Times Online (London): George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent'

[Destino]

Ah yes. The fall election push kicks it up a notch with some raw meat for the "Run Against Bush" zombies.

Yup foreign media citing sources from the Bush administration clearly equates to election tactics in the US... in April.

You're just so darn smart.

[Perky72]

Probably the most amoral, destructive administration in the history of the Union. It measures the considerable strength of the American spirit that we were able to withstand it.

We did withstand it right?

Withstand it? No, it's now national policy by both parties, because Obama is continuing much of the same, or even extending some of the things fairweather liberals railed about. Things only appear to be better because liberals aren't making a big deal about their own leader doing the same stuff. Glenn Greenwald explains the Gitmo/detainee farce far better than I could. But one of his articles on it...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/detention

But all year along, Barack Obama -- even as he called for the closing of Guantanamo -- has been strongly implying that he will retain George Bush's due-process-free system by continuing to imprison detainees without charges of any kind. In his May "civil liberties" speech cynically delivered at the National Archives in front of the U.S. Constitution, Obama announced that he would seek from Congress a law authorizing and governing the President's power to imprison detainees indefinitely and without charges. But in September, the administration announced he changed his mind: rather than seek a law authorizing these detentions, he would instead simply claim that Congress already "implicitly" authorized these powers when it enacted the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda -- thereby, as The New York Times put it, "adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies."

Perhaps worst of all, it converts what was once a leading prong in the radical Bush/Cheney assault on the Constitution -- the Presidential power to indefinitely imprison people without charges -- into complete bipartisan consensus, permanently removed from the realm of establishment controversy.

It would be cause for guarded optimism if Obama was simply holding the line of abuses while forming a plan to gradually eliminate them, this may indicate that he's waiting for more favorable political weathers to fix things. Instead he's institutionalizing them as the new bipartisan system. He's gone further than Bush in several areas, while also appeasing his base with token shows of change like only trying those detainees we're most likely to convict, and treating the same as Bush formerly did.

Since the GOP is now joined by the Democrats in supporting abuses, we have no one in political power opposing them. Same as, since the media aside from a very few like Greenwald are completely ignoring this continuing development, we have no opposition there. And since many liberals favor their party over their principle, we have little public opposition. But I guess it's okay since this time it's Democrats that are abusing our Constitution, surely they'll do it for good enough reasons.

eta: this isn't just limited to detainees, Obama has strengthened Bush measures on state secrets, illegal wiretapping, and gaming the judiciary. And most recently, extending Bush's "assassination list" to include at least one American citizen. If anyone is waiting for a new adminstration to quash Bush's excesses, looks increasingly like they'll have to wait for a different President and Congress than this one.

[December90]

So Burgold, normally the destroyer of wrong information.

Why are you just continuing to go with "IF TRUE" several times here?

Seems rather easy to prove the Gitmo portions incorrect even with the most cursory look?

Because stories like this are sensational.

When disproven - nobody cares to set the record straight.

Liberal media gets to further stain their target and gets no repercussions when wrong...

[No Excuses]

Seems to be going completely over some of your heads that this is a foreign media piece. But while we're at it, lets get away from the actual story and sling more mud towards the Dems.

[Burgold]

I worry about the elements of truth in what you posted, perky. I think (hope) you overstate things, but I have been disappointed in the ways Obama has chosen to copy some of the Bush doctrine. Perhaps, his wish to close Gitmo actually had a nobler origin... although I don't think closing it is a good idea personally.

[Larry]

Personally, I think that the President needs the power to make people disappear. In some, extreme, cases. I don't think the Framers intended to give him that power. But I think the world has changed to where it may, someday, be necessary. (And it's possible that it already has been necessary.)

I think there need to be rules. Checks and balances. I think the rules need to be arrived as a result of open, informed, debate. Passed by Congress, signed by the President, interpreted (and implemented) by the Judiciary.

And I don't think it's possible to even begin to have an informed debate on the subject, as long as large portions of the government (and the voters) are demanding ignorance.

Not saying that The People Need To Know why prisoner #6 was sent to The Village. But they do need to know what criteria has to be met for someone to deserve that treatment. They do need to know how many times it's been done. Who has the authority to issue the order.

Just as, IMO, if we're doing this to so many people that we're having to construct multiple facilities to do it in, then we're doing it way too often.

[Perky72]

Seems to be going completely over some of your heads that this is a foreign media piece. But while we're at it, lets get away from the actual story and sling more mud towards the Dems.

If my post is part of your criticism, I'm slinging mud at anyone who trashes civil rights, due process, and the Constitution. Don't care what party they're a member of. Bush was terrible, but if Obama continues to do the same things there's no excuse for him either. Getting back to the OP, my question would be--why, if true, should we assume this hasn't continued through today? It's a bit too easy to set up the evil GOP as the boogey-man, so one doesn't have to turn a critical eye on themselves.

Burgold--I may be paranoid or too histrionic about this stuff, if so it's probably an overreaction to the bulk of fellow liberals, and Democratic politicians, being silent about something Obama has done that they were gnashing their teeth over when Bush did it. My teeth don't stop gnashing just because of a party change, I need to see some substantive policy changes, and this hasn't happened nearly as much as I think it should've, in some cases getting worse.

[luckydevil]

I worry about the elements of truth in what you posted, perky. I think (hope) you overstate things, but I have been disappointed in the ways Obama has chosen to copy some of the Bush doctrine. Perhaps, his wish to close Gitmo actually had a nobler origin... although I don't think closing it is a good idea personally.

He is just not copying Bush's policies, he is building on them. He is worse on civil liberties

[commyderm2]

Personally, I think that the President needs the power to make people disappear. In some, extreme, cases. I don't think the Framers intended to give him that power. But I think the world has changed to where it may, someday, be necessary. (And it's possible that it already has been necessary.)

I think there need to be rules. Checks and balances. I think the rules need to be arrived as a result of open, informed, debate. Passed by Congress, signed by the President, interpreted (and implemented) by the Judiciary.

And I don't think it's possible to even begin to have an informed debate on the subject, as long as large portions of the government (and the voters) are demanding ignorance.

Not saying that The People Need To Know why prisoner #6 was sent to The Village. But they do need to know what criteria has to be met for someone to deserve that treatment. They do need to know how many times it's been done. Who has the authority to issue the order.

Just as, IMO, if we're doing this to so many people that we're having to construct multiple facilities to do it in, then we're doing it way too often.

Scary words written.. you are right when you say the large majority of voters are demanding ignorance.. They don't know anything and they have no interest in knowing anything.. We are all victims of the manufactured apathy of the majority..

[Thiebear]

Theibear, still holding the candle for Dubya, amazing. Just how long is a loyal voter expected to be an apologist for his candidate?

This doesn't surprise, it's been known that many detainees were innocent. Probably was another of the strong reasons why Powell (and many others) resigned.

I hold a candle for Obama also.. its called being fair.

[alexey]

I thought it was well documented by now that we had a bunch of innocent people in Gitmo. Afghans could come to us and turn in people they did not like, turn in random people for money, get swept up due to being in the wrong place and at the wrong time, etc. And of course people up top were well aware of that. :whoknows: What's the news?

[TradeTheBeal!]

Withstand it? No, it's now national policy by both parties, because Obama is continuing much of the same, or even extending some of the things fairweather liberals railed about. Things only appear to be better because liberals aren't making a big deal about their own leader doing the same stuff. Glenn Greenwald explains the Gitmo/detainee farce far better than I could. But one of his articles on it...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/detention

It would be cause for guarded optimism if Obama was simply holding the line of abuses while forming a plan to gradually eliminate them, this may indicate that he's waiting for more favorable political weathers to fix things. Instead he's institutionalizing them as the new bipartisan system. He's gone further than Bush in several areas, while also appeasing his base with token shows of change like only trying those detainees we're most likely to convict, and treating the same as Bush formerly did.

Since the GOP is now joined by the Democrats in supporting abuses, we have no one in political power opposing them. Same as, since the media aside from a very few like Greenwald are completely ignoring this continuing development, we have no opposition there. And since many liberals favor their party over their principle, we have little public opposition. But I guess it's okay since this time it's Democrats that are abusing our Constitution, surely they'll do it for good enough reasons.

eta: this isn't just limited to detainees, Obama has strengthened Bush measures on state secrets, illegal wiretapping, and gaming the judiciary. And most recently, extending Bush's "assassination list" to include at least one American citizen. If anyone is waiting for a new adminstration to quash Bush's excesses, looks increasingly like they'll have to wait for a different President and Congress than this one.

Highlighted for your pleasure.