Obama's first hundred days

Tom Storer · January-21st-2009, 07:37 AM

An inevitable thread--might as well get it rolling.

First Guantanamo development:

Obama Seeks Halt to Legal Proceedings at Guantanamo

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 21, 2009; A02

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, Jan. 20 -- In one of its first actions, the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors late Tuesday to seek a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings involving detainees at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- a clear break with the approach of the outgoing Bush administration.

The instruction came in a motion filed with a military court in the case of five defendants accused of organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The motion called for "a continuance of the proceedings" until May 20 so that "the newly inaugurated president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically."

The same motion was filed in another case scheduled to resume Wednesday, involving a Canadian detainee, and will be filed in all other pending matters.

Such a request may not be automatically granted by military judges, and not all defense attorneys may agree to such a suspension. But the move is a first step toward closing a detention facility and system of military trials that became a worldwide symbol of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and its unyielding attitude toward foreign and domestic critics.

The legal maneuver appears designed to provide the Obama administration time to refashion the prosecution system and potentially treat detainees as criminal defendants in federal court or have them face war-crimes charges in military courts-martial. It is also possible that the administration could re-form and relocate the military commissions before resuming trials.

The motion prompted a clear sense of disappointment among some of the military officials here who had tried to make a success of the system [...]

"It's over; I don't want to say any more," said one official involved in the process.

But the action was cheered by military and civilian defense attorneys.

"We welcome our new commander-in-chief and this first step towards restoring the rule of law," said Army Maj. Jon Jackson, a military defense attorney for Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, one of the Sept. 11 defendants.

"This is a good step in the right direction, although we still think that the unconditional withdrawal of all charges and shutting down this tainted system is warranted," said Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights program at the American Civil Liberties Union. "The president's order leaves open the option of this discredited system remaining in existence."

[...]

President Obama has acknowledged in recent interviews that shutting the facility is likely to be prolonged and complex. And the administration now faces a number of potentially daunting challenges to following through on the president's campaign promise. Obama is expected to sign an executive order soon that will lay out in detail his plan to empty the facility.

Monte Smith · January-21st-2009, 07:46 AM

This is the third, perhaps fourth postponement of trial for these guys. One of the reasons it is perceived that Gitmo captives are languishing without benefit of trial is because first the administration and then the courts and then the Congress came in and postponed, in order to refashion, the process. Fine. There are nineteen or so big fish in there that need to be separated out from the two hundred small fry (remaining from above 600 captured and released). I don't personally believe this should be a matter for civilian courts, these guys were not arrested they were captured. The new President says he doesn't see it that way, great. The nineteen or so must never be freed, the two hundred or so can be released so long as they have transistors put in their flippers.

Uli · January-21st-2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

This is the third, perhaps fourth postponement of trial for these guys. One of the reasons it is perceived that Gitmo captives are languishing without benefit of trial is because first the administration and then the courts and then the Congress came in and postponed, in order to refashion, the process. Fine. There are nineteen or so big fish in there that need to be separated out from the two hundred small fry (remaining from above 600 captured and released). I don't personally believe this should be a matter for civilian courts, these guys were not arrested they were captured. The new President says he doesn't see it that way, great. The nineteen or so must never be freed, the two hundred or so can be released so long as they have transistors put in their flippers.

If the qualification for nineteen or so as big fish is not exclusively based on evidence gained from torture, the prosecution in civil courts should not be too
much of a problem.

Scott Dolan · January-21st-2009, 12:03 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-1021731.html

"In his first major interview since polling day, President-elect Barack Obama said last night that upon taking office he would close Guantanamo Bay and ban torture by the American military."

jesus marion joseph · January-21st-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

The nineteen or so must never be freed.....

After a "fair trial", I presume?

patricia · January-21st-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

After a "fair trial", I presume?

And that seems to be the sticking point.
I wonder what the justification is for not trying these people fairly, as all of us would expect to be tried, using evidence that is not tainted by it's having been extracted through torture.
Of course, now that torture, at least at this point, is defined as anything short of that which causes organ failure or death, we have to wonder just what were considered permissable methods of interrogation?
There was much discussion about waterboarding.
But that is certainly not the only method that would be judged by reasonable people as torture.
So, JMJ, do you know what criteria they are now using to determine whether the methods of interrogation actually resulted in true evidence??
In normal circumstances, a person accused of a crime cannot be convicted if there is evidence that the admission of guilt was gotten through unlawfully aggressive means.
Does Gonzales' and Yoo's re-defining torture mean that most of the methods of aggressive interrogation are now legal for everybody accused of a crime?
If it does, then it turns the entire legal system on its head, doesn't it??

rollhead · January-21st-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

This is the third, perhaps fourth postponement of trial for these guys. One of the reasons it is perceived that Gitmo captives are languishing without benefit of trial is because first the administration and then the courts and then the Congress came in and postponed, in order to refashion, the process. Fine. There are nineteen or so big fish in there that need to be separated out from the two hundred small fry (remaining from above 600 captured and released). I don't personally believe this should be a matter for civilian courts, these guys were not arrested they were captured. The new President says he doesn't see it that way, great. The nineteen or so must never be freed, the two hundred or so can be released so long as they have transistors put in their flippers.

What an asshole you are. Not only are you anti-democratic, but you are anti habeas corpus, which was codified in 1215.

Monte Smith · January-21st-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

After a "fair trial", I presume?

I think they'll get that.

Scott Dolan · January-21st-2009, 01:14 PM

When?

It's been, what, five or six years now?

Monte Smith · January-21st-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

When?

It's been, what, five or six years now?

Yes, I think the President's call for a postponement this morning is the fourth such postponement. Two-thirds of Guantanamo detainees have already gone home without even waiting for the postponements to subside. What a pickle. However, there have been movements in the trials of the major figures. I'm not a believer in civilian trials for them, despite the codification of habeas corpus in 1215. Someone's going to have to show me the trial minutes of Agincourt or Blenheim before I get excited about the application of hard won English liberties to foreign combatants.

claude · January-21st-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Someone's going to have to show me the trial minutes of Agincourt or Blenheim before I get excited about the application of hard won English liberties to foreign combatants.

Yeah, especially those pesky teenagers

Monte Smith · January-21st-2009, 01:58 PM

Teenagers can be troublesome.

clinthopson · January-21st-2009, 02:02 PM

I have a feeling that when this postponement is over, maybe something positive will be done.

Scott Dolan · January-21st-2009, 02:14 PM

Just like it was after the first couple of postponements.

rollhead · January-21st-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Yes, I think the President's call for a postponement this morning is the fourth such postponement. Two-thirds of Guantanamo detainees have already gone home without even waiting for the postponements to subside. What a pickle. However, there have been movements in the trials of the major figures. I'm not a believer in civilian trials for them, despite the codification of habeas corpus in 1215. Someone's going to have to show me the trial minutes of Agincourt or Blenheim before I get excited about the application of hard won English liberties to foreign combatants.

Someone is going to have to show me that these guys were even "combatants" before I trust the pack of liars who jailed and tortured them without being charged.

And it surprises me that you don't get excited about torture, Smith, it seems to be just your cup of tea and precious pile of crumpets.

tippy · January-21st-2009, 02:44 PM

Obama Freeze Pay of Top Staffers!

see - change.

tippy · January-21st-2009, 04:06 PM

stumped you, didn't he?

tippy · January-21st-2009, 04:30 PM

Hey how come you guys are ignoring me?

Are you mad at me?

Somebody speak to me

agua...

agua...

tippy · January-21st-2009, 04:40 PM

who turned out the light?

patricia · January-21st-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude

Yeah, especially those pesky teenagers

This is Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, who is accused of throwing a grenade in Afghanistan that killed an American soldier, when he was FIFTEEN.
He is now twenty-one. There is conflicting evidence on just who threw the grenade and his lawyer is also claiming that Khadr was a child soldier.
The Canadian government, under Bush-friendly Stephen Harper, has not, as have other governments, re-claimed Khadr and brought him home.

Monte Smith · January-21st-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

There is conflicting evidence on just who threw the grenade and his lawyer is also claiming that Khadr was a child soldier.

Lawyer? Evidence? You mean he is on trial. Or was, until today's postponement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desperate tippy

Obama Freeze Pay of Top Staffers!

That's gotta suck! You get a job, go to a dance, and show up the next morning--at that point any normal person would expect a raise. Those top staffers have ALMOST BEEN ON THE JOB. And instead of a raise? A pay freeze?

"Get me HR. No, not the Secretary of State, Human Resources. Hello? HR? Listen, nobody gets a raise today. I'm instituting a pay freeze. What? What's that? The first paychecks won't go out for two weeks? Motherfucker! Well, pay freeze is still in effect. I'm the President."

patricia · January-21st-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Lawyer? Evidence? You mean he is on trial. Or was, until today's postponement.

Yes. After being held for five years, without charges, his trial was postponed after it had been started on Monday.

Monte Smith · January-21st-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

Yes. After being held for five years, without charges, his trial was postponed after it had been started on Monday.

According to humanrightsfirst org, even that was a pretrial hearing. His case proper was scheduled to be heard later in the month. But he's been before several judges (and Canadian intelligence operatives) already and has already had, like them all, several postponements of judicial proceedings.

And he's been there since 2002.

jesus marion joseph · January-21st-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

And he's been there since 2002.

Apparently he's having so much fun he just can't being himself to end it.

Scott Dolan · January-21st-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Lawyer? Evidence? You mean he is on trial. Or was, until today's postponement.

That's gotta suck! You get a job, go to a dance, and show up the next morning--at that point any normal person would expect a raise. Those top staffers have ALMOST BEEN ON THE JOB. And instead of a raise? A pay freeze?

"Get me HR. No, not the Secretary of State, Human Resources. Hello? HR? Listen, nobody gets a raise today. I'm instituting a pay freeze. What? What's that? The first paychecks won't go out for two weeks? Motherfucker! Well, pay freeze is still in effect. I'm the President."

Hahahahahahaha............

Monte Smith · January-21st-2009, 08:27 PM

I hadn't gotten around to reading last Sunday's New York Times until this evening. (There's a long editorial where they talk about closing Gitmo and keeping the most dangerous men permanently confined). Did you guys see the magazine section? It consists, almost in its entirety, of full page photographic portraits of Obama's cabinet, staff, and political allies. Now that is GEEKY! Do you know what these things are? These color glossies? You could be uncharitable and call them spank art but what they really are are trading cards. I'm surprised this edition didn't come with chewing gum. "I'll trade you two Secretary of HHS Tom Daschles for a Press Secretary Robert Gibbs." Gee whiz.

tippy · January-21st-2009, 08:27 PM

Well the report said he froze salaries on those making $100K and up – does that mean though that he froze the raises Congress awarded to itself a couple weeks back?

Scott Dolan · January-21st-2009, 08:29 PM

Is the Congress part of his staff?

tippy · January-21st-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I hadn't gotten around to reading last Sunday's New York Times until this evening. (There's a long editorial where they talk about closing Gitmo and keeping the most dangerous men permanently confined). Did you guys see the magazine section? It consists, almost in its entirety, of full page photographic portraits of Obama's cabinet, staff, and political allies. Now that is GEEKY! Do you know what these things are? These color glossies? You could be uncharitable and call them spank art but what they really are are trading cards. I'm surprised this edition didn't come with chewing gum. "I'll trade you two Secretary of HHS Tom Daschles for a Press Secretary Robert Gibbs." Gee whiz.

I’ll admit the marketing surrounding Obama, that you’ve mentioned before, cheapens him and the dignity of his office. I mean that’s what it feels like to me. He’s like Coca Cola in the 1970s/80s.

Then again W transformed the office into the unfunniest joke ever on the tails of Clinton who certainly damaged it enough himself.

tippy · January-21st-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Is the Congress part of his staff?

I would say no but I was wondering if the $100K cap extended beyond staff.