Political Nonsense

Guantanamo is a symbol of American brutality that needs to be expunged to the extent possible by closure, as soon as practicable.
.
Just figured that out for yourself, huh?
.
I'll have more to say about how to treat terrorist detainees in my print column this week.
.
Out of your vast expertise in what field?
.
I cannot for the life of me understand why you continue to act as if you had the credibility to issue pronunciamentos on anything.

Not only that Joe, but a town in Montana is practically BEGGING to house at least 100 of the detainees. But the Democrats are still scared of their own shadow for the most part when it comes to a national security issue that they know Republicans will attack them on. President Obama can't erase that yellow strip all by himself.
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/18/hardin-montana-guantanamo/

Joe-Disagree slightly. This is really Political Ineptness. The democrats should very easily defeat cheap political points by the GOP. However, they can't because they have a complete inability to explain their position even when they are 100 percent right. They screw it up every friggin time and stand around looking silly.

From the lonked piece--"It appears to be a tactical retreat. Once the administration develops a plan to close the facility, congressional Democrats are likely to revisit the topic, provided they are satisfied there are adequate safeguards."
.
Yep that's the same as Inhofe. Sheesh.
.
And honestly for a man who frames so many of his positions on fear "If the photos are released men and women will be killed!" I find you writing "Yet another profile in courage." pretty rich.

I must somewhat disagree with this because, as I understand it, the Democratic objection is that Obama has not submitted a plan (with a specific timetable) for closing Guantanamo. No plan, no money. Given the Obama administration's creeping (and creepy)adoption of Bush's GWOT ideology and approach, I think it's reasonable to withhold funding until we see exactly what Obama is planning. If it's basically moving the Guantanamo system to someplace that isn't named Guantanamo, then that's not really worth $80 million.

Also, in what sense does a refusal to give Obama a blank check link Senate Democrats "inextricably" to anything, including the Inhofe bill? Joe, is there anything you can point to which suggests that this is related to support for Inhofe's proposal, rather than support for the notion that Democrats are going to pay for Bush-era programs with better optics. I think a little explication on this point is in order.

It's funny how people keep expecting the Democrats to be something other than the gutless cowards they were when we wanted them to stop the Iraq war.

Mitch Guthman
.
Its not just about not having a plan, several Dems have come out with their Not In My Back Yard bullsh*t. Most recently Jim Webb was just on Tee Vee Sunday saying he didn't want any detainees in Virginia. He even advanced right wing propaganda talking points against the Uigyurs who we never should have detained in the first place. It truly is all about the Democrats not having a pair.

I think I'm going to go ahead and see what is proposed and what the congressional response is before I jump to Klein's conclusion.
.
The story itself is pretty thin. Unnamed source says "X". Democrats want adequate safeguards. Not that the story says what those safeguards might be.
.
This is just JK making ammends for his post below on the National Security numbers favoring Democrats.

Wait a minute, the White House agrees with Congress? It is almost as if JK is trying to stir up some #2.
.
"There's been no change in the date from the executive order," Gibbs said.

Gibbs said Obama will offer more details on his plan in a speech on Thursday.

"We agree with Congress that before resources, that they should receive a more detailed plan," Gibbs said.

Gibbs said the White House will work with Congress on a "timeline that makes sense for us and for them" on the funding, but the timeline for closing the facility is unchanged.
.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-guantanamo-still-closing-in-january-2009-05-19.html

PNNTO
.
No, that's spin from Gibbs. If the WhiteHouse agreed with Congress they wouldn't have requested the money in the first place. If you want to see in living color an example of what JK is talking about I give you Jim Webb from Sunday
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riXrv0e_xpA
.
Notice not only does Webb not want to fund the closing of GITMO until he gets details, he ALSO doesn't think GITMO should be closed on the President's timeline. And for those counting at home thats a reversal by him from earlier this year. BEFORE the Repubs made it an issue.

Well…

Place yourself in the position of a Democratic senator, confronted by this argument from an opponent: "He voted to cut off the funds before we knew what would happen to those confined at Gitmo. That meant we HAD to do something different whether we had a workable plan or not!" Even assuming the propriety of closure, this can't help but look a little cart/horse.

I'm betting there'll be funds to close Gitmo. The immediate question is something different: who put this up for a vote before there was a plan to fund?

FlownOver
.
It was in a bill the White House sent up for war funding and aid to Af/Pak. So they cut it out of the bill and then passed it. But listen to what Webb actually said. He is basically saying GITMO should stay open until all cases there gone to trial. And Webb isn't the only one. Don't be surprised if that NIMBY amendment ends up getting passed. Democrats are just afraid to get hit on national security issues.

So, nothing has changed: Obama still "plans" to close Gitmo according to schedule, Republicans are still lying, shrieking @ssholes and Congressional Democrats still look like unprincipled Nancies. Wake me when something new happens.

Webb doesn't have a history of being a wimp so I'm willing to entertain the idea his thinking has evolved.
.
Durbin is more sensible -- Durbin said: "The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced. And the administration said, 'Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we'll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'"...
"Our prisons are filled with dangerous people, including terrorists. And not a single one has escaped," he said"
.

However this kind of bs is exactly what I expect from Inoffe-
.
"I can't make it any more clear," he said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."
.
Released? So pathetic.
.
Oh wait that was Ole Harry Reid.

Wake me when something new happens.
.
shepherdwong,
.
Need a good long rest, do you?

afguy: I've never been more tired of this sh*t.

I can't make it any more clear," Reid said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."
.
This is a fine example of how we can back ourselves into a corner with the lazy/irresponsible use of language.
.
http://phd9.blogspot.com/2007/06/words-matter.html
.
I've always thought that the word "terrorist" should be defined as anyone who has committed an act of terrorism or anyone who plans on committing an act of terrorism in the future. It seems perfectly reasonable and it encompasses thousands of dangerous people. Unfortunatetly now "terrorist" has been redefined to include anybody who doesn't like the USA plus anybody who happens to occupy any real estate we're targeting at the moment. So we've instantly gone from facing thousands of terrorists to facing millions! No wonder the chickhawks are so scared.
.
I wrote that in 2007 but the phenomenon it describes is even a bigger problem now. "Terrorist" has now become synonymous with 'super-evil-bad-guy." Once you've used the label there's no more discussion allowed as to what the actual situation might be, how dangerous the person in question is or even if the labelling is simply due to something as offensive as a person defending their homeland against an armed and dangerous invader.
.
We have deliberately and with malice, handed over the keys to rational thought and have allowed fear to take over our vocabulary.
.
There are a lot of genuinely dangerous people in the world. There are people, who are to this day plotting to kill Americans en masse. But last time I checked, thinking bad thoughts was not a crime. If it were, the currently shameful American incarceration rate would be dwarfed.

I think I am missing something in this debate. Can somebody please break down for me why these detainees cannot be sent to a) military prisons; or b) maximum security prisons? Are there some type of special rules/laws that prevents this from happening other than blatant cowardice? Some will argue that cowardice is probably too strong a word, but I would disagree. If I'm not mistaken, these detainees cannot walk through walls, chew through steel, or have lasers as eyes --- so why is everybody losing their minds over where they will be held? And why is the public at large falling for it?

I just can't believe that members of congress will brag about our military strength all day and all night, but when it comes down to detaining a group of murderous thugs, they have been running around trying to scare the s*8t out of everybody. Their duty is to educate the public -- if they are going to support this silly position, then they need to come up with more than the NIMBY defense.

In my mind, when it comes down to it, I could care less where they are held, including my own community. I don't give a second thought to the other murderers and rapists that are locked up in maximum security prisons close to where I live -- so why should I care about these detainees? Sheesh. If you are going to wage war against a group of people, you either need to man up, so to speak, or sit the f*%k down. Are elected representatives are making us look like fools.

I think the Idiot who goes by the name of Sen Harry Reid. Has just fu*ked this up six ways to Sunday. My point still stands. The hapless friggin Democrats can't friggin wait to themselves look like idiots. The Republicans should be having a big belly laugh over this.
.
Accepting the right wing's baseless premise, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared in a press conference today, “We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.” In several tense back and forths with reporters, Reid said he opposes imprisoning detainees on U.S. soil, saying flatly, “We don't want them around the United States”:
.
REID: I'm saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That's very clear.
.
QUESTION: No one's talking about releasing them. We're talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.
.
REID: Can't put them in prison unless you release them.
.
QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …
.
REID: I can't make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.
.
Later, Reid repeated that he would not support Guantanamo detainees being transferred to U.S prisons:
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/19/reid-guantanamo/

lawchic22
.
I would put a fine line on your excellent argument. It definitely is cowardice on the part of Democrats, but its blatant partisan politics on the part of Republicans. Had McCain won the election and wanted to close GITMO (which he said he did) Republicans would have had no problem with putting detainees in supermax prisons in their states. But because they know Dems are feckless and because national security has generally been their strong point and Dems weak point they know they can hit Dems there and have them cave. Unfortunately the Dems are being true to their reputations in this instance.
.
For a moment of levity Stephen Colbert talked about this topic last night.
.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/228066/may-18-2009/the-word---tough-cell

Welp, and this is not something I thought I would ever say, in light of gunny's last comment it would seem some of my favorite well informed fellow commenters might well owe Joke...wait I mean Joe Klein an apology. Senae Dems really are cowards.

Oh and just to reiterate from gunny's link here is the update on the Inouye amendment.
.

"President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Secretary Colin Powell, President Obama and I all agree – Guantanamo must be closed. President Obama's approach is a responsible one. [...]

.
“The amendment Chairman Inouye has offered today recognizes that it would be premature for Congress to act before the Administration proposes its plan. I support his amendment. On two important points, however, we do not need to wait for any instruction – and there should be no misunderstanding. Let me be clear: Democrats will not move to close Guantanamo without a responsible plan in place to ensure Americans' safety. And we will never allow a terrorist to be released into the United States.

.
“This amendment is as clear as day. It explicitly bars using the funds in this bill to ‘transfer, release or incarcerate' any of the Guantanamo detainees in the United States. When the Administration closes Guantanamo, we will ensure it does so the right way.”

sgwhiteinfla:

You're spot on in your analysis. I don't think I can fully express how angry this issue makes me. When they were doing the report on this issue on NPR a week or so ago, I literally spent five minutes yelling expletives at my radio. The behavior by both parties has reaffirmed my decision to become an independent after this past election. In some instances, I seriously think that we could put bozo the clown in congress, and no one would know the difference. Republican hypocrisy doesn't surprise me at this point -- it's literally like pointing out that water is wet. But the Dems had a prime opportunity to finally take back some turf on national security issues and they folded like a cheap suit. Some want more details before they give the money, okay, but then what?

What if the president, accurately points out that there are several maximum security prisons around the country that could take these prisoners -- and that it would be helpful if several states took a handful of prisoners to send the message to our allies that they should feel comfortable doing so as well? At that point, I find it hard to believe that the Dems would grow a backbone and say okay, which makes me angry. Someone like Jim Webb could have come forward and said something to the effect that taking on detainees might be politically unpopular, but it is the right thing to do, and that he has confidence in our prison system, and that he would not let the thought of thugs being detained in his state paralyze the country during a time of war.

But silly me, both parties are so busy cowering from difficult positions, or engaging in political hackery, they can't think straight.

I would do the happy dance if Obama at least tried to broach this subject tomorrow during his speech, but that is highly doubtful as well.

lawchic
.
I just vented on my blog so I am pretty sure I can understand your anger and frustration you have over this because we are probably mirror images in that regard. This is the same mentality that led to the FISA bill passing last year with Democratic help because they didn't want to get dinged in the election. Now with a frikkin filibuster proof majority soon on the way Reid still can't find his nads enough to stand up to this silly ass argument. What a frikkin failure he is and everyone who is following him. I honestly wish some Democrat would challenge his position. He is hurting the Democratic party more than any Republican ever could and what ever pennies I have next year will go to his opponent in both the primary and if he makes it out of here I will literally contribute to a Republican to beat him. Its time we got some better Dems in office especially in leadership.

Oh and this is a clip from CNN that the GOP is sending around to gloat.
.