Obama Drafts EO for Indefinite Detention for Gitmo Detainees, while closing of Gitmo in a "shambles" (Congress, attorney)

[sanrene]

White House Drafts Executive Order for Indefinite Detention - ProPublica

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama's pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.

Wellllll, that's all cool, cuz we know obama means well, has the purest of intentions and would never, ever abuse his power of office....don't we?

Meanwhile, the closing of Gitmo was dealt a setback, by a democrat controlled congress when that congress just recently laid down the law and pulled back funding for any and all transferees.

Barack Obama̢۪s plan to close Gitmo 'in shambles' - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Language contained in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act passed by the House and Senate on Wednesday bars the use of Pentagon funds to transfer any Guantanamo prisoner to the U.S. for any reason, including a trial. Some supporters of plan Obama announced on his first full day in office to close the prison said the passage of the legislation signals nearly complete capitulation by the president.

“Obama’s original plan is in shambles,” said David Remes, an attorney for 14 Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo.

Why, of course it is and doubly so from the near miss of acquittal of a terrorist from obama's bright idea of trying them in civilian court.

What an absolute mess he and holder have made of this issue.

So.....what do we think about obama's policy of holding forever those detainees some of us were so worried/concerned about, regarding their rights and such. No problem now?

[jetgraphics]

1933-2010 State of Emergency - still going strong, after 77 years.
{Constitution, what constitution?}

[AuDiBelle]

You won't hear a peep out of the libs here. They are only outraged when stuff like this happens under a Republican, not a Democrat, and certainly not the Annointed One Himself.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

You won't hear a peep out of the libs here. They are only outraged when stuff like this happens under a Republican, not a Democrat, and certainly not the Annointed One Himself.

Well, I already knew their vocal outrage over such injustices was only because a republican was in the WH.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

You won't hear a peep out of the libs here. They are only outraged when stuff like this happens under a Republican, not a Democrat, and certainly not the Annointed One Himself.

A rapidly shrinking group of political interests follow him as the shining hope. This includes the liberal wing of the Democratic party. I personally don't know *what* he stands for. He likes power. He has good speech writers who can make it sound like it agrees with you, even if it doesn't really say anything, and he is following the tradition he was trained in in Chicago politics of appearance over substance. The trial was supposed to be a clear signal that "we were right" and didn't work out that way so we... detain indefinately? Tried one approach, pr didnt pan out so you do a different one.

I don't see him as personally standing for anything. But he's moldable by those in power to get him to mold their way. Unforutnatly, this is especially true of those entrenched in government and government structures who care nothing about liberites and the constitution. I think the idea of using more brute force methods to get people to go along has been around a long time, but its found its perfect match in a president who will blow with the wind and is so easy to influence. Previous presidents share the blame, but they saw it had to be subtle. This adminestration has little use for subtle and with the power of the top law enforcement onboard, the power brokers are taking advantage of it.

As for Gitmo and the indefinate detention of suspects, go and get that copy of the constitution so carefully preserved and drop a match. The idea of officially sanctioning this is to blow away every base of our law. I could name some nations, some of which ended up in smoldering ruinds, who thought like that...

And you say its only *those terrorists*? Remember Holders words about how we have to watch our fellow citizens for those who have "turned" (paraphraing him there so not having to look it up)? So when joe x is discovered to harbor thoughts and have said things which are part of the new "thought crime" list do you go stick him in gitmo? Do you just toss out the key since he might tell someone his horrid thoughts that your wrong and they might believe them? Can't take that chance...

Because time and history have proven that once a pattern is made its followed. I would love to see the TSA and Homeland Security removed and replaced with rational beings who are thinking effectiveness and function over a sideshow but don't expect it to happen. If they get there way and get to go looking for "domestic terrorists" who have "for some reason" turned against their own then, well, where DO you put the terrorists? Where they talk to others and turn them or someplace they can be dissapeared to?

Very slipprey slope here. I don't blame it on Obama except for his general weakness. Nor on Bush for his love of it because if there was not an element behind them to make it happen it wouldn't. And yet, blame lies on ALL politicians who see what is being foisted on us and sip away at the coolaide. And it lies at the feet of the sheep who say I don't like the scanners but we must be safe.

What we are down the road to is a police state but the basis is being cemented in as we speak. Or, while we still can. You'll know when you stop hearing the noise.