All this outrage over the "prolonged detention" policy is premature and ignores what HAS changed.

Let me start by saying that no one knows the details of how this is going to be carried out because, well, I don't even think the administration has completely fleshed all the details out because its a pretty messy situation to begin with.

On one hand, there are people being detained that most likely are terrorist scum. I use the word scum because that is what they are. These people would kill you and your entire family just because you are American and they would do it without remorse. Lets not allow the fact that the Bush administration turned the war on terror into a strawman for political gain cloud our judgement here. Bill Clinton was fighting this same fight too, the only difference is, the Clinton administration didn't try and turn it into a political tool. So I repeat, let us not allow our contempt for the Bush administration and the way it used this fight to cause us to ignore the fact that we are dealing with REAL threats.

And that brings me to the other hand. In the mixture of detainees, we have people that are truly guilty of terrorism, we have people that MIGHT be guilty of something and we have people that probably should have never been detained to begin with. Thrown into that mixture, we have a past administration that engaged in illegal practices in order to obtain information, most likely the darkest of those practices was used against the people that bore the highest burden of guilt. In a world where we follow blind justice, those are the very people who's cases should be thrown out and should be released because the evidence is tainted. But I think we all know exactly how that could and would play out, politically and on the battlefield. It would not go well. At. All.

This is truly a mess the Bush administration created. And I don't care if John McCain had became President or Ralph Nader had become President. This is a "damned if you", "damned if you don't" situation for sure. To do the "right thing" and still ensure that you are putting the safety of the American public first is almost impossible, at least if you are trying to do the "right thing" immediately. Even if President Obama went straight for the path of "trying and convicting" based on LEGALLY obtained evidence, there is a huge possibility the Senate might move to block it. What a tangled web we weave eh?

After listening and reading the President's level headed and deeply thought out national security speech from the other day, I have decided that I will give this more time before passing judgement. This is different from how I treated the Bush administration on the matter because the Bush administration was in the act of creating the problem and the Obama administration is in the act of trying to fix the problem. That has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with putting the issue in proper context. If John McCain were President today and had been making the same changes to the war issues and the issues concerning detainees, I would afford him the same luxury. Because at the end of the day, much of what President Obama HAS done is a dramatic change from what we have been dealing with.

For one, President Obama actually cares about fixing this, unlike the past administration that broke it. Actually WANTING to make it right is a huge change. President Obama has also put an end to the practices that tainted these cases in the first place. And that means we should not expect to see tainted cases of this nature in the future. President Obama's policy will more than likely either lead to the convictions or releases of MOST of the detainees in question. And most of all, President Obama is being forward with the American people on how he intends to handle this. Thats probably the biggest change of all.

The "prolonged detention" solution is probably not the best solution for the long term. But for the short term, it calms down the hawkish rhetoric coming from both Democrats and Republicans in the house and will help move forward the funding initiatives the President needs approved in order to do ANTHING AT ALL in the first place. And unlike the previous administration, President Obama is obviously allowing the other branches of law to have their say without trying to circumvent them (hurray for a return to respect for balance of power). If Obama were George Bush, he would just issue a signing statement or something of that nature and do whatever the hell he wants. I don't want to see that happen, even when it serves the causes I support.

So I'm asking everyone to take a step back, see where this goes and see if the severity of the situation lessens because of the way the President is handling it. Given Obama's track record, I'm suspecting it will.

Let me also add that if by this time next year, if it looks like the administration is backing off of ending these wars and continuing the policies of the Bush administration and had done nothing to try and sort out the legal messed it created, I'll be the first to criticize.

But for now, we should look at this as adults and realize that these things can't be sorted out within a matter of months.

to fix it. It would be easier to ignore it and let the people rot. I appreciate the fact that this president isn't taking that route. What a mess.

If we put them into civilian courts then they would most likely automatically walk for what has happened to them, as FrenchieCat has pointed out a few times here on DU. I want them to have a trial, not just walk.

I don't like what is happening, but I don't have a solution.

so as the beat the rush when the rightwigers chime in.

Yes, it seems only adults can take the time to try to understand the complexity of this screwed up situation.

Thanks for the fine OP. :thumbsup:

that has signed off on the concepts of "preventive detention", let alone "prolonged detention".

Last night John Meacham compared it to Lincoln suspending habeas and FDR rounding up Japanese Americans and he's no screaming leftist, he's a historian.

Just sayin'... you asked for one.

The examples of WWII and the ACW are not very convincing, since both those wars are generally considered successes for the US. It would be more convincing if you used examples that clearly led to an American failure. Also, an appeal to expertise citing only human rights or constitutional scholars is not that convincing, either, in the context of a national security issue. Your opposition will reply that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" or some such.

so called "national security" over the spine of our Constitution is not something I will engage in.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. We know that because we're still here. :)

OK, you convinced me.

out and giving us your views..

"For one, President Obama actually cares about fixing this, unlike the past administration that broke it. Actually WANTING to make it right is a huge change. President Obama has also put an end to the practices that tainted these cases in the first place. And that means we should not expect to see tainted cases of this nature in the future."

Exactly! Obama hasn't resolved this yet with his advisors, so we can't possibly know how we'll proceed as a nation. What the President DID say is that he and his cabinet etc. intend to construct a legal framework that honors our values/constitution to deal with the situation.

Good to know I'm not alone.

A fucking Mess not easily cleaned up...
In fact, most of what Bush left is exactly like that.

Thanks.

instead of saying "Obama=Bush" more and more often. She's smarter than that.

better get their act together pronto.

Obama: possible lifetime detention with no charges good, Bush bad. Sickening.

So K&R. :D

The other labels concede the lie that this is "about them" (and their "threat"), rather than the truth that it is about us (and our fear).

Obama has adopted the core bushcheney/beltway paranoia -- about how to treat "evildoers" on both sides of the permanent "war on terra."

His "track record" is http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">years of impeachophobia, http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982898-7.html">immunity for spying telecoms, and http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">immunity for torturers.

The more you wait, the worse it gets.

---

Obama has information that we don't have.

...that's why it's called a threat. There is uncertainty.

The same is true for your statement about "information" Obama has. Having "more" information only seems to be "better." Much of the information may be speculative, or completely false and misleading.

And even if all the information is accurate as to the "threat" posed by those we have imprisoned in conflict with our core values -- and btw, if it were accurate and/or reliable, there'd be no difficulty in dealing with them through the usual lawful channels -- it still remains uncertain whether their release or further unlawful confinement increases or decreases any overall threat.

But more importantly, what does make us as a people? In the eyes of the world and our children? And what does it do to our own sense of freedom and openness as a society -- to our sense of safety.

As I http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5708585&mesg_id=5709706">posted in another thread -- we'd dealt fairly successfully with global terrorism long before cheney scurried into his bunker to obsess over every 1% threat he could imagine. One and a half successes by terrorists in multiple decades is hardly cause for permanent national alarm.

What the paranoid detention suggestion (and all his other waronterra actions) betrays is that it was too audacious a hope to think that Obama was not the creature of the beltway that he has appeared to be all along -- that somehow taking the oath would transform him into a voice of reason, as opposed to a voice of continued fear-based rationalization.

The notion that our founding principles, our Constitution, and the treaty promises our greater generations made have suddenly become "quaint" and have now failed us -- that we must create "special purpose entities" rather than abide by their collective wisdom and experience -- is the core "non-reality" that will continue to eat like an acid through our social fabric.

---

I'm not so much outraged as more than a little apprehensive. We're not going to recover from the trauma of eight years of living under near-fascism in just a few months either.

as we practice it in this country. Adults are objecting to that proposal. That's what adults do, they listen, make an assessment and respond.

Second, you have no idea if the "terrorist scum" as you call them are the ones who got the worst treatment. That seems to be a free floating assumption on your part.

You go ahead and "give" your president all the time you need to give him. This adult will respond to his proposals as he lays them out. I don't need to wait until more victims are created to participate in this so called democracy.

My assumptions seem to be a lot more soundly based in realistic possibility than yours do at this point.

Knee jerk, knee jerk, knee jerk. That is all you are doing here.

Indefinite detentions is still an anathema no matter how you slice it. I don't care how many people we put on a panel to make the decision. You seem to be rather obsessed with the process but completely unconcerned with the result. If by Obama's own definition, we have people that we can't prosecute but we're not going to let go it's still indefinite detention and it still stinks. I don't give a damn how it's prettied up, I suspect based on some of the posts that I'm not the only one.

See the problem with your argument?

and holding them in case they might someday commit a crime is completely out of line with our Justice system?

You know, when you have core values, it's pretty easy to tell when someone is violating them.

Karaoke Political Culture

To some degree it matters who's in office, but it matters more how much pressure they're under from the public.
—Noam Chomsky

The presumption of innocence is a fairly basic concept, one that we all grew up with and one that is fundamental to American identity.

A child can understand it.

I guess when people stop striving for truth, justice and the American way then things must get complicated very quickly.

Some people here don't have that problem. They see things clearly. They have been right all along, every step of the way.

History does not bode well for regimes that trample basic human rights in the manner that Obama is condoning.

to the safety of Americans. Osama bin Laden has no constitutional rights.

give him certain rights.

We certainly could try him in absentia, right?

So the Constitution provides this right: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Note, a lot of these do not say CITIZENS.

Also an exception for grand jury is allowed during war or public danger.

So, I ask you what are you so afraid of?

"EXTERNAL THREATS"? Are you just making things up?

rather than a separate sub-species of non-human, then he does have basic human rights.

And whatever happened to that other basic tennent of American ideology, the one where all men are created equal? Where did that idea go, I wonder?

If you think that it's enough to just be accused of a crime, and that's all it takes to incarcerate someone forever, then that's cool and all, but it isn't America.

We don't have judges and juries out on battlefields. This falls in the middle and doesn't fit well with either our POW category or criminal category. I don't see what Obama can do but try to come up with a new way of dealing with these threats.

Sort of like the Palestinians are in Israel.

They should have less rights than animals do.

:banghead:

Either they are soldiers and deserve POW status, or, they are criminals. What is this in-between state that you are imagining?

Sounds a little like the rationalizations of Donald Rumsfield, a rationalization that deprives basic human rights from people.

All of you spin masters want to say he swore to defend the american people. That is not true. He swore to defend the constitution, which is the best way to defend the people.

just like Bush and Cheney did.

Habeas corpus just doesn't poll well, sounds so elitist and he has to prove he is bipartisan.

I am very near down to my last straw, not to say he isn't fresh air after the steaming pile of Bush's eight years.

a CRIMINAL MOB RPIG SAID SO!??
These war whores are guilty of election fraud, war profiteering, murder of our troops maiming. So what makes you believe that Anything they said is true?
We know they sexed up 'evidence' of all kinds.
So first we need to find out of these folks they snatched were terrorists
WTF happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I have personally been vilified by these people , called a terrorists put on a no fly list , had my home searched and ransacked because I was an Eyewitness to the election theft in FL when they took our ballots out of our polling place the night of the election and put them in truck mounted shredders.
Why should I believe them if they said it was day time even if I can see the Sun?

"have a past administration that engaged in illegal practices in order to obtain information, most likely the darkest of those practices was used against the people that bore the highest burden of guilt. In a world where we follow blind justice, those are the very people who's cases"

First we need to arrest everyone that had a hand in the election thefts then work our way through the entire unlawful puke regime and examine the evidence against the people we are detaining. I know I would sure as hell want to take some revenge on the US if i was snatched from my home in the Mid east brought to some black site prison then held and tortured.

I wonder how many POW camps Obama is going to build.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Until I see something definitive as to what will be done outside of the executive branch making law outside the rule of law, I oppose it.

Then they could become purists too like us, eh? ;-)

the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't entitle an enemy intent on killing Americans to be released from military custody. Never has, never will.

I reject the new abomination in America.

I just don't think we should do something hasty that will last far beyond the current administration that can be abused. I do not desire in this age of unreason that we reject the premise of due process, habeas corpus, and the many other aspects that have governed jurisprudence in western legal thought.

Maybe you should focus on what it does say.

I suspect you will continue to ignore points made against your argument.

Geneva Conventions should also be ignored, you know people were sold into US custody, right. That does not make them the enemy you are so frightened of, nor does it make them proper POWs, no one is wearing a uniform after all, right. And if they are POWs they should be treated with dignity. America is a better country than your fearful words suggest it should be.

If you think you understand the Constitution so well, then how about displaying some of that knowledge and not argue what it doesn't say.

Is wrong with the presidents new position.

There is no trial for detainees in a military conflict, since they aren't criminal defendants.

And they declared war on Al Queda and anybody who was involved in 9/11 or supported those who were. So this doesn't fall under the criminal law category very well.

There are ways to deal with POW's and they are spelled out. However, we can't just do sweeps of populations, hold them and declare them "enemy combatants" a status offense only determined by the judgement of the president at a particular time, and hold them for as long as our war on terror lasts since we are the only ones that determine when that is. When you think about the fact that acts of terror have been with us many centuries and most likely will remain with us for many centuries, it's not real hard to see where this is going.

evidence that they're one of the bad guys, an enemy.

No one is claiming that Obama can unilaterally make that determination.

The innocent people (which is the majority of them, according to reports) have already been detained now for three additional months while Obama's been in office, on top of the years they've been held. Being outraged over something that has already happened is hardly "premature."

I imagine if you were the one who was kidnapped, detained and tortured for 6 years so someone else could get prize money for your pelt you wouldn't consider outrage after 6 years and 3 months to be "premature."

It's never premature when it's you or your loved ones being tortured. It's only premature when you've already dehumanized them, which is apparent from the wording in your post: "I use the word scum because that is what they are."

The scum are the ones that are known terrorists. Don't pretend that everyone being detained is innocent.

Its premature because you don't know how many people will ultimately be detained, I'm reading less than a handful at this point.

if someone is a "known terrorist," then the EVIDENCE of terrorist activities must be overwhelming, RIGHT? It must exist in abundance--how else would the person be "known" to be a "terrorist"?
But all of a sudden, for some reason, the rule of law does not apply to the criminal activity of "known terrorism." For some secret reason unknown to us mere peons who don't have the lofty knowledge of the "complexity" of the rule of law, these criminal cases fall somewhere outside of a system of laws that served humankind for more than a thousand years--until now, when "terrorism" is so "complex" that LAW NO LONGER APPLIES.

right.

I remember that "promise" by Obama that habeas corpus would be restored STAT, within his first days in office. He indicated that it was of the highest priority. That, like several other "promises," has gone south. I guess it meant it would be "restored" AFTER he had thoroughly dissed it and ignored it. But what do I know? I just hope that "preventive detention" is squashed faster than a bug on a windshield of a car going 70 mph, because in the next right-wing administration, it will be you and me being preventively detained as "dangerous" because a warrantless wiretap (another abuse that Obama is fond of) heard us disparaging the president.

Suppose the information came from an informant and a listening device. Suppose what is recorded shows beyond a doubt that an individual planned to attack America. Suppose the informant and listening device are still operating and providing valuable intelligence that can prevent attacks. Suppose a trial would reveal the informant and the listening device. It wouldn't be an easy decision to make.

and this "informant's" hearsay "evidence" of a "plan" is all there is against this "known terrorist"?

um, normally don't they follow people around for a while and get EVIDENCE--you know, like buying arms or explosives and stuff like that?
I mean, people do get busted all the time on the basis of informants' testimony. Somehow they go to trial.

the people on both ends of the line are engaging in conspiracy to commit a crime. Isn't that punishable by law even if the crime hasn't been committed yet? I am asking sincerely because I don't know. How could those latest 4 "terrorists" that the FBI "foiled" have been apprehended? They did not actually DO anything, yet they were somehow CHARGED with something and ARRESTED. How could that be? Why is that "different" from these hypothetical total-USA-destroying "terrorists" you're talking about?

As bad as it would be to have to release a serial murderer because they forgot to read him his rights, he wouldn't pose nearly the threat a terrorist can. Suppose one blows open a train car full of toxic gas? The potential there is hard to set aside.

so what is their stature now???? do you know?? are they now "known terrorists"????????or are the the innocent sent to gitmo ??????? are they AlQueda?? do you know?????????wtf do you know if the government of crooks didn't tell you????????

so if they tell you ..subject A is a terrorist..how would you know any different ..without a jury and a trial?????????

And what if you are next..or your kid????????

and the government tells you..your kid is a terrorist..but there is never a jury , there is never a trial or never any real justice, or rule of law..your kid just gets held with no chance of being innocent before convicted.. by the government of the USA..to spend their life in total confinement..because dontcha know our government has never done anything nafarious..no siree...

we have become a banana republic and you or your kid are now stuck with this bullshit...because you so easily want to accept this breach of our constitution!!

do you have any idea who one of the first groups to support Hitler were?????????

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL09Aa01.html

http://www.atimes.com

Front Page

SPENGLER
When rabbis liked Hitler: A tale for the Mideast


do some reading here ..will you, and ask..how did it work out for them?

doesn't help your case, it just makes you seems extremely irrational.

No matter how the policy shakes out, we will be punishing people for precrime and/or thought crimes. That is wrong.

is not a 'thought crime.'

Treating AQ membership as a perfectly innnocent status is why the far left of the Democratic party can't be trusted to defend the country.

How exactly does that work?

way that a person joins the mob or terrorist orgs like FARC.

Do you actually have evidence to back up these accusations or do you believe whatever the government tells you about people who have never even been given a chance to defend themselves?

If they don't have the goods to make the case, the courts should set them free.

The problem is that they are being held without trial and the government has no intention on giving them a trial.

They're entitled to hearings to determine whether they're combatants or not.

Second, what criminal statute is that against, when they do it in another country and aren't even US citizens?

That makes as much sense as the government of Uganda deciding that since the KKK organization is a terrorist organization, they will kidnap all US citizens on US soil who have been to a KKK rally along with ten times as many more people who never even were connected to the KKK, ship them to third country, imprison and torture them.

Do you get why that's not constitutional? Why would you support that?

which are getting tiresome.

by itself is enough to justify detention under US and international law.

The US is not required to wait until they massacre of thousands of Americans to do something about it.

We already have "extremist groups" reports coming out from homeland security that basically include us and free republic.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that is SO SCARY, we NEED TO SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION!! everybody RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! the TERRORISTS ARE COMING!

al-qaeda al-qaeda al-qaeda al-qaeda al-qaeda al-qaeda al-qaeda al-qaeda al-qaeda al-qaeda

:scared:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Where almost any right wing idea will be defended as sensible centrist policy by a vocal (immune) few!

on edit: I dont respond to your posts geek tragedy, i've decided you frame shit in dishonest ways.

than the "free the terrorists' crowd here at DU?

We're all about "PROVE they're a terrorist." We don't like "They MIGHT be a terrorist." Why should we?

"Far Left" my ass.

If we have war prisoners that are not being treated according to international conventions, where we've delayed a proper trial for most of them for YEARS and tortured them, and where we've had to release most of them already due to lack of evidence, it's time for clear action.

We have supermax prisons that can hold the "worst of the worst" until they are tried. Many notorious criminals are being held now securely in the federal prison system. Kudos to Dick Durban for stepping up. Tell the rest of the foot draggers that this is what federal prisons are for. AQ operatives aren't the Fantastic Four - they can no more bust out of federal prisons than Noriega or white supremacists or any other inmate in the system.

There's also the World Court at the Hague for those who have allegedly committed crimes against humanity. We should say allegedly until we know of their guilt in a fair proceeding.

President Obama needs to quit triangulating on this one - minimum statements to the press until his policy is being implemented. He needs to tell his politically cowardly critics on the right and milktoast Democrats in Congress that this is a national security matter, that the longer we fail to settle this issue, the more anti-American fodder our enemies have. As swiftly as possible, we will put all remaining prisoners through trial in the U.S. or in the World Court, find places to release the innocent, and close Guantanamo, a black mark on American justice and a burdensome holdover from the Cold War and the age of American imperialism.

End of story. No more excuses, not for Obama or anyone else. Guantanamo is a travesty that needs to be shut down and the world to move forward.

Link: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8412739

There are, to be sure, already some legal tools that allow for the detention of those who pose danger: quarantine laws as well as court precedents permitting the confinement of sexual predators and the dangerous mentally ill. Every day in America, people are denied bail and locked up because they are found to be a hazard to their communities, though they have yet to be convicted of anything. Pres. Obama has so far provided few details of his proposed system beyond saying it would be subject to oversight by Congress and the courts, which is eminently reasonable and constitutional, so until I see his plan, I won't comment further.

latter case any of us can be arrested and held indefinitely (prolonged, the new eupheism) for any reason decided on by the powers that be, which become stronger with every unConstitutional action we allow. This direction taken by Obama is just as dangerous as that of Bush because it demeans our laws and our treaties and most significantly our Consitution. It is more dangerous in the long run that a whole prison of terroists. Who knows who will be president in the future and how fascist he might be! We have just escaped one attempt at tyranny and now Obama expects us to stand still for a new round of Constituional depletion. NOT I.

This is America. We have a Constitution.

We screamed when Chimpy Fucknuts took a dump on the Constitution, but now our guy wants to do the same thing and people are saying, "Well, it's all right, but we just have to give the administration time to come up with a rationalization that will make this horrible situation seem somehow lawful."

Bullshit.

If my brother were seized in a foreign country, held for years without a hearing or even allowed to have representation, and then that country announced that they're going to continue to hold him because he's "dangerous," although there is no evidence that he is, you'd better believe I'd expect my country to do everything it could to get him out, or, at the very least, fair treatment.

This is unacceptable.

If these people are so "dangerous," put them on trial and let our sacred system of justice have its way with them.

After all, isn't this the very system our leaders have been working so hard to protect from this terrible threats?

Oh yeah, everyone at the American Enterprise Institute.

No, they are suspects. We have no idea whether they are guilty or not. That's supposed to count for something in a civilized country. Clinton charged people and brought them to trial. I'm sorry, but your trust in Obama's plan to hold prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial, as oposed to your hatred for Bush having done precisely the same thing, has everything to do with bias. On what do you base your assertion that Obama "actually cares," for instance?

Torture wasn't the only thing that tainted these cases; the very act of holding a suspect (who is NOT a POW) without representation, charges or trial, is a taint unto itself. I kind of doubt the guys in Gitmo who've been there since they were 14 are feeling the same kind of patience to see how it works out. All in all, you've offered no evidence that Obama will do anything other than what he has said he'd do (at least since after he said he wouldn't), other than "Gee, he really seems like a nice guy."

The very idea that we have to throw out the rules by which we've been running our society for centuries, just because of some (possibly) scary dudes, is complete fucking bullshit. And I suggest you imagine reading your very own justifications coming from, say, Charles Krauthammer about the Bush admin before you keep pushing them. The truth is the truth.

"President Obama Announces Tribunal Changes That Bring Them In Line With The Rule Of Law"

Link: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8412739

Pres. Obama has also asked Congress to change the 2006 law on which the current tribunal system is based, so as to make more sweeping reforms in the future. It's too bad so many are so quick to judge instead of giving the DoJ, Congress, and President Obama the time needed to work out the terrible mess BushCo left us.

Neither have shown any inclination to uphold the rule of law.

I can play that game too.

I'll go one further: if you are acquitted of a crime, it was probably on technicality or 1% reasonable doubt, but you're still probably criminal scum.

What a joke this thread is. I knew the moment we got power some on our side would treat the Constitution the same way Bush did.

to SHUT DOWN GITMO! So many others have written all that needs to be said! INDEFINITE DETENTION, is NOT acceptable! I don't care WHOSE name is attached to it!!

But I WAS od the opinion that THIS was ONE of the FIRST things on the OBAMA Agenda! So HOW MUCH TIME, is one of the FIRST THINGS ON HIS AGENDA????

The need to dehumanize is not a characteristic of reasoned argument. It is a characteristic of demagoguery. As for the rest, it's hollowness has been well illustrated by mythsage and others above.

let's prosecute Dick Asshole Cheney for torture.

I'm glad somebody is giving this side of the issue.

I think the answer is very clear to me now.

on so many levels.
There is NO reason not to try these people and turn loose ANY that have no evidence against them..period.
That is how it works, has always worked and will always work just fine.
Yes things can be sorted out quickly. We have the manpower to read these people's case files and to take the necessary steps.
We also have prisons to hold those that have broken the laws that work just fine. All this fear rhetoric is just a load of crap. We have mass murderers locked up in America all over the place and everyone is safe. These "terrorists" will be just fine locked up in American prisons. Period,..end of discussion because if our prisons are so frikkin bad we cant keep prisoners behind bars and the people safe..then we need to just close them all now.
All this babbling about just wait...its ok to keep human beings locked up for what they MIGHT do..is also just crap.
Now is the time, now is the law...NOT whenever we bloody well get around to wanting to do it.
In case none of you that are arguing for indefinite detention don't get it..if they can do it to these people..they can do it to any of us, including YOU and YOUR family.
In case you still don't get it...the right to a fair and speedy trial is one of the civil rights that American soldiers have fought and died for from the beginning of America. Are you just going to trash their deaths and let their deaths be for NOTHING???? The hell with that. Patriots have died to keep these rights..and you yellow belly cowards want to just throw rights away for a promise that you will be kept safe....sheesh! Well throw your own damned rights away but keep your claws off of mine and my families rights!
You want to break the law and make a joke out of the Constitution?
Well you can count me out.
I am an American damn it! America is supposed to be a Nation of Laws and a place we can be proud of. How can you be proud of locking people up indefinitely when you don't even know what they are accused of. Shameful! Just shameful and crap! These are human beings with lives and families. Shame on you enablers!!
You thought it was evil when Bush did it...well it is STILL EVIL AND WRONG!

He is ALWAYS RIGHT!! OMG!! The guy is just amazing - another Churchill!! Another Kennedy! All Hail Obama!! Such a pretty family too!! He has to break promises to keep promises - don't you see it?

... considering how many OPs there are on the GDP homepage that are critical of President Obama at any given hour of any given day.

Victims of wrongs that never happened? What do they want?

The most dangerous part of this is the precedents it sets. Not just from the presidents' actions,but also that any American would defend them.