Holder: No civilian trials for Gitmo detainees and KSM

[Thanas]

Guardian

9/11 mastermind to face trial by Guantánamo military commission

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried at the US military base in Cuba rather than in a civilian court on American soil


Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, will be tried by a military commission in Guantánamo. It is the latest retreat by the Obama administration from its much-vaunted plans to overhaul the legal processing of terror suspects.

Mohammed and four other terror suspects will be put on trial through a military system that President Obama had vowed to abolish when he began in office in January 2009. The White House had declared its intent in 2009 to push them through the civilian justice system with a landmark trial at the federal court in Manhattan, a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.

But the proposal invoked a groundswell of opposition, most powerfully from New York residents and the mayor of the city, Michael Bloomberg.

The US attorney general, Eric Holder, was expected to announce the administration's U-turn at a press conference in Guantánamo.

The about-face is hugely symbolic as Mohammed was al-Qaida's main architect of 9/11, according to the commission of inquiry into the terrorist outrages convened in New York. How he is treated arguably sets the tone for America's legal handling of terror suspects.

Obama had wanted to bring that legal process back into the norms of civilian justice. But he was thwarted by a wall of opposition from Republicans in Congress, backed by some Democrats.

Republicans inserted a provision into the latest defence budget effectively banning the use of Pentagon funds to transfer Guantánamo detainees to the mainland, thus blocking any civilian trials. Obama initially promised to repeal the restriction, but last month he backtracked by allowing the resumption of military commission trials at the US base in Cuba.

Bloomberg also did a volte face. Initially, he approved the idea of a civilian trial for Mohammed in downtown Manhattan, but then turned against it, arguing that it would cost the city more than $400m (£248m) in security alone.

Other opponents claimed that it would again make New York the target of terrorists' wrath.

Never Forget, a group of family members of victims of the attacks, as well as emergency workers and former military personnel, welcomed the announcement. "We are relieved that President Obama has abandoned his plan to try the 9/11 conspirators in a civilian court on US soil. Prosecuting war criminals, whose only connection to this country is the location of their victims, in military commissions is the right thing to do."

I also agree with the following comment on the decision:

Why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in Guantánamo

US Congress's blocking of a civilian trial for the alleged 9/11 planner means just one thing: politics has trumped justice


This Monday, Eric Holder, much to what seemed to be his own disappointment, announced that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in a military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay. This, of course, comes as no surprise. For those of us who have embraced the use of civilian courts to try Guantánamo detainees, this is yet another defeat at the hands of the Obama administration when it comes to Guantánamo.

First, there was the failure to close Guantánamo within a year, as initially promised – a failure that has now become de facto policy. Then, there was the initial rescinding of the decision to try KSM in Manhattan, followed most recently by the president's executive order sanctioning indefinite detention of Gitmo detainees.

This latest disappointment, even if it may be attributed to Congress's ban on the transfer of detainees to the United States, will have long-term consequences for the American legal system. It restores the fundamental shift in power that took place under President Bush: on 13 November 2001, President Bush delivered a military order that put the matter of detention and trial for suspects in the "war on terror" under the jurisdiction of the Pentagon and the secretary of defence. Since then, the department of justice has tried to wrest back the right to try terrorism suspects as it had done throughout the 1990s. Small successes, like the return of José Padilla and al-Marri to the civilian courts, after they had been declared an enemy combatants, and larger successes, like the US supreme court decision to recognise the detainees' right to the writ of habeas corpus, seemed to be stepping-stones on the way to restoring to the American criminal justice system the right to try those who were accused of harming or conspiring to harm American citizens.

As Holder has said repeatedly, the civilian courts have prosecuted hundreds of terrorism suspects and, when found guilty, convicted them and handed down long sentences. More importantly, the civilian courts have learned to know the nature of these cases. They have developed a body of expertise on the part of the prosecutors and the defence attorneys that would take decades to replicate in military commissions. They have learned how and where federal statutes apply and where they falter in the prosecutions of alleged terrorism suspects. And they have developed a wealth of knowledge about terrorist tactics and networks.

This is not just about the number of convictions. It is about building a responsible professional specialty in matters of terrorism. And this is what the hundreds of cases have permitted. By contrast, the military commissions have convicted just six of nearly 779 individuals; the proposal now is to pilot yet another reformulation of the commissions for the 9/11 detainees – a group most people would agree one wouldn't want to experiment with.

How ironic that the development of a true professional expertise is met with a refusal to let the courts practise what they are charged with under the US Constitution. Could it be that expertise in these matters is just what Congress doesn't want? Could it be that "fair trials" and "just verdicts", not to mention transparent trials and public accountability for the families of 9/11, are not what matter most? Could it, instead, be that thwarting the department of justice and obstructing the clear preferences of Attorney General Holder and the Obama administration are the politicians' top priorities, even in the "war on terror"?

Good going there, Obama. Final nail in the coffin for the rule of law in the war on terror.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Bush's problem is he wasn't a black professor. Had he only been able to give a polished speech, and lie through his teeth for years, and then just do it once people stopped paying attention, he could have gotten what he wanted, apparently with the gleeful tailing of the full spectrum of liberal intellectuals. How fair weather and opportunist their commitment to legal principles are.

[Thanas]

Bush's problem is he wasn't a black professor. Had he only been able to give a polished speech, and lie through his teeth for years, and then just do it once people stopped paying attention, he could have gotten what he wanted, apparently with the gleeful tailing of the full spectrum of liberal intellectuals. How fair weather and opportunist their commitment to legal principles are.

Gore Vidal, Glenn Greenwald and a host of other liberal intellectuals have spoken out against this.

But other than that, yeah. Hope and change, indeed. In a way this is even worse than Bush, because Obama is gutting support for civil liberties in his own party. He has effectively ensured that a civil rights and liberties platform is dead.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh they will resuscitate it with the de rigueur fear-mongering of the GOP/Tea Party barbarians banging at the gates, and the glazed-eyed will fall into line and hand Obama a respectable 06 Clinton-style victory, with which he will continue to move to the right and push various excrescences on the body politic such as this.

Personally, I don't think there's any hope to be had unless a broad-based grassroots movement which can not only lobby and pressure the Democratic Party itself from both the inside and outside from the left, with a longer-term goal of amending the Constitution to abolish the mandatory-two-party-system, develops. There's no way to discipline the fuckers from the base, and its just too easy for wealth donor class, and settled establishments like the military-industrial complex, to use the Democratic and Republican Parties in succession as they see fit.

[TheHammer]

This is basically what we expected to happen. Its simply a fact that political reality doesn't always mesh with ideology. It's easy to criticize, but the fact remains this was a no win situation for Obama. He can't close Guantanamo without doing something with the detainees there. And he can't try them in civilian courts due to congressional interference. So he did the next best thing, worked to make the military trials "more fair" and try to get a determination for the detainees.

[Edi]

This is basically what we expected to happen. Its simply a fact that political reality doesn't always mesh with ideology. It's easy to criticize, but the fact remains this was a no win situation for Obama. He can't close Guantanamo without doing something with the detainees there. And he can't try them in civilian courts due to congressional interference. So he did the next best thing, worked to make the military trials "more fair" and try to get a determination for the detainees.

If he actually had a spine, he'd have told the GOP to go fuck itself and proceeded with the transfer of prisoners to the US for civilian trials. The problem is, he is a spineless coward.

If it's what you expected, it says a lot more about you than about anything else.

[TheHammer]

This is basically what we expected to happen. Its simply a fact that political reality doesn't always mesh with ideology. It's easy to criticize, but the fact remains this was a no win situation for Obama. He can't close Guantanamo without doing something with the detainees there. And he can't try them in civilian courts due to congressional interference. So he did the next best thing, worked to make the military trials "more fair" and try to get a determination for the detainees.

If he actually had a spine, he'd have told the GOP to go fuck itself and proceeded with the transfer of prisoners to the US for civilian trials. The problem is, he is a spineless coward.

If it's what you expected, it says a lot more about you than about anything else.

I say this is what we expected because some time back it was announced that Military tribunals were resuming.

As to your other point, it wasn't just the GOP, but members of his own party that also passed the bill blocking prisoner transfers to the US. Despite what you may believe, The President is not permitted to tell congress to "go fuck itself" in all matters. He has leway in a lot of matters certainly, but this isn't a hill worth politically dieing on. The fact that he's doing ANYTHING other than keeping those individuals in Guantanamo to rot shows he has a spine. It is hardly politically advantageous for him to do so.

[Simon_Jester]

This is basically what we expected to happen. Its simply a fact that political reality doesn't always mesh with ideology. It's easy to criticize, but the fact remains this was a no win situation for Obama. He can't close Guantanamo without doing something with the detainees there. And he can't try them in civilian courts due to congressional interference. So he did the next best thing, worked to make the military trials "more fair" and try to get a determination for the detainees.

See, there's this thing called "leadership." It's important. When people are in charge of large organizations, they're expected to be able to do it. And "leadership" means a lot of things. One of the most important things you have to do to show leadership is not accept every excuse for inaction and wrong action that comes down the pike.

It is not enough for a leader to do the correct thing, the smart thing, the decent thing only when that is the most convenient thing to do. The leader is expected to create opportunities to enact good policies, not just wait for them to come along. The leader is expected to fight on behalf of things that need to be done, rather than throwing up his hands and wailing about how it would take them effort to do things that need to be done.

All this goes double when the leader was specifically chosen because of his ability to change an undesirable status quo. In 2008, a large majority of Americans were sick of the status quo. They elected someone who promised to change it. Does it not strike you as odd, and a sign that something has gone wrong, when nothing of any consequence changes as a result?

I mean, if you want an example of how this works in times of national crisis, look at the last time we had an economic recession on this scale- the Great Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to change an undesirable status quo. He did a lot of things: some of them good (reform of the financial sector, public works programs), some of them shitty (trying to pack the Supreme Court, the suppression of the Bonus Army).

But the point is, he did things. He got on the radio every few weeks and explained to everyone what he was doing, and why, and how he expected it to do good for the country. He took political risks, some of which paid off and some of which didn't, in order to fix the country's larger problems before they grew too big to be controlled.

He kept doing this right through his entire thirteen years in office, and that has a lot to do with why he won re-election three times, in spite of a number of reverses and very ambitious political moves on his part- such as the Depression-era social programs, and the decision to more or less openly align with Britain against Nazi Germany in the first two years of World War Two, when America was officially neutral.

He did not simply continue policies functionally identical to those of Hoover while bemoaning the fact that there was too much political opposition for him to accomplish anything. Sure, sometimes he tried and failed, but he tried, and he pushed others around him to try as well. He gathered large groups of experts whose purpose was to try things, and figure out ways to try them more effectively. He was committed to fixing problems and changing things to improve the country.


FDR is a very high standard of comparison to hold a president to, I know. But if we apply that standard, Barack Obama is a fraud. He asserts his own role as a leader, while in fact having minimal effects on the course of events- if his role was replaced with an empty suit and a rubber stamp to sign off on Congressional bills, I'm honestly not sure how much would actually change. I'm not sure anyone else knows either.

And that disgusts me, because the consequences of it are so far-reaching. It's not just that Obama has wasted and will waste years of America's time doing nothing, during a period of severe national crisis. It's that by doing so, he has poisoned the well for future change. No one can come round in 2012 promising to reform the country and have much credibility with the voters. It may be another decade before any credible reformist politician gets a chance equivalent to the one they'd have had in 2008, when candidates much more aggressive, and much more effective, could very easily have won office.

Barack Obama came into office at a time of great opportunity for positive change in this country, and is acting quite efficiently to squander and destroy that opportunity. I pray that we'll get another chance, but I sorely miss the one we're losing here.

[Zaune]

But the point is, he did things. He got on the radio every few weeks and explained to everyone what he was doing, and why, and how he expected it to do good for the country. He took political risks, some of which paid off and some of which didn't, in order to fix the country's larger problems before they grew too big to be controlled.

He kept doing this right through his entire thirteen years in office, and that has a lot to do with why he won re-election three times, in spite of a number of reverses and very ambitious political moves on his part- such as the Depression-era social programs, and the decision to more or less openly align with Britain against Nazi Germany in the first two years of World War Two, when America was officially neutral.

He did not simply continue policies functionally identical to those of Hoover while bemoaning the fact that there was too much political opposition for him to accomplish anything. Sure, sometimes he tried and failed, but he tried, and he pushed others around him to try as well. He gathered large groups of experts whose purpose was to try things, and figure out ways to try them more effectively. He was committed to fixing problems and changing things to improve the country.

But to give Obama his due, FDR never had his political opponents using phrases like "Second Amendment solution" or "Don't retreat, reload!". Neither did he need his Secret Service detail significantly increased because of his "disadvantage", though I suppose he might have if he'd been less successful at concealing it from the public, an option that isn't really open to Obama.
I don't want to give the more unhinged sectors of the US right too much credit for his performance in office, because there have been no actual attempts on his life and apparently no serious conspiracies to make one; it's possible the Secret Service and the FBI have nipped some in the bud without it making the news, but I doubt it. But the level of hostility directed towards him at a personal level is almost certainly a contributing factor to the aversion to conflict that Obama has demonstrated in his first term. And who could blame him?

[Simon_Jester]

But to give Obama his due, FDR never had his political opponents using phrases like "Second Amendment solution" or "Don't retreat, reload!". Neither did he need his Secret Service detail significantly increased because of his "disadvantage", though I suppose he might have if he'd been less successful at concealing it from the public, an option that isn't really open to Obama.

I'd accept less from Obama than we got from FDR. I can understand that- I don't have the right to expect heroes to arrive on demand.

But I expect Obama to try, given how he presented himself during the campaign, and that he's clearly informed and knowledgeable enough to be able to understand the enormity* of the problems he was elected to fix.

That's it, really. I expect evidence that Obama is trying. That he is willing to take risks, to spend political capital in order to gain political capital, and if need be to accept that yes, doing the things the country needs done will make some people angry.

That's the minimum. He's not doing it.

Beyond that, I would like to see Obama openly confront the people who are trying to intimidate him (both politically and personally). To use the bully pulpit to condemn people who are hurting America in very concrete ways (such as trying to bribe the entire political system). To come out and say "yes, the financial system is part of the problem, yes there is something wrong when the vast majority of the country's economy is controlled by so few hands..." and so forth.

I would like that, or at least a little of that. And he did a little of that during the campaign; in my opinion it helped him get elected. But now that he's in office he's discarded that. Which I think is bad, and I think is either bad tactics on Obama's part... or just Obama honestly not caring about fixing the problems in question. The longer his administration has gone on, the more I've leaned to the latter interpretation.

*In both the sense of "truly horrible" and the sense of "very large"

I don't want to give the more unhinged sectors of the US right too much credit for his performance in office, because there have been no actual attempts on his life and apparently no serious conspiracies to make one; it's possible the Secret Service and the FBI have nipped some in the bud without it making the news, but I doubt it. But the level of hostility directed towards him at a personal level is almost certainly a contributing factor to the aversion to conflict that Obama has demonstrated in his first term. And who could blame him?

You know, it used to be that about one US president in five died in office. We had four presidents assassinated in the space of a hundred years, and three assassinated in the space of forty years (1860s to 1900s)

Since then, the Secret Service has done an extremely zealous and (from what I know) competent job of trying to stop assassinations from happening- though a number of attempts have been foiled by luck, such as the time in 2005 that someone threw a hand grenade at George Bush.

But it used to happen, and there is no way to promise that it will never happen again- like any other disaster, it's a possibility which can occur. There's just no way to avoid the fact that a certain level of risk really is an occupational hazard of the presidency. People should not run for high public office without recognizing that it will make them high-profile targets for lunatics and political extremists. And they should not allow this to cow them into total inactivity.

A democracy which can be paralyzed by nebulous threats from radical elements is not a functioning democracy. Politicians who allow themselves to be paralyzed this way aren't good enough for the democracy in question.

[TheHammer]

FDR is a very high standard of comparison to hold a president to, I know. But if we apply that standard, Barack Obama is a fraud. He asserts his own role as a leader, while in fact having minimal effects on the course of events- if his role was replaced with an empty suit and a rubber stamp to sign off on Congressional bills, I'm honestly not sure how much would actually change. I'm not sure anyone else knows either.

And that disgusts me, because the consequences of it are so far-reaching. It's not just that Obama has wasted and will waste years of America's time doing nothing, during a period of severe national crisis. It's that by doing so, he has poisoned the well for future change. No one can come round in 2012 promising to reform the country and have much credibility with the voters. It may be another decade before any credible reformist politician gets a chance equivalent to the one they'd have had in 2008, when candidates much more aggressive, and much more effective, could very easily have won office.

Barack Obama came into office at a time of great opportunity for positive change in this country, and is acting quite efficiently to squander and destroy that opportunity. I pray that we'll get another chance, but I sorely miss the one we're losing here.

I don't know where this myth started (well maybe I have some ideas, namely a certain "NEWS" organization) about Obama "not doing anything" but quite frankly it is ridiculous.

Some perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp72GktZi00

Details not only accomplishments, but the obstacles that have been overcome.

Maybe its human nature to focus on what we didn't get as opposed to what we did get...

[Simon_Jester]

My objection boils down to a comparison of what has been done against what the electorate voted to be done in 2008. And against what could have been done had Obama shown more political savvy in not making major concessions to his bitter enemies before they actually agreed to compromise with him, thus forcing him to scale back his plans over and over despite having, by any reasonable standard, the upper hand.

Imagine three possible political outcomes: X, Y, and Z. There are many things you can fill in for those variables. For example:

X= "single-payer health insurance"
Y= "public option health insurance"
Z= "privatized health insurance for everyone who can afford it."

or

X= "policy on terror detainees that respects the full range of international law and rights set out in the Constitution for those accused of crimes."
Y= "policy on terror detainees that respects some of the above, while ignoring some of the above when we deem it important to our safety to make special exceptions in unusual cases."
Z= "policy on terror detainees that ignores the above, tortures them in defiance of both US and international law, imprisons them indefinitely without any publicly accessible evidence that they are guilty of anything, tries them only in star chamber courts of a type the Founding Fathers rejected in disgust over two centuries ago, and assassinates American citizens on executive orders from the White House."


Now, when starting from a position of strength, you make compromises after you have established your ability and willingness to do things your opponent dislikes. Not before. If you start out thinking "I want X," when your opponent wants Z, you do not start the discussion by offering Y.

Do that, and you're going to wind up maneuvered into a position between Y and Z- somewhere a long way from where you wanted to start. Obama is smart enough to know this, and the fact that he's wound up in this position several times since taking office makes me suspect his motives.

His behavior isn't consistent with a smart, competent man who wants X to happen but is forced to settle for something between Y and Z. It's consistent with a man who wants, at most, Y. And could live with Z.

Or (more cynically, and I'm not talked round to this position) someone who knows that the American people would be better served by X, prefers Z, and knows it's going to be hard to convince them to settle for Z itself after several years of disasters resulting from earlier versions of Z. And thus presents himself as pro-X, gets support from advocates of X... while in practice steering a course much closer to Z than to X.


Moreover, a number of Obama's more notable accomplishments took place only after the left wing of his support base put pressure on him to move. I suspect that much of his movement on US policy issues has been impelled by the people who voted him in kicking him in the ass to get him to do things, rather than by his own willingness to lead those people. He gets no credit for doing the minimum needed to save his reelection prospects from a primary challenge or left-wing third party, not when he was elected to do much more than "fill space in the White House that could otherwise be occupied by a Republican."

[TheHammer]

My objection boils down to a comparison of what has been done against what the electorate voted to be done in 2008. And against what could have been done had Obama shown more political savvy in not making major concessions to his bitter enemies before they actually agreed to compromise with him, thus forcing him to scale back his plans over and over despite having, by any reasonable standard, the upper hand.

Imagine three possible political outcomes: X, Y, and Z. There are many things you can fill in for those variables. For example:

X= "single-payer health insurance"
Y= "public option health insurance"
Z= "privatized health insurance for everyone who can afford it."

It was already acknowledged that "X" was never going to happen, not at this point at least. Obama never compaigned on "X", and as much admitted it wasn't something that could be done. He probably would have preferred "Y" but at the same time, "Z" with subsidies for the poor gets the job done for the most part. There was more to healthcare reform than simply providing a public option. Namely regulations on healthcare companies preventing "pre-existing condition" bullshit that was abused by the industry, more requirements for employers to provide healthcare etc. It was a significant accomplishment, even if its not everything we wanted.

X= "policy on terror detainees that respects the full range of international law and rights set out in the Constitution for those accused of crimes."
Y= "policy on terror detainees that respects some of the above, while ignoring some of the above when we deem it important to our safety to make special exceptions in unusual cases."
Z= "policy on terror detainees that ignores the above, tortures them in defiance of both US and international law, imprisons them indefinitely without any publicly accessible evidence that they are guilty of anything, tries them only in star chamber courts of a type the Founding Fathers rejected in disgust over two centuries ago, and assassinates American citizens on executive orders from the White House."

He wanted "X", and he fought for "X". But in the end, Obama didn't have any choice in the matter due to Congressional interference. So he is clearly going with "Y".

"Z" is what we had under Bush not Obama, except for the assassinations part - I have no idea what you're talking about there.

Now, when starting from a position of strength, you make compromises after you have established your ability and willingness to do things your opponent dislikes. Not before. If you start out thinking "I want X," when your opponent wants Z, you do not start the discussion by offering Y.

Do that, and you're going to wind up maneuvered into a position between Y and Z- somewhere a long way from where you wanted to start. Obama is smart enough to know this, and the fact that he's wound up in this position several times since taking office makes me suspect his motives.

Again, listening to too much propoganda. Obama's perceived strength wasn't what you thought it was. When the Dems had a majority, it was a conglomeration of various flavors of democrats, not a unified party who bowed to Obama's every whim. If it were, then he could simply have pushed through whatever he wanted.

His behavior isn't consistent with a smart, competent man who wants X to happen but is forced to settle for something between Y and Z. It's consistent with a man who wants, at most, Y. And could live with Z.

Or (more cynically, and I'm not talked round to this position) someone who knows that the American people would be better served by X, prefers Z, and knows it's going to be hard to convince them to settle for Z itself after several years of disasters resulting from earlier versions of Z. And thus presents himself as pro-X, gets support from advocates of X... while in practice steering a course much closer to Z than to X.

He was elected President, not dictator. As noted in the video I posted, compromise has gotten a lot done that had never been done before. HC reform, long a dream, actually happened - even if not everything we wanted, DADT repealed, etc etc.
The thing that so many people don't seem to get is that you can't always come in and make huge sweeping changes. First you take a few steps, then a few more. Civil rights, women's suffrage, they didn't happen over night. We should applaud that progress is being made, not bitch and complain that we haven't arrived at our destination yet.

Moreover, a number of Obama's more notable accomplishments took place only after the left wing of his support base put pressure on him to move. I suspect that much of his movement on US policy issues has been impelled by the people who voted him in kicking him in the ass to get him to do things, rather than by his own willingness to lead those people. He gets no credit for doing the minimum needed to save his reelection prospects from a primary challenge or left-wing third party, not when he was elected to do much more than "fill space in the White House that could otherwise be occupied by a Republican."

Oh I see. He gets blame for what he hasn't done, but no credit for anything he has accomplished because it "took his base kicking him in the ass to do it"

Bullshit

[aerius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp72GktZi00

Details not only accomplishments, but the obstacles that have been overcome.

I'm gonna comment on a few of those alleged accomplishments, specifically credit card reform, student loan reform, stimulus, Wall Street Reform, and healthcare reform. All but the latter were complete utter failures, especially the stimulus and WS reform, those 2 can be summed up as print a fuckload of money and give it to the fucking banks, then let the banks keep raping us with credit cards & student loans among other things. Credit card & student loan reforms are effectively worthless, banks are carrying on with business as usual and no one's going to jail.

They passed a bunch of laws which sound nice but have absolutely zero effect, there is no enforcement to speak of and they've opened up even more loopholes for the bankers to abuse. Furthermore they've resulted in capital flight from the country which has shown up in the TIC reports, investment in the US has slowed down, stopped, and at times even reversed since Obama's policies were enacted. Healthcare reform is the same thing, it's opened up ton of new ways for the healthcare industry to abuse its consumers, rates have been jacked up substantially and you now get fined if you can't afford or refuse to buy insurance.

You need to look at the actual effects which these "accomplishments" have in the real world. Has it stopped predatory loans? Is the economy actually improving? Are we actually creating jobs? The answer to all the above is no. So what has he accomplished then? Nothing. It's like the time our PM passed a bunch of environmental regulation laws, then shitcanned everyone responsible for enforcing those laws. Net result? A nice feel good PR moment, then business as usual, nothing changed.

[Simon_Jester]

It was already acknowledged that "X" was never going to happen, not at this point at least. Obama never compaigned on "X", and as much admitted it wasn't something that could be done. He probably would have preferred "Y" but at the same time, "Z" with subsidies for the poor gets the job done for the most part. There was more to healthcare reform than simply providing a public option. Namely regulations on healthcare companies preventing "pre-existing condition" bullshit that was abused by the industry, more requirements for employers to provide healthcare etc. It was a significant accomplishment, even if its not everything we wanted.

Here, my complaint is that so much was conceded in advance- not even fought over, simply not contested. It is a bad idea to concede large areas of the debate to a bitter enemy in advance, because instead of saying "ah, he has compromised with us," they will simply accept your concession as given and then demand another one.

This is exactly what happened with health insurance. This is how we lost single-payer. Obama never fought for it; no one fought for it. Because, as far as I can tell, the current batch of Congressional Democrats is dominated by people who don't want it, and Obama, I strongly suspect, doesn't really want it either.

Political realities are not like the laws of physics. They flex when you push them, so if you have something genuinely important to do, you are under at least some obligation to push them and see how far they will flex.

X= "policy on terror detainees that respects the full range of international law and rights set out in the Constitution for those accused of crimes."
Y= "policy on terror detainees that respects some of the above, while ignoring some of the above when we deem it important to our safety to make special exceptions in unusual cases."
Z= "policy on terror detainees that ignores the above, tortures them in defiance of both US and international law, imprisons them indefinitely without any publicly accessible evidence that they are guilty of anything, tries them only in star chamber courts of a type the Founding Fathers rejected in disgust over two centuries ago, and assassinates American citizens on executive orders from the White House."

He wanted "X", and he fought for "X". But in the end, Obama didn't have any choice in the matter due to Congressional interference. So he is clearly going with "Y".

"Z" is what we had under Bush not Obama, except for the assassinations part - I have no idea what you're talking about there.

This is a lie. Obama claimed he wanted X. At no time did he take any significant political risk or expend political capital to achieve X. All he has done is enact closed military tribunals, in which the evidence is secret and the proceedings are not bound by the rule of law. This is very much like what Bush was doing.

See, you have to compare what is done, not just how it's spun and by whom. If people are still in Guantanamo, then that has not changed. Obama gets no positive credit for it not changing, especially since no one could actually stop him from changing it. They could, at most, make it difficult for him to change Bush-era civil rights violations in specific ways. But if this were an important item on his agenda he could do far, far more.

Oh. Obama did issue an assassination order for an American citizen, by the way. Hence my addition to that.

Now, when starting from a position of strength, you make compromises after you have established your ability and willingness to do things your opponent dislikes. Not before. If you start out thinking "I want X," when your opponent wants Z, you do not start the discussion by offering Y.

Do that, and you're going to wind up maneuvered into a position between Y and Z- somewhere a long way from where you wanted to start. Obama is smart enough to know this, and the fact that he's wound up in this position several times since taking office makes me suspect his motives.

Again, listening to too much propoganda. Obama's perceived strength wasn't what you thought it was. When the Dems had a majority, it was a conglomeration of various flavors of democrats, not a unified party who bowed to Obama's every whim. If it were, then he could simply have pushed through whatever he wanted.

Alternatively, he wanted exactly what he has gotten, and no more. The only evidence we have that he wants things is what he says he wants, and what he actively takes risks to accomplish.

Talk is cheap, and I no longer really care what Obama says. To tell the truth I never did.

Actions are not cheap, and I do care what Obama does... and on this front I have been gravely disappointed. He stops taking steps the moment any significant opposition organizes to stop him, and the Republicans organize to stop him at every turn. This is a bad combination. It means Obama cannot accomplish anywhere near what is needed, and moreover (this is important) he doesn't try. He doesn't talk about the need to try. He doesn't criticize or try to exert leverage on the people who are stopping him. He does nothing but shrug and say "OK, we can't reform the financial sector" or whatever.

That is the act of a follower, not a leader. Obama presented himself as a leader capable of changing things. He has neither led nor changed things, save when it was extremely easy for him to do so and the cost of not doing so would far exceed the cost of doing so.

Moreover, a number of Obama's more notable accomplishments took place only after the left wing of his support base put pressure on him to move. I suspect that much of his movement on US policy issues has been impelled by the people who voted him in kicking him in the ass to get him to do things, rather than by his own willingness to lead those people. He gets no credit for doing the minimum needed to save his reelection prospects from a primary challenge or left-wing third party, not when he was elected to do much more than "fill space in the White House that could otherwise be occupied by a Republican."

Oh I see. He gets blame for what he hasn't done, but no credit for anything he has accomplished because it "took his base kicking him in the ass to do it"
Bullshit

He gets blame for what he hasn't done when he should have tried, or at least done something about it rather than shrug and walk away. He should be trying to score political points against the radical Republican agenda, rather than simply ignoring them while they campaign against him and take away his Congressional majority, which has now reduced his effective power of action to zero- he can no longer hope to do anything except prevent Republicans in the House from doing whatever they please.

By failing to fight back when they took away his power, he has now lost what limited ability to get things done that he had to begin with. Even under your set of premises, this is a very disappointing performance.

[Samuel]

Simon, FDR didn't crush the Bonus Army. That was President Hoover and General McArthur.

[TheHammer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp72GktZi00

Details not only accomplishments, but the obstacles that have been overcome.

I'm gonna comment on a few of those alleged accomplishments, specifically credit card reform, student loan reform, stimulus, Wall Street Reform, and healthcare reform. All but the latter were complete utter failures, especially the stimulus and WS reform, those 2 can be summed up as print a fuckload of money and give it to the fucking banks, then let the banks keep raping us with credit cards & student loans among other things. Credit card & student loan reforms are effectively worthless, banks are carrying on with business as usual and no one's going to jail.

They passed a bunch of laws which sound nice but have absolutely zero effect, there is no enforcement to speak of and they've opened up even more loopholes for the bankers to abuse. Furthermore they've resulted in capital flight from the country which has shown up in the TIC reports, investment in the US has slowed down, stopped, and at times even reversed since Obama's policies were enacted. Healthcare reform is the same thing, it's opened up ton of new ways for the healthcare industry to abuse its consumers, rates have been jacked up substantially and you now get fined if you can't afford or refuse to buy insurance.

You need to look at the actual effects which these "accomplishments" have in the real world. Has it stopped predatory loans? Is the economy actually improving? Are we actually creating jobs? The answer to all the above is no. So what has he accomplished then? Nothing. It's like the time our PM passed a bunch of environmental regulation laws, then shitcanned everyone responsible for enforcing those laws. Net result? A nice feel good PR moment, then business as usual, nothing changed.

You've made a lot of assertions there.

I'll keep an open mind, but I'm gonna have to ask for some evidence to back up your claims.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, FDR didn't crush the Bonus Army. That was President Hoover and General McArthur.

Crap you're right I'm sorry.

I got the timing wrong. DAMMIT.

[Zinegata]

Meh, I don't really think the electorate voted Obama to have civilian trials for known terrorists. Polls do show support for that is slim at best.

But Obama has failed in a lot of other areas where the populace wanted him to shake up things - i.e. coming down hard and fast on the frauds who caused the mortgage collapse.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Meh, I don't really think the electorate voted Obama to have civilian trials for known terrorists.

They aren't "known terrorists"; they have been accused of terrorism, by people known to pay bounties for accused "terrorists" without bothering to ask for evidence, as well as indulging in lies and torture. And now we are supposed to trust "trials" by the same people who did all this. Pushing them through some kangaroo military tribunal with a pre-ordained verdict will accomplish...what?

[Zinegata]

You mean "alleged" terrorists like KSM who the 9/11 Commission - not a military show trial - specifically pointed out as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks?

And should they catch Bin Laden, he should also be treated as an "alleged" terrorist despite actual videos of him praising the 9/11 attacks and saying it was successful beyond his wildest dreams?

Your argument is BS context switching. The populace is against civilian trials because they want people like KSM either dead or locked away forever. Because people like KSM are fucking terrorists who murdered innocent people and are a danger to society.

They aren't Americans anyway so as far as the populace is concerned American liberties aren't being threatened and the foriegners who don't like it can whine to the Hague.

Pretending that all of the Gitmo detainees are innocent Muslims (some of them are - but far from all) who should be granted full rights as American citizens - even though they are not citizens - is precisely the kind of BS that turned the public decisively against the civilian trials in the first place.

[Lord of the Abyss]

You mean "alleged" terrorists like KSM who the 9/11 Commission - not a military show trial - specifically pointed out as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks?

On what evidence? What we tortured out of him or someone else?

And should they catch Bin Laden, he should also be treated as an "alleged" terrorist despite actual videos of him praising the 9/11 attacks and saying it was successful beyond his wildest dreams?

Of course, just like any other criminal.

Your argument is BS context switching. The populace is against civilian trials because they want people like KSM either dead or locked away forever. Because people like KSM are fucking terrorists who murdered innocent people and are a danger to society.

They aren't Americans anyway so as far as the populace is concerned American liberties aren't being threatened and the foriegners who don't like it can whine to the Hague.

We haven't restricted our brutality and railroading to foreigners. And even if we did, just being non-American doesn't make you less than human. Hell, less than animal; we treat animals better. All you are doing is arguing that the average American is scum, a sadistic bigot. Which is true in my opinion, but hardly a recommendation.

[Zinegata]

On what evidence? What we tortured out of him or someone else?

See, again more BS. Skirting around the fact that KSM is an actual terrorist as opposed to just admitting you're a shithead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

The 9/11 Commission was started in 2002, and released in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

KSM was captured by the Pakistanis only in 2003, and his capture was only officially acknowledged by the US in 2006.

Was KSM tortured? Yes. Did this affect the 9/11 Commission? Not really - because the capture was kept secret until 2006 and they named KSM as the architect behind 9/11 based on already existing evidence - like his known ties to Al Qaeda.

Hell, KSM even flat-out told Al Jazeera in 2002 that he was one of the masterminds behind the attack:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/ma ... .terrorism

So again, unless you can show evidence that KSM is not a terrorist, shut the fuck up. KSM is a terrorist. This was known before they captured and tortured him. You have yet to refute this and instead engage in dishonest misdirection.

Of course, just like any other criminal.
...

the average American is scum, a sadistic bigot. Which is true in my opinion, but hardly a recommendation.

Yeah, thanks for hypocritically classifying most Americans as sadistic, bigotted scum without sufficient trial or evidence and thus demonstrating that you're just a big of a bigot as you think Americans are.

[Zaune]

Innocent until proven guilty and a jury of their peers, Zinegata. Is that too much to ask?

[Lord of the Abyss]

the average American is scum, a sadistic bigot. Which is true in my opinion, but hardly a recommendation.

Yeah, thanks for hypocritically classifying most Americans as sadistic, bigotted scum without sufficient trial or evidence and thus demonstrating that you're just a big of a bigot as you think Americans are.

If I was somehow holding those "average Americans" in a prison camp and had a history of using lies and torture to "prove" them guilty then your attempt to pretend there's an equivalence would have some relevance, but I'm not and I don't, so it doesn't.

Innocent until proven guilty and a jury of their peers, Zinegata. Is that too much to ask?

Apparently. No doubt because there's an excellent chance most of these people would be found not guilty in a real court.