarded to compare Bush to Booth and I would have your old friend admitted for senility. The history of Bush has not even started to be writen. No one knows how it will turn out. Truman is loved by democrats and republicans. Both try to claim him and he seems to have inspired every candidate since Nixon yet he had a lower approval rating than GWB when he left office and people thought he was the worst president ever. Eisenhower was one of the most popular when he left office but now his presidency is generally considered a failure. History will have its turn at GWB. We shall all see in due course.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 12:40:03 PM

        " It is retarded to compare Bush to Booth and I would have your old friend admitted for senility."

        Okay, so you approve of detention without due process, torture, and having anyone who disagrees with you committed.

        Nice. When did you start hating America, and start loving communist China?

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/18/2008 10:52:09 AM

    Newsweek needs to grow a pair, and condemn Guantanamo unequivocally. It's NOT a tough call, and if Obama thinks it's a tough call, he's not the man I voted for. If Newsweek thinks it's a tough call, they should change their name to Pravda.

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/18/2008 10:36:57 AM

    Here is a quote from a true history book about a WWII double agent in England. The book is "Agent Zig-Zag". The quote describes the London camp the captured Nazi agent was taken to for interrogation. Mind you, this was while London was being bombed, while France was occupied and Germany was actively planning the invasion of England. Good intelligence was absolutely critical to England, and the populace was terrified. " Secluded, forbidding, and surrounded by double barbed wire fences, the interrogation center was code named Camp 020. Colonel (Robin) Stephens, ...terrified his underlings as much as the prisoners. ...He was a superb judge of character and situation, he never lost his temper with a prisoner, and he condemned the use of violence or torture against a prisoner as barbaric and counter-productive. Anyone using the "third degree" was banned from Camp 020....few disputed he was superb at his job: establishing the guilt of the spy, breaking down his resistance, extracting vital information, scaring him witless, and turning him over to Tar Robertson for use as a double agent." Note that Britain was actively at war with the Nazis, and their chief interrogator of spies and saboteurs used NO torture- partly because it was counter-productive. That means not is torture worth comdemning because it is brutal, but it also DOESN'T WORK. Do American interrogators read history?

  • Posted By: Lars-Johan @ 11/18/2008 4:33:43 AM

    The United States of America are opposed to freedom of thought and expression. If a foreigner feels hatred towards america he can be put in prison indefinately or done away with completely. Just as a chinese journalist can be summarily designated "enemy of the people" and not be heard from again, so can arabs or africans be called "terrorist" and be sent to guantanamo bay.

  • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 1:57:15 PM

    We should just line them up and shoot them. In the most humane manner as possible of course. I dont want the world to accuse us of torture. Lets just shoot them and be done with it. I have no doubt that our army has learned from its mistake and is shooting these low lifes out in the field rather than taking them prisoner where they can be used as poltical weapons by europe's socialist democracies and our democrats. Consider it a lesson learned and lets be done already.

    • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/17/2008 8:27:20 PM

      Nothing quite like a brave "arm chair warrior." It's all very well and good until they come for you. Then you would probably be the first to scream for your "rights". So cavalier and superior of you to speak of others as low lifes. Sounds earily something like our American hero, Joe the plumber has said. Cheny, another hero, would be proud. A fine way to show the rest of the world what a great, humane and christian country we are. At first, I actually thought you were being sarcastic. Silly me! May I ask what " what are you using for brains"?

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 2:12:48 PM

      "We should just line them up and shoot them."

      Remember the good old days, when we used to have trials before we executed people?

      • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 2:38:14 PM

        No I guess I dont remember the good old days. In the old days that I remember prisoners of war were not used by either polcitcal party to bludgeon the other. People recognized that those who declare war on us and then take to the battlefield against our troops did not have a right to freedom or to a trial. They had to wait until their side surrendered. Thats how I remember the old days. I suspect all this call for trials and poltical jockeying has caused both combatants and civilians to die. Once the army learned that taking prisoners in the field gave opponents of the war political ammunition dont you think they were smart enough to just stop taking prisoners.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 3:10:40 PM

          What POWs? Bush has stated that they do not have that status. He called them "detainees". Now all of a sudden they are POWs?

          You can't have it both ways.

          So, if they're illegal combatants, they are accused criminals and should be tried. If guilty, they can and should be shot. If not, they should be released. I fail to see the problem with this.

          • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 3:35:04 PM

            You say something silly and then use your own silly comment to justify your first silly comment. It is the most circular reasoning I have ever seen. I dont know why, aside from the pure fun of it, I am compelled to respond. Just because you and George Bush call them detainees or illegal combatants or wuzzels does not change the facts. I appreciate your desire to defer to the intellect of GWB on these matters but I am disinclined to do so. Especially since he was just looking for a loophole in the Geneva Convention. The facts are quite simple really. Al Quieda declared war on the USA. Then they bombed the WTC (x 2), two embassies, the Kobar Towers, the USS Cole etc.. Apparently they were serious about the whole war thing. Therefore when our boys capture one of more of them they can and should be held until Al Quieda issues an unconditional surrender. I know it would be good fun to haul these folks out for a big public trial in hopes of finding some poor guy who was driving the wrong camel at the wrong time. Then it could be proven for all time that GWB was a horrible person, teh worst president ever, who imprsioned innocent people. After all in the history of war no one has ever been wrongly held by democrats. Well there was that nastly little FDR episone but thats hardly worth mentioning. It was only a couple hundred thousand American citizens of japenese decent who were denied their constitutional rights, had their property taken and deprived their freedom. I wonder if people think FDR is the worst president in history for such abuses. Probably not.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 3:40:49 PM

              "Just because you and George Bush call them detainees or illegal combatants or wuzzels does not change the facts. "

              Are they given the rights granted POWs under the Geneva Convention? No, they are not. They are not POWs.

              The rest of your post was infantile appeal to ridicule crap. You can do better than that.

  • Posted By: skeetchamp @ 11/16/2008 8:50:32 AM

    Those Gitmo prisoners get dentists???????? I am an American. A life-long Republican. I have NO dental insurance and haven't seen a dentist in NINE YEARS. Thanks George Bush. You're an even bigger jerk than I ever knew.

    • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/17/2008 7:35:10 PM

      Wow! Nine years; probably Clinton's fault, right?

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/16/2008 9:08:52 AM

      I have an idea; get a job, and then when you have some money, go see a dentist.
      You not seeing a detist in 9 years (yuck) is hardly the fault of George Bush.

  • Posted By: Junggai @ 11/17/2008 6:33:50 PM

    Closing Gitmo a tough call? In what parallel universe are we living, where following international human rights' standards for prisoners of war is a tough call?

    Extraordinary rendition may be edgy on TV dramas produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, but in real life it is a morally atrocious practice for a country which gets to be the arbiter of worldwide human rights. This article is evidence of how far the cancer has set into the American soul as it poses the question "what shall we do with these prisoners who are not guilty of any crime, but MIGHT be dangerous?"

  • Posted By: collegevoter @ 11/16/2008 3:31:59 PM

    I have an idea Floridadave. Better yet let's just continue to whine about how hard it is to do anything, leave them there despite the fact EVERY former Secretary of State including Henry Kissinger and James Baker TELLS YOU it's a disaster and do nothing.

    Sort of like the Bush years.

    Problems are TOUGH. They're supposed to be. That's why they're problems. Complaining about P.C. wussies (who want to send them to their OWN country to get TORTURED which ain't a picninc) isn't solivng ANYTHING.

    The problem with people like you, and Bush, is you're chickenhawks. You like to strut big, whine about how everything's tough and screw up.

    Why in God's name would I listen to anyone who's been wrong about EVERYTHING for the past 8 years tell me Guantanamo has to stay open when EVERYONE from both sides with a brain (Kissinger, Powell, Scowcrfot, Baker) agrees the thing has to be SHUT DOWN.

    So here's an idea either come up with a new idea or shut up. But being snarky, stupid, stubborn and rude is what got us into this mess in the first place.

    So if you don't want to send them home, with an express understanding that their governments either handle them or we hold their governments responsible, come up with a SOLUTION of your own. And leaving them where they are just ain't one.

    I'm sorry but we're better than this. We used to SOLVE problems. It's time to start doing that again. Guantanamo is the PROBLEM not the SOLUTION. Try again.

    • Posted By: ctruskey @ 11/17/2008 2:26:38 AM

      My solution is put all the prisoners at Gitmo in a jail in your hometown and you and your fellow citizens of that town can pay for them to be there. I'm all for closing Gitmo if the prisoners are moved to the home towns of people like you but keep them out of my hometown as I would rather have them at Gitmo.

      • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/17/2008 6:19:05 PM

        Well said and spot on!

        If this sort of nonsense is what is being taught in college, then we are doomed.

  • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 11/17/2008 5:52:40 PM

    Let me get this straight. By the reckoning of this article, at least 75 of the detainees could not be convicted of a crime and are not even considered dangerous. Why not at least start with releasing those 75? No reason was given as to why we should continue to keep them in Gitmo.

  • Posted By: valwayne @ 11/17/2008 12:14:38 PM

    Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have made their position perfectly clear. They've accused Bush of being a torturer and violator of civil rights. Now lets see what they do. It looks to me like they are committed to closing Guantanomo Bay and giving all these terrorist O.J. like trials or releasing them. I expect instead of spending millions possibly billions they will release most of these terrorists who will then go on about thier business of killing Americans. George Bush chose to keep the American people safe and individual Americans alive. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will prove to us that they have other more pressing concerns than the lives of a few dozen or thousands of Americans!

    • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:48:13 PM

      A lot of those guys don't even have charges pending against them. Others have insufficient evidence to convict, and that's why they're not being tried. This is UnAmerican activity- illegal, immoral, dishonest, and I guarantee if you were in prison instead of them, you'd be squealing for your constutional rights, too. Grow up.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 1:00:02 PM

      "Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have made their position perfectly clear. They've accused Bush of being a torturer and violator of civil rights."

      And they are correct.

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:10:56 PM

    And while we're thinking about it, remember the poor schlubs who have to do the torturing. They are being degraded, and ultimately turned into psychopaths by the very work that is being expected of them. Do you want a professional torturer coming home to marry your duaghter, or your son? "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" The repercussions of this kind of immoral behavior go way beyond politics. We're getting into the very essence of what it means to be a spiritual person- the very nature of what is right and what is wrong, and how we want our children to be, what we want for our future generations. I personally want our future generations to be honorable people, living in peace, not black-hooded villians.

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:01:37 PM

    If Soggy and a few other readers would think back to high school required reading, you might recall a few books about politics which pertain to the current topic. As I recall, Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984" were meant as dire warnings of a grim future to come- not as how-to manuals for the Bush administration. You might want to throw in Clockwork Orange and Player Piano, while you're considering 1960's required reading about fictional grim futures which seem familiar, but I digress. The point is, that it may well seem like a good idea to be cruel to genuine enemies in retaliation for their crimes against us. But what happens twenty years from now when your same laws are used against YOU? Before WWII Europeans watched passively while brutal laws were enacted by opressive regimes, all thinking, "Good for them. The bastards deserve it." Then they, too, fell under the boot, and they regretted their previous opinions. Brutality is not patriotic, and is not acceptable for any reason. Our core beliefs should not become corrupted by a few cowards who think that torture will protect them from their base nightmares of sullied racial purity or Communist invasion. Civilization will not fall because our government behaves honorably. Quite the opposite. Even the most patriotic German came to realize that Hitler was not worth defending. Anyone who defends torture is a simpering weakling, huddling against stupid fears. Man up! Show some character! Grow an honorable bone in your crotch!

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:00:32 PM

    If Soggy and a few other readers would think back to high school required reading, you might recall a few books about politics which pertain to the current topic. As I recall, Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984" were meant as dire warnings of a grim future to come- not as how-to manuals for the Bush administration. You might want to throw in Clockwork Orange and Player Piano, while you're considering 1960's required reading about fictional grim futures which seem familiar, but I digress. The point is, that it may well seem like a good idea to be cruel to genuine enemies in retaliation for their crimes against us. But what happens twenty years from now when your same laws are used against YOU? Before WWII Europeans watched passively while brutal laws were enacted by opressive regimes, all thinking, "Good for them. The bastards deserve it." Then they, too, fell under the boot, and they regretted their previous opinions. Brutality is not patriotic, and is not acceptable for any reason. Our core beliefs should not become corrupted by a few cowards who think that torture will protect them from their base nightmares of sullied racial purity or Communist invasion. Civilization will not fall because our government behaves honorably. Quite the opposite. Even the most patriotic German came to realize that Hitler was not worth defending. Anyone who defends torture is a simpering weakling, huddling against stupid fears. Man up! Show some character! Grow an honorable bone in your crotch!

  • Posted By: LVUONG @ 11/17/2008 4:58:59 PM

    What do you think as American people, Mr. Obama used his rhetoric putting everyone down, and tearing people apart, during primary and general elections, and criticizing the sitting president, to get elected, because he himself had no records of his own to show us, but now is turning to everyone else with experience, knowledge and tested leadership skill... for help? He is calling it "bipartisanship," or is it his own inability, or lack of confidence, or inferiority complex?? Only time can tell.

  • Posted By: GrogInOhio @ 11/17/2008 3:16:03 PM

    BS... there's nothing at all "tough" about deciding that the president and his surrogates should OBEY THE LAW. It's really quite simple and liberating.

  • Posted By: tet.soulo @ 11/17/2008 2:20:14 PM

    thanks for your ideas and proposals. At least they show that there are wise americans who want really to turn the page of a dark violent experience and treat courageously historical crimes and mistakes committed by "Bush's system of thinking". Only five remarks to make:
    1. more pressure should be put upon governments and selfish rulers from where those "dangerouns detainees "came. They are responsible for the deviation of their citizens.
    2. Stop those silly shoking provocative behaviours like tearing the Holy Coran in front of the prisonners.
    3. Let the detainees express themselves in order to distinguish between them. 44 who oppose their freedom will shake.
    4. Give yourselves an opportunity to show them the real face of USA. In their eyes you are mercenary bllood-shedding people who are eager to dominate,violate and destroy.

  • Posted By: daplane @ 11/17/2008 12:12:11 PM

    There's no tough decision here, there has never been. Charge those who you have some evidence against and let the others go.

    How can a position that holds that people who commited no crimes but are "potentially dangerous" should be held without charge for years (and subjected to "moderately coercive interrogation techniques") be described as moderate? What would the extreme position be?

    Yes, some of them might go on to commit terrorist attacks, possibly even kill people. That's the price of living in a country with rule of law and innocence until proven guilty.

  • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/17/2008 12:00:18 PM

    check this out....

    http://www.infowars.com/?p=5938

  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/15/2008 7:02:57 PM

    "He should not be stampeded into appeasing his global constituencies on Guantánamo Bay."

    Horsecrap. Gitmo is a stain on America. Put 'em on trial, punish the guilty, release the innocent.

    Enough is enough.

    • Posted By: ctruskey @ 11/17/2008 2:36:26 AM

      This would have already been done if those liberal judges in liberal courts wouldn't have stepped in and derailed the process that even congress approved.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 11:36:39 AM

        Oh, gee, the court system did its job.

        How terrible.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse