Obama Proposes New Law: Prevention Detention = “Lock Em Up & Toss The Key, w/o Trial”


YouTube – Obama Proposes New Law: Prevention Detention = “Lock Em Up & Toss The Key, w/o Trial”.

This is nine kinds of bullshit. It appears ‘they’ have gotten to Obama. I certainly hope this is just not true. We are screwed.  OBAMA——-Don’t do it.

Advertisements

About Janis Alanis

Thinker, BS detector, champion of Reason. Unafraid. Ticked off, and riled up. View all posts by Janis Alanis

18 responses to “Obama Proposes New Law: Prevention Detention = “Lock Em Up & Toss The Key, w/o Trial”

  • jonolan

    Lady,

    That video was from 2009! It’s no longer a new way of doing things. It may also be the only way of dealing with a lot of these Muslim terrorists since, as a nation, we don’t seem to have the stomach for exterminating them.

    • Janis Alanis

      1. There is no need to qualify terrorists with the word Muslim. Terrorists are terrorists and do not represent Islam any more than say Westboro Baptists represent all of Christianity. Framing is most important here if we wish to keep the dialogue reasonable. 2. I don’t care if this video was made in 1909, if Obama is toying with Bush pt. Deux, I am freakin’ concerned. This wasn’t right when Bush did it, and no matter how much I love Obama, it won’t be right if he does it.
      And as far as ‘having the stomach to exterminate them’, holy hell, we are not here to exterminate anyone. Safety and transparency first, arrests, charges, trial, conviction. Anything short of that is repeating our past mistakes. I was pist when Bush did it and I will be no less enraged and disgusted if Barry does it. It’s not right. It is wrong. And we should do everything we can to avoid this travesty.

  • jonolan

    Actually, it is necessary for the sake of context to qualify terrorism with the word Muslim because it is the Muslim terrorists in GitMo and the Muslim terrorists / looters / insurgents / illegal combatants being captured in Iraq and Afghanistan that Obama’s policy applies to.

    I say that it is necessary since we won’t exterminate the problematic individuals because we have nowhere to put them and no way of properly trying them in a court of law and no other nation, including their homelands, will take them.

    You may not know it but we have many detainees in GitMo that we have no use for and want to be rid of, but we can’t find ANY nation will take them.

    Death or Prolonged Detention is all that’s left.

    • Janis Alanis

      Well hell. If we are gonna just be lawless why don’t we just kill them? Dump them in the Bay of Pigs? IF we have no “use” for these detainees then why are we detaining them? On what grounds? We DO have a system. Stepping outside of that for political or efficacy reasons is NOT acceptable. It is NOT the only choice we have. We have a choice to set an example, which we do either way, but it is our choice as to what example we set. My god, Geneva Convention anyone? If we treat the Constitution like silly puddy and Human Rights as negotiable, we are no better than any terrorist, Muslim or otherwise. We have become the terrorists.

  • jonolan

    That’s nice. Feeling better now that you’ve got that out of your system?

    What, pray tell, can we do with people who we can’t charge under US civilian justice, that are far too dangerous to be allowed within the US, and who NO OTHER country will accept within their borders?

    As for the Geneva Convention – you might not want to bring that one up. Not only do these individuals not meet the requirements for protections as POWS under it, they actually meet the qualifications for “summary field justice.”

  • Janis Alanis

    Good. So you recognize the system in place. But before you get all high and mighty. What constitutes (and who) that someone is “too dangerous” to be dealt with in any other way than POW status? Is there a list of qualifiers? How do we know the people in charge of this delineation are qualified to make such judgments without prejudice or political goals? See? And don’t come to my blog to insult me. That is not only rude, it is not necessary and I won’t respond to you if you cannot respect that. If you want to engage in snark, start your own blog.

  • melynda

    This is terrifying for two reasons: first because its Obama. My president who, though I have been reluctantly disappointed with, I’ve never been appalled by.

    So if this is true, and required as my president seemed to imply, that means that the intelligence he is getting is more frightening than we can imagine. This line of thought does not make me trust him more but makes me wonder why this process couldn’t be more transparent.

    I have military friends who tell me that if I knew what they knew that I would vote differently. My question is always: why don’t I know what you know? I am a righteous and upstanding and patriotic citizen. Why don’t I know what they know?

    If Obama wants me on board, he needs to tell me what’s going on. I’m a big girl. I can handle it.

  • melynda

    Summary field justice only applies to those of the home military forces who have committed acts of immediate treason..
    Like a soldier who shot his CO in the back.

    Jono whatever go troll somewhere else.

    • jonolan

      I had been going to leave this blog, its owner, and it more regular users to their own devices and not waste effort here anymore, but I feel the need to correct your error.

      Armed individuals w/o uniform or badge operating in a combat zone are subject to summary justice by the nearest military force. Traditionally such justice has been execution. In more problematic areas some level of protection for the civilian population has been provided by “shoot on sight” orders.

      That is all within the bounds set forth by the Geneva Convention and by America’s UCMJ.

      • Janis Alanis

        jono, let me tell you what happens when you make a POW, instead of dealing with these issues straightforward legally through the justice system: John McCain. Every guy or gal we hold indefinitely INSTANTLY becomes a hero. If we kill them, they become MARTYRS. So if you really want to stop war and get things going in a more proper direction, HUMAN RIGHTS cannot be negotiable. I get it, you are probably in the military and think you know best. But I am on the outside. I actually get to see REASON and LOGIC and the development of humanity through the actions of armed terrorists/army personnel. Ours/theirs: doesn’t matter. There is NO excuse to not give these guys a trial IF we EVER wish to be a righteous leader of the Free World, and last time I checked that was our Manifest Destiny. You are stating things like IRAQ states things. Well, if we are going to win this, we are gonna have to break the rules. IF that is your plan, I no longer support our destiny. John McCain was heroisized because of his time in POW camp, and now he can do no wrong in many people’s eyes, they say–He was POW, so no matter how incredibly divisively senile he is, he is still making terrible decisions for our country, and allowed to do so because of another country’s decision to keep him under Prolonged Detention. So, in 40 years when these guys eventually get out or their children they left behind come looking for revenge, you will have this policy to blame.
        There is a lot more to life than being able to recite laws in order to excuse a blatant disregard of humanity. If the US ever wants to be on top again, it is going to be by doing what is right. And this shit ain’t right.

      • jonolan

        It doesn’t matter in the slightest if it’s right or not; it is what is – the reality on the ground, if you will.

        There’s no good alternative but either killing the detainees or keeping them locked up is the least damaging from I can see.

        I certainly don’t want them tried by a civilian court!

        There’s no way I could endorse our civilian courts trying foreigners for actions taken on foreign soil, often against foreign victims. And, if they’re acquitted, what do we do with them then? Nobody wants them.

        And the above doesn’t even touch upon anyone of them that were “tortured.” Any evidence from that CANNOT be allowed in a civilian court and was never meant to be.

        Frankly, with all due deference to your sensibilities, you’re years too late for those feelings to matter. Maybe in ’01 or ’02 they’d be relevant, but now we’re faced with a later, darker situation.

  • melynda

    Oh and jonolan the worst acts of terrorism ever committed on this sacred soil of the US of A were committed by the white.’christians’ who founded this country. But I, as a native person, do not join Christian to terrorist. And ten thousand upon ten thousand of my ancestors were slain.

    Seriously, you have nothing to complaint about.

    • Janis Alanis

      Better late than never son. Your argument that we have done all this and there is no turning back is exactly what has exacerbated this situation to the point it has become. You don’t trust civilian courts? I don’t trust military courts. So what do we do now? Just ignore and unlawfully, unjustly detain people because we don’t trust our OWN justice system? Wow. We are proverbially fuct. Please pray tell me how long do we hold these guys? TIll they die of natural causes? Still creating future madness in the form of vengeance and hypocrisy.
      And for your information, I am not just developing these ideas. I have been against this treatment my entire life, but unlike our government, I do not throw out my ideals and morals because of money or politics.
      Your arguments have no turning point. No place to go. And that is EXACTLY the kind of situation that creates zealots and terrorists.
      When you back yourself into a corner,or your “enemy” then just like a cat, they come out scratching.
      You cannot lock people up indefinitely and hope that the situation gets better.
      If these people are from foreign lands, committed their “crimes” in foreign lands, then drop them off and let those guys deal with them. Parachute them in and say you have given us no choice as we as a legal upstanding country cannot try them nor can we hold them.
      We are not the baby sitters of the world and if in attempting to do so we treat human rights like bargaining chips, you cannot only expect worse treatment for any of our troops should they get captured but be guaranteed. Is that what you want? Terrorists to have LOGICAL and REASONABLE arguments to POW our soldiers? Because that is what your prescription will provide.

      • jonolan

        My argument was not based upon my not trusting civilian courts. It was based upon not corrupting them by forcing them to hear cases that they have no jurisdiction over and/or have to decide whether or not evidence gained through harsh measures would be admissible – with acquittal of a terrorist being the other alternative.

        As for comparative treatment – I never hoped for, and was trained to never expect, anything but a slow and painful death if captured.

        I do, however, personally like your idea of just airdropping the ones we want to get rid of back into their home countries. Sadly, that would be an international relations problems and just return terrorists to the field.

        You’re right though; my arguments have no turning point. As far as I can see, we passed the last turning point a few years ago. “Start as you mean to finish” isn’t just good advice; it’s often a fact of life if you don’t see the warning signs or ignore them.

  • Janis Alanis

    First, thank you for coming back so we could be civil. Second, I do thank you for your service. I am from a military family and while I hate war, I have great respect for those who risk the ultimate sacrifice regardless of whether or not we disagree on the necessity nor the process. So thank you for following your heart in an effort to protect this nation. I appreciate it.
    Even so. We disagree. And that is somewhat ok, But not if we cannot keep an open dialog about this subject. People like you are exactly the kind of people who need to discuss this with people like me. It is only in finding a middle way that we will ever get out of this colossal mess we are in.
    Having said that, I am sick of the US thinking it is our job to bear the brunt of this ‘war of terror’ yes, OF, not on. We are just as much a part of the problem as all those men we hold in Gitmo. Only we are much stronger, more divided and therefore, more dangerous. Our country is in a state of shit right now. Economically we could not be in worse shape but every day I read that politicians are spending $50M on advertising. That tells me something is horribly wrong with our country. People are starving, losing their houses and politicians can only think of regaining POWER.
    We should clean up our own backyard before we go peddling this “Democracy” thing we got going.
    I would like it start by forcing Human Rights to the foreground. It is the best place to start because if you get treating Humans properly, the rest will fall in line. This is as important to me as being a soldier is/was to you. Let’s work together. And that is how we show everyone else, how it’s done. Indeed, it is the only way.
    It will be risky. I say fuck ‘international incidents’, every country in the world is fucking us by not helping, they do not care about us. Give them warning and extradite the fuck out of them home. Those counties created that shit, they should have to deal with it.
    We need to get our shit straight. Everyone of those countries are using us to do their dirty work, and I for one, don’t give two shits if they get pissed that we refuse the task of housing their criminals. WE GOT OUR OWN SHIT TO DEAL WITH. I am sure I don’t have to tell you. But we need to tell them.
    In the end, the history will tell how we were willing to break the rules and no one else did by default. That is bullshit. This world needs to back US up or we need to feel okay about letting them go.

    • jonolan

      You’re kind of all over the place in this comment.

      We actually agree on the idea that America is bearing to much of the burden of fighting the war against the Islamists. We also seem to agree that it’s not effective to “peddle” American style democracy to the world.

      You may have forgotten this – we who fight the wars tend to hate war at least as much as the civilians back home do, which makes sense since we see it, hear it, feel it, and smell it up close and personal – and often for long time after its over.

      Where we’re going to disagree, in all likelihood, is that matter of Human Rights, especially since you capitalize it.

      I’m guessing that most of what you would consider Human Rights I would consider privileges and fight against forcing any American to pay for them for others.

      • Janis Alanis

        Ya see, we agree on more than you think. And I have lived second hand trauma via my father who reconned dead soldiers in VietNam, what war does to a man, it is as gruesome as it is heartbreaking.
        But you make my point exactly when you say we should fight against forcing any American to pay for “privileges”/rights. Who is paying for Gitmo? We are. Who will pay for our transgressions, deviations from propriety, and cost of integrity by our actions? We will.
        The solution to this will be ugly no matter what we decide, but it can either be ugly for a while and then gradually get better through respect and integrity or we will continue doing exactly what we have done and get the exact same result–Einstein’s definition of insanity. People hate America for what we have done, but the love America for what we have saved them from. Its time they manned up and took some of this burden from us because until other countries do, this love/hate abusive relationship we have with the rest of the world will only perpetuate itself continually. I say piss them off a little, I am super pissed. Why should we bear the economic and karmic burden of keeping the world safe while they turn their backs on responsibility? I am just so sick of it all.
        Disperse the criminals, put the pols in Gitmo and let those of us who really want to be a good, decent country that has the integrity to lead the world free to do the job.

      • jonolan

        You and I will never agree on GitMo’s existence though our views are tangential than antipodal,

        I do not place or accept ANY restrictions on my actions to protect American men, women, and children, but part of that protection has to be shielding them knowledge of what is done to protect them.

        Most of my problems with GitMo and “Prolonged Detention” is trying to do it openly and “adjusting: our laws to allow it. I’d much rather do it secretly and bear the penalties of being caught.

        As for solving this – we differ only – BUT GREATLY – in what we think will do so. I think that we’ll end it quicker, cleaner, and with more actual respect from our enemies and their allies / supporters if we kill the detainees. You think it will be better if we release them to their home nations.

        On the above – please try to take into account that I’ve spent a lot of time with these people, learned their languages and their cultures, and have some understanding of their motivations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: