Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[GasBandit]

Here's some light, fluffy invective from buzzfeed.

Spoiler

Democrats were overjoyed when George W. Bush left office in January of 2009.

Via: amfussybroad
Obama had promised to end Bush's hawkish foreign policy and the "war on terror's" detention and interrogation regime.

Image by Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama's record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor's in those areas.

Image by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
1. Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.

Image by Hans Deryk / Reuters
Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.

Image by Charles Dharapak / AP
You would think Democrats would react the same way they did to Bush's surge policy:

Via: iced-gif
But they were really more like:

Via: iced-gif
2. American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office.

Image by Steve Ruark / AP
Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:

So you would think Democrats would react like this:

Via: sleepinbeaute
But they are much more like this.

Via: sleepinbeaute
3. President Obama's drones and special operators are working down "kill lists" of suspected terrorists.

Image by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list.

Al-Awlaki was killed under secret authorization from the justice department in 2011.
Source: tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com
If Bush did this, the Democrats would be all like:

Via: brittanygracex
But now they are more like:

Via: brittanygracex
4. Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Image by Photo: EPA
In 2011, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.

Via: cdn.theatlantic.com
If Bush did this, Democrats would literally hyperventilate.

Via: deartrolls
But with Obama they are more like:

Via: deartrolls
5. In Pakistan alone, the administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes.

Via: thenewstribe.com
Pakistani civilian casualties due to these strikes are as high as 800 according to international estimates.

Image by AFP / Getty Images
So the Democrats should be like:

Via: brittanygracex
But they are a lot more like:

Via: brittanygracex
6. Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.

Image by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama's security watch.

Image by Andrew Burton / Reuters
When Bush did this, Democrats were like:

Via: deartrolls
Now:

Via: deartrolls
7. Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Image by John Moore / Getty Images
When Bush did this, Democrats were all like:

Via: iced-gif
And...

Via: mr-growley
And...

Via: mr-growley
But now they are much more like:

Via: iced-gif
"We may not be so different, you and I."

Image by Courtesy of the Bush Center, Houston Texas.

 

[Espy]

It pains me to admit that this is true. My hardcore Democratic friends (not folks here mind you) honestly can't seem to find the inner strength to dare to criticize Obama. Which is why I hate the way political parties work these days. They attack the other guy then pretend like their shit doesn't stink.

 

[jwhouk]

I'm in a bit of a quandary in my state. Obviously, I don't care much for my boss, but the Dems in this state haven't exactly made themselves out to be paladins.

 

[Krisken]

I'm in a bit of a quandary in my state. Obviously, I don't care much for my boss, but the Dems in this state haven't exactly made themselves out to be paladins.

They had so much potential to rise above it, too, but instead they sunk down to the muck and rolled around a bit.

I hear ya, Espy. The White House position on drone strikes and Guantanamo piss me off to no end. It's like we traded Bush for Bush Lite- Now Kinder to Minority Groups!

 

[GasBandit]

They had so much potential to rise above it, too, but instead they sunk down to the muck and rolled around a bit.

I hear ya, Espy. The White House position on drone strikes and Guantanamo piss me off to no end. It's like we traded Bush for Bush Lite- Now Kinder to Minority Groups!

As long as they're the right brown.

 

[GasBandit]

The average welfare spending per household below the poverty line in 2011 was almost $62,000 each. Why do I work, again?

 

[AshburnerX]

The average welfare spending per household below the poverty line in 2011 was almost $62,000 each. Why do I work, again?

AHEM.

To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).

Also, only a third of that money goes directly to people in welfare programs. "Welfare Spending" is a highly nebulous term and it's being used to intentional misdirect here. Most of that money is being spent on healthcare and wellness programs.

 

[Gilgamesh]

The average welfare spending per household below the poverty line in 2011 was almost $62,000 each. Why do I work, again?

Haha, that's a huge load of shit.

 

[TommiR]

The White House position on drone strikes and Guantanamo piss me off to no end. It's like we traded Bush for Bush Lite- Now Kinder to Minority Groups!

A few questions, if you don't mind.

Drone strikes: What would you propose as an alternative method to drone strikes to accomplish objectives? Or do you want the drone strikes to be made 'better'? Or do you see an effective solution to attain objectives that does not require the use of military force? Or is it something else that pisses you off in the drone program?

Quantanamo: I assume we're talking about the terrosrist suspect detention camp, not the naval base itself. How would you go about closing it, and what would you do with the inmates?

 

[blotsfan]

Quantanamo: I assume we're talking about the terrosrist suspect detention camp, not the naval base itself. How would you go about closing it, and what would you do with the inmates?

Giving the inmates trials seems like the way to go.

 

[TommiR]

Giving the inmates trials seems like the way to go.

I understand military trials of the inmates is an ongoing process, though? They seem to have been temporarily halted a few years back, but appear to be continuing.

 

[GasBandit]

AHEM.

They couldn't come up with anything more than pell grants? That's less than 6k a year, tops - and that's assuming full time enrollment.

So I'm supposed to feel better about egregious war-on-poverty spending because some of it is being spent on people who aren't in poverty? And that's not even without getting into the whole discussion of what constitutes "poverty" in the United States...

 

[blotsfan]

I understand military trials of the inmates is an ongoing process, though? They seem to have been temporarily halted a few years back, but appear to be continuing.

Doesn't look good though according to the article.

"With the stroke of a pen," said Tom Parker of Amnesty International, "President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law by referring detainee cases from Guantanamo Bay to federal courts rather than the widely discredited military commissions."

Though it looks like its not entirely Obama's fault. Its still not ok.

 

[AshburnerX]

They couldn't come up with anything more than pell grants? That's less than 6k a year, tops - and that's assuming full time enrollment.

It's more like 5 and half and how much you get is dependent upon your fiances, not your credit hours. If you want additional loans, THAT is based on your credit load, in that they will only lend you so much if your not doing 6 or 12 hours of classes. But you always get the full lump sum you qualify for.

 

[TommiR]

Doesn't look good though according to the article.

Though it looks like its not entirely Obama's fault. Its still not ok.

That quote was from Amnesty International, and should not, in my opinion, be taken as gospel. They would certainly like to see the inmates at Guantanamo be tried in civilian courts as civilian suspects, something I'm not sure the laws of war entitle them to. As I understand, the main contention levied against the military tribunals is their lack of transparency, coupled with the rather creative interpretations on the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the War on Terror in general, under the W presidency. Currently, the inmates at Guantanamo, whether citizens or non-citizens of the US, have the right of habeas corpus in federal courts; an unusual protection afforded to actual combatants, but, as the War on Terror continues to be rather ill-defined, perhaps a necessary one.

However, I can't really see a reason why (the majority of) the cases should be taken up in civilian courts in the US, rather than in a military tribunal the business of which is to process military cases that may come up as part of military operations.

 

[AshburnerX]

However, I can't really see a reason why (the majority of) the cases should be taken up in civilian courts in the US, rather than in a military tribunal the business of which is to process military cases that may come up as part of military operations.

Military Tribunals don't have the same standards of proof that a civil court does. It's much harder to disprove accusations against you.

There is also the fact that there are very few lawyers ALLOWED in military tribunals. You have to be vetted by the government as someone who can be trusted with sensitive information, which means your defense is basically hand picked by the people trying to convict you.

It's also possible to withhold evidence from the defense because of potential national security concerns, meaning it's entirely possible (and this HAS happened) for defendants to be convicted with evidence they don't have access to or have had the ability to refute or expose as false. They can do this because the government is concerned their sources or methods could be exposed, ether by the defendant should they go free or their council, which could lead to retaliation against sources or defenses against their methods.

Basically, there are a LOT of legitimate reasons to not want military tribunals.

 

[TommiR]

Military Tribunals don't have the same standards of proof that a civil court does. It's much harder to disprove accusations against you.

There is also the fact that there are very few lawyers ALLOWED in military tribunals. You have to be vetted by the government as someone who can be trusted with sensitive information, which means your defense is basically hand picked by the people trying to convict you.

It's also possible to withhold evidence from the defense because of potential national security concerns, meaning it's entirely possible (and this HAS happened) for defendants to be convicted with evidence they don't have access to or have had the ability to refute or expose as false. They can do this because the government is concerned their sources or methods could be exposed, ether by the defendant should they go free or their council, which could lead to retaliation against sources or defenses against their methods.

Basically, there are a LOT of legitimate reasons to not want military tribunals.

Military tribunals are quite different from civilian courts, yes. But the pertinent question here is whether most of the inmates at Guantanamo are entitled to a civilian trial, or fall within the jurisdiction of a military tribunal, such as a POW would:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc...military-tribunals-on-trial/?pagination=false

The first two categories of people subject to trial—prisoners of war and unlawful combatants arrested outside the United States—derive their rights from international law. The essential difference between the two is that prisoners of war engage in open, announced combat in accordance with the customs of war. Unlawful combatants, on the other hand, attempt to conceal their activities. They include those who disguise themselves as civilians as well as spies, saboteurs, and terrorists. Under international law, in particular the Geneva Conventions, both categories may be tried before military tribunals. It is true that there is no mechanism for international enforcement of the Geneva Conventions other than public pressure. But the conventions set forth clear legal standards that the US has agreed to observe, and failure to do so will be seen as a violation of fundamental international law.

Personally, I don't know the make-up of the current inmate population at Guantanamo. Perhaps most of them are civilians grabbed off the street into black SUVs under some insidious legislation. But if most of them are not, and aren't entitled to civilian trials, then I don't see the need to grant them such.

 

[AshburnerX]

The issue is that the US government makes no distinctions on how or why someone may have been thrown into GITMO... and even if they can't find any reason to hold you, they'll demand you sign a paper absolving them of responsibility for the internment. If you don't, they'll keep you there without charge until the political pressure is too much to bear. There is a documentary about this happening to British citizens.

Basically what I'm saying is that there have already been too many abuses by both the people running Guantanamo Bay and the people trying to try the inmates for us to be able to trust them.

 

[TommiR]

The issue is that the US government makes no distinctions on how or why someone may have been thrown into GITMO... and even if they can't find any reason to hold you, they'll demand you sign a paper absolving them of responsibility for the internment. If you don't, they'll keep you there without charge until the political pressure is too much to bear. There is a documentary about this happening to British citizens.

Well, the inmates at Guantanamo have access to have their habeas corpus petitions heard in federal civilian courts, to challenge the legality of their detention. According to the pdf I cited earlier, this right was established in the Supreme Court cases of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush. After Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, partly to curtail and eliminate detainees' access to habeas review in federal courts, the landmark 2008 case of Boumediene v. Bush finally resolved the question of federal court jurisdiction and affirmed the right to habeas appeals even to non-citizens detained in Guantanamo. So things at Guantanamo are now a lot better than they were in 2006 when that documentary came out.

Basically what I'm saying is that there have already been too many abuses by both the people running Guantanamo Bay and the people trying to try the inmates for us to be able to trust them.

So the basic question is not the legal condition or rights of the detainees, but the matter of the public feeling they cannot trust the executive to act within the current legal framework, and that therefore the Guantanamo detainment facility should be closed. Alright, nobody could possibly refute something that people might feel. Though basing the conduct of policy on what the average voter may feel is not likely to result in the most successful outcomes, I can certainly understand the desire of politicians to court popular opinion.

So how should one proceed with closing down the facility? Transport the inmates to the US and put them on trial there? The home countries of many of the inmates have refused to take them back, what should be done with those people provided the court returns a verdict of not guilty?

 

[AshburnerX]

So the basic question is not the legal condition or rights of the detainees, but the matter of the public feeling they cannot trust the executive to act within the current legal framework, and that therefore the Guantanamo detainment facility should be closed. Alright, nobody could possibly refute something that people might feel. Though basing the conduct of policy on what the average voter may feel is not likely to result in the most successful outcomes, I can certainly understand the desire of politicians to court popular opinion.

It is the opinion of virtually everyone involved with the detention facility that it needs to be closed. Unfortunately, their hands are basically tied at this point.

So how should one proceed with closing down the facility? Transport the inmates to the US and put them on trial there? The home countries of many of the inmates have refused to take them back, what should be done with those people provided the court returns a verdict of not guilty?

That's the real pickle here. If it were possible to just ship them home then internment camp at Guantanamo Bay would already be closed. It would have been closed YEARS ago. But no one is volunteering to take them in lest they be seen as the country that welcomes former terror suspects. That's not going to happen, they have their own elections to deal with.

Unfortunately, there IS no real solution except to provide them shelter until the day they die... and that's the real fucking legacy of this war, justified or not. We can provide them with better living conditions and some modicum amount of freedom on the base, but the fact of the matter is those people are going to be there until the day they die.

Those are the three options we have now: Execute them, hold them as prisoners for life, or hold them as prisoners for life but in a way that isn't quite so bad. That's really fucking depressing.

 

[TommiR]

It is the opinion of virtually everyone involved with the detention facility that it needs to be closed. Unfortunately, their hands are basically tied at this point.

I see. What reasons other than not trusting the government have they forwarded in favor of closure?

Also, it appears that closing the Guantanamo detention facility does not enjoy unequivocal support:

The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He pledged during his first week in office to close the prison within a year, but he has not done so.

Even the party base appears willing to forgive that failure.

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of President George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

 

[AshburnerX]

The biggest thing is that it's simply become too much of a liability, politically, both at home and abroad. It's an off-shore detention camp that you can be accidentally sent to for basically no fault of your own, with little hope of ever getting home... there is very little about it you can defend without sounding like a Bush-era apologist. It's one of the reasons why he wanted to close it in the first place, before being confronted with the fact that he literally couldn't. There IS a reason they do their best not to send people there anymore and it's down to 166 people as of January.

Here's a breakdown on the current numbers of detainees and how many they've had in the past, as well as what's happened to some of them.

As for your poll... I think it just dawned on everyone how hopeless the situation surrounding it really is. Or their just displaying cognitive dissonance because it involves Obama. It's sort of like the blind obedience the Republicans fostered in their own members in the 9/11 era.

 

[Eriol]

Was anybody ever transferred there from inside the borders of the USA? My impression is that they were all captured in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, but where is that stated, or is that even known?

 

[Dubyamn]

A few questions, if you don't mind.

Drone strikes: What would you propose as an alternative method to drone strikes to accomplish objectives? Or do you want the drone strikes to be made 'better'? Or do you see an effective solution to attain objectives that does not require the use of military force? Or is it something else that pisses you off in the drone program?

Well first we have to determine what the military objectives of the drone strikes are. Since they aren't used to eliminate terrorists in the middle of operations against America or even necessarily planning an attack against America or in the case of "signature strikes" eliminate people we even know are terrorists or even to surgically eliminate people due to the use of a "double-tap" program where the drones will fire on first responders I propose that there is no real objective in the drone program.

Since there is no justifiable objective in the drone program it can be pretty much eliminated without any lose to American security.

Quantanamo: I assume we're talking about the terrosrist suspect detention camp, not the naval base itself. How would you go about closing it, and what would you do with the inmates?

The federal government was all set to buy a state of the art supermax prison in Kentucky or something to move the Guantanamo inmates into but congress attached a rider to a bill that Gauntanamo inmates can't be brought into the US for any reason nor can the federal government buy that supermax prison for any reason what so ever.

Eliminate the obstacles put in place by the congress and you could move the inmates up to that supermax and give them all federal trials.

 

[GasBandit]

So are we ready to shitcan the TSA for the huge mistake/bad joke it is yet?

 

[Tress]

Fucking wastes of skin, the whole bunch of them. What a fucking joke.

The Forcks say they are content with the TSA's apology and have no plans to take legal action. "Our goal was to draw people's attention to it — to effect change," Nathan told the Riverfront Times.

God, the TSA is getting off easier than it should. If I were them I would at least sue to have every moron involved in that incident fired immediately. And what's with this bullshit where police officers and government officials keep telling people it's illegal to video tape them? Where in the fuck did they get that idea?

 

[North_Ranger]

So are we ready to shitcan the TSA for the huge mistake/bad joke it is yet?

Jesus Christ... That... that was just horrible. How could they do that to a little child?

 

[GasBandit]

Jesus Christ... That... that was just horrible. How could they do that to a little child?

Because they can.

 

[Gilgamesh]

In case you haven't seen this place yet Gas:
http://www.reddit.com/r/ThanksObama

 

[Covar]

So are we ready to shitcan the TSA for the huge mistake/bad joke it is yet?

Not as long as they're staffed with union jobs.

 

[TommiR]

Well first we have to determine what the military objectives of the drone strikes are. Since they aren't used to eliminate terrorists in the middle of operations against America or even necessarily planning an attack against America or in the case of "signature strikes" eliminate people we even know are terrorists or even to surgically eliminate people due to the use of a "double-tap" program where the drones will fire on first responders I propose that there is no real objective in the drone program.

Since there is no justifiable objective in the drone program it can be pretty much eliminated without any lose to American security.

I think it is mostly about the specific capabilities that drones offer. As I understand, their military use is mostly reconnaissance, surveillance, and certain ground attack missions. As a military platform, a drone offers superior loitering capabilities and mission endurance, is less difficult to maintain and has a shorter logistics tail than equivalent manned platforms, and can be used remotely without placing live forces at direct risk.

I imagine all the tasks that a drone can do, a manned aircraft can do just as well. But it seems to me that the particular capabilities of drones make them better suited to certain kinds of missions. Eliminating the drone program would seem to be the equivalent of accepting a voluntary and avoidable disadvantage, in return for no appreciable gain.

Eliminate the obstacles put in place by the congress and you could move the inmates up to that supermax and give them all federal trials.

Sounds to me like getting Congress to go along with this might be difficult to accomplish.

 

[Krisken]

Getting Congress to agree on what time to have lunch would be difficult to accomplish.

 

[Eriol]

Getting Congress to agree on what time to have lunch would be difficult to accomplish.

No, if it's to their direct benefit, like voting their own raises, or perhaps complimentary lunch then I'm sure they'd agree really really fast.

 

[jwhouk]

They cannot, by Constitutional amendment, vote on their own raises. They can only vote on raises for the next congress.

 

[Krisken]

So... lunch is out?