Obama’s 250 Tough Calls

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.

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?

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

check this out....

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