Barack Obama - so much for change

[beddo]

[link]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8052676.stm[/link]

So it turns out that Barack Obama, who proclaimed that under him, the US was entering a new era of respect for human rights has now decided to continue with military trials for those illegally detained at Guantanamo Bay.

While he is giving them more rights and denying evidence obtained through abuse and torture and refusing to allow heresay evidence if he wants to respect their human rights then they must be tried in a regular court of law.

Trying someone in a military court is a way of avoiding their right to justice. This seems like 'met the new boss, same as the old boss'.

The man who promised hope is now shattering the grandeur ideal of him as a true human rights supporter. It seems as though what he's done is the same old politics we see everywhere; blame the last guy for everything, pretend to repeal their ideas, implement those same ideas in a different way.

 

[DaxStrife]

Well "secret military trial" can never sound good, but can you imagine for a minute what the alternative, "fair trial" would be like?
The chances of anyone who was arrested as an "enemy combatant" getting a fair trial are slim-to-none... finding an "impartial jury of peers" would take months at the least, or possibly never.

 

[Spirit_Of_Fire]

I have to say I'm not an Obama supporter, but if you actually read that article it says that he is improving the human rights of these people.

 

[karkashan]

They're people considered by the United States government to be the "enemy". (which they are) Why the hell would they give them a "fair trial"? Thinking otherwise is just naive.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Hey OP, you know he can't just snap his fingers and magically make it all better right? This is the first step to closing that place down for good. Besides, look at all the other good shit he's been doing. He has ALOT of stuff to fix, he can't do it all at once.

 

[tk1989]

Cmon man. Its not an ideal situation but honestly, what would you do? You have returned numerous people from Guantamino Bay to their countries of origin where they have either been 1) Set Free or 2) put back in prison anyways, and you still have many prisoners left who you know to be dangerous but can't just set them free in the USA because 1) they are dangerous and 2) if they go back to their countries of origin they are going to probably kill something. Whilst not all the people that were in Guantamino Bay deserved to be there, many of them were actually criminals! This ruling sets to actually find guilty those who are actually guilty.

To go ahead and create a title as you have "so much for change", you haven't really analysed the article that well. There is nothing in there about keeping Guantamino Bay open for good and there is nothing in there about Obama saying he is not going to close it when he said he was going to (he gave himself a year to close it if i remember correctly). This is another step into doing something about the inmates in there so that he can close it down I'm sure, and we should be happy that in the new trials they are going to adopt new procedures!

 

[Jindrak]

This is not meant to excuse him from this, but I do ask, would McCain have been better? I was an Edwards supporter during the primaries, but my guy lost, so I did support Obama because I had to choose the lesser of two evils until a viable third party option shows up.

Obama has disappointed me, as I knew he would, first with the obvious, the federal bailout, but he is a Democrat. I would hope everyone has a fairly decent grasp of history and knew what they voted for. He recently disappointed me by not striking down the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the military. A translator named Dan Choi is being kicked out of the military for being gay. He is one of a very very very very very few amount of Arabic translators available - you know, the guys who can get information that saves the lives of many people? But hold the phones, who cares if he may be able to substantially help the war effort! He is gay! We must uphold this tiresome, outdated, bigoted policy! We can torture potentially innocent people, but God forbid we allow someone with an unorthodox but perfectly legal lifestyle into the military.

To quote Jon Stewart:
Yes We Can*
*But it doesn't mean we're going to

 

[beddo]

Hey OP, you know he can't just snap his fingers and magically make it all better right? This is the first step to closing that place down for good. Besides, look at all the other good shit he's been doing. He has ALOT of stuff to fix, he can't do it all at once.

We're not talking about Barack Obama not being able or not having time to fix this. Quite simply he has put actual time into ensuring these trials will go ahead. This action alone will require many hours of legal work and a significant amount of resources.

If they want to charge these people for being enemy combatants, that doesn't make any sense. In what wars are the other side charged for being on the other side? Only in kangaroo courts, which is what this is going to be.

Not to mention the fact that the evidence seems highly dubious. Under claims of the people at Guananamo, many of those being held are clearly innocent. Given that regular laws will not apply to these trials how can we know if these people will get a decent hearing, let alone a fair one.

 

[beddo]

They're people considered by the United States government to be the "enemy". (which they are) Why the hell would they give them a "fair trial"? Thinking otherwise is just naive.

Yea, I wouldn't expect the US to ever abide by the Geneva Convention, or the UN charter on human rights or God forbid the actual Constitution of the United States!

 

[karkashan]

Yeah........probably not so much the first two compared to the third. And even then, they are enemy combatants, so what the U.S. is doing now is actually really kind and generous given what it could do under that document.

 

[beddo]

Cmon man. Its not an ideal situation but honestly, what would you do? You have returned numerous people from Guantamino Bay to their countries of origin where they have either been 1) Set Free or 2) put back in prison anyways, and you still have many prisoners left who you know to be dangerous but can't just set them free in the USA because 1) they are dangerous and 2) if they go back to their countries of origin they are going to probably kill something. Whilst not all the people that were in Guantamino Bay deserved to be there, many of them were actually criminals! This ruling sets to actually find guilty those who are actually guilty.

To go ahead and create a title as you have "so much for change", you haven't really analysed the article that well. There is nothing in there about keeping Guantamino Bay open for good and there is nothing in there about Obama saying he is not going to close it when he said he was going to (he gave himself a year to close it if i remember correctly). This is another step into doing something about the inmates in there so that he can close it down I'm sure, and we should be happy that in the new trials they are going to adopt new procedures!

If I were president I would sign the US up to the international human rights court. It might not be nice to release these people but the justice system is based on the idea that it is better for a guilty man to go free than allow an innocent one to be punished. The government should be able to get deals with their countries of origin that ensure their well being. If these people truly are criminals and have committed crimes in or against the US then try them in a legitimate court. Else, set them free.

Obviously the title of my OP was designed to attract attention; had it been 'Barack Obama, you're doing really well but I think you're wrong on continuing military trials of former Guantanamo Bay detainees it wouldn't have had the same effect.

Yes progress is welcome, that doesn't mean you'll get let off for continuing questionable practices.

 

[fix-the-spade]

The chances of anyone who was arrested as an "enemy combatant" getting a fair trial are slim-to-none... finding an "impartial jury of peers" would take months at the least, or possibly never.

I think the problem is actually the opposite to what you describe.

These are people who the US government has arrested and held without charge, whatever they have againast them clearly isn't enough to hold up in a public court. In at least some of the prisoners cases they have been snatched from other countries (usually Pakistan) illegaly, there is no way they would ever be found guilty of anything in court. So the US has to try them in Military courts where nasty things like public opinion, the press and the rules can't get in the way.

For all the wonderful things people seem to saying about Obama they seem to be forgetting one thing.

He is a politician, you cannot trust him.

 

[beddo]

Yeah........probably not so much the first two compared to the third. And even then, they are enemy combatants, so what the U.S. is doing now is actually really kind and generous given what it could do under that document.

You mean treat them as citizens with full international rights or be forced to treat them as prisoners of war with comprehensive rights on their treatment such as not being subject to torture?

 

[fix-the-spade]

Flipping 'ell, double post.

 

[Nickzilla]

Obama has disappointed me, as I knew he would, first with the obvious, the federal bailout, but he is a Democrat.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I'm still new to US politics, but was it not the Republicans who pushed for deregulation in regards to financial services? In that case, surely the people who helped to cause the problem should be blamed more than the people who tried to solve it?

 

[SilentFish]

Trial vs no trial.
Yeah, there's a pretty big difference there.
Plus, not all the detainees are going to be innocent, so this seems more than justified. Really, the Bush administration wouldn't have filled it with just innocent people.
Proof being: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7868772.stm

I've heard people reason that ALL of the Guantanamo inmates were innocent and now because of the "terrible" treatment they received there they'll all join the Taliban now. Of course with the shameful display during the ceremony when he relinquished his office to Obama (People chanting: "Na na na na hey hey hey Goodbye") and rabid cries of Bushitler, anything dealing with Bush is occasionally subjected to copious amounts of crazy.

Kinda begs the question why we'd fly innocent people halfway around the world to stick in a jail when we could send them (Innocent or not, what am I, a judge?) to jails in other countries that don't receive media attention ALL THE TIME. This is a show put on by Obama, while he may be closing Gitmo he's doing little to nothing with the practice of running jails in other countries which are more likely to have incidents of abuse due to the aforementioned obscurity.

And to anyone who thought we'd see change if Obama was elected (Good or Bad) I have a bridge in Manhattan I'd like to sell you.

 

[manaman]

Obama has disappointed me, as I knew he would, first with the obvious, the federal bailout, but he is a Democrat.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I'm still new to US politics, but was it not the Republicans who pushed for deregulation in regards to financial services? In that case, surely the people who helped to cause the problem should be blamed more than the people who tried to solve it?

This is a case of chasing your tail. You blame the republicans for the current troubles. I can then turn around and say it was Clinton and pushing for the subprime market to come into existence. Then you can say the subprime already existed he was just trying to regulate it to keep it in check. On and on.

In other words the blame game.

The only problem I have with Obama is that he spent his entire campaign chastising others for the very same things he has continued to do. There maybe some truth to the idea that he has to follow the current road a bit before he can get things turned around but I don't really see that as being true.

And to anyone who thought we'd see change if Obama was elected (Good or Bad) I have a bridge in Manhattan I'd like to sell you.

This guy right here, said it pretty well. I however am still holding out a bit. Give the guy a good year in office before really tearing into him.

 

[Jindrak]

Obama has disappointed me, as I knew he would, first with the obvious, the federal bailout, but he is a Democrat.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I'm still new to US politics, but was it not the Republicans who pushed for deregulation in regards to financial services? In that case, surely the people who helped to cause the problem should be blamed more than the people who tried to solve it?

To believe that only one specific group of people caused a certain crisis is pretty silly. But regardless, my statement refers to myself being disappointed in the way he handled it, but he handled it close to his party lines, and while disappointing, it was not surprising. Only history will tell whether or not it works, and I have my doubts, though I would be very happy if my doubts were proven baseless.

 

[chefassassin2]

Personally, I feel that no matter what President Obama does or says in this instance, someone will always say, "he's wrong". That's the nature of the beast and the great thing about this country, we can say our opinions and discuss these things because of the work of great men through the ages. There's bound to be a hiccup, or flat out really crappy times, so I personally condone the President because he is trying to make the country even better than it has been. Has he screwed up so far? Once or twice, and he'll "screw up" again. He's a human being dealing with overwhelming issues. You want to tell him to his face he's doing a crappy job? Think you could do better? Go be my guest.