Ban on Gitmo military trials to end

[Simon_Jester]

Hellion, I don't think Hammer deserves a defense, given what he's throwing around.

I said that many of them are probably deserving of imprisonment. That's just playing the odds. I'm reserving actual judgement until after evidence has been presented. As I said, if I'm wrong I'll admit it. I'll be shocked, but I'll admit it.

Are you betting that most of them are probably not deserving of imprisonment?

I would.

And in general, I call bull on your attempt to sidestep this. You have yet to name any person who poses a serious threat if let out of Guantanamo. You have yet to name any reason to think any of those people are so dangerous. And yet they must be kept chained up like ravenous monsters for fear that they'll break loose and kill us all?

Bullshit.

But deep down I think most people would make that same bet.

Most people also elected Hitler.

[/quote]Now now. Only a third of people voted for him before he was in a position to start delivering on promises. It wasn't until after the elections had ceased to matter that most people voted for him.

[Dark Hellion]

Sorry if that was unclear. It was not a defense of Hammer but a call for a more general change of tone. I think Hammer is being unreasonable as well, but I do wonder how much of this is his completely reasoned thoughts as opposed to hasty opinions made out of a misguided defense of national pride.

I just think that it would be much more conducive for this forum to discuss the actual flaws of the U.S. and analyze the reasoning behind them and the practical solutions than the current dialogue which involves condemning the flaws and attempting to draw shaky historical analogues to past atrocities with varying levels of attention payed to proper contextualization.

[Thanas]

Sorry if that was unclear. It was not a defense of Hammer but a call for a more general change of tone. I think Hammer is being unreasonable as well, but I do wonder how much of this is his completely reasoned thoughts as opposed to hasty opinions made out of a misguided defense of national pride.

I just think that it would be much more conducive for this forum to discuss the actual flaws of the U.S. and analyze the reasoning behind them and the practical solutions than the current dialogue which involves condemning the flaws and attempting to draw shaky historical analogues to past atrocities with varying levels of attention payed to proper contextualization.

What is the proper contextualisation then? Obviously, as you think you are qualified to judge what is the appropriate level, you must have a pretty well thought-out plan for that.

[PeZook]

Does anybody else think the US is just plain fighting the wrong war?

Inner city gangs and drunk drivers have killed, in the last decade, more American ciizens than all terror attacks in history, yet you spent a trillion on a war on terror (and pissed away much of your international standing...and contributed to the overall death toll...)

Yet it seems that keeping a suspected terrorist in prison is more important than trying to lower your stagerring murder rates.

[Gandalf]

Yet it seems that keeping a suspected terrorist in prison is more important than trying to lower your stagerring murder rates.

It's easier. Duh.

Combating that murder rate would require way more police, social programs that might curb poverty and not pay off for a decade, or gun control. There's no easy answers there.

[wautd]

The fact is that many of the people held at Guantamo ARE dangerous. Obama can't simply throw open the doors and let all of them go.

Why not? Seriously, why not? There are people now free who have done far more harm, both to the world and to America in particular.

I just had a wonderful mental image of american bankers being sent to prison. After all, not only did they caused the global economic crisis, they even got richer from it.

Does anybody else think the US is just plain fighting the wrong war?

One could say the "war on terror" has been hugely counterproductive, but since its objective always has been so vague we can only guess.

[Dark Hellion]

Sorry if that was unclear. It was not a defense of Hammer but a call for a more general change of tone. I think Hammer is being unreasonable as well, but I do wonder how much of this is his completely reasoned thoughts as opposed to hasty opinions made out of a misguided defense of national pride.

I just think that it would be much more conducive for this forum to discuss the actual flaws of the U.S. and analyze the reasoning behind them and the practical solutions than the current dialogue which involves condemning the flaws and attempting to draw shaky historical analogues to past atrocities with varying levels of attention payed to proper contextualization.

What is the proper contextualisation then? Obviously, as you think you are qualified to judge what is the appropriate level, you must have a pretty well thought-out plan for that.

Notice that the operative word was "forum" not "thread". I have already stated that I think Gitmo is immoral and that ideally it should never have happened and should be closed. I was talking in general of attempts in other threads to characterize certain U.S. politicians with people like Pinochet. The "Bush Junta" members should (and easily can) be judged and condemned upon the merits of their own misdeeds without necessity to engage in the childish practice of labeling everyone you don't like with some universally reviled title. We are supposed to be a board were you don't win a debate by being the first to call your opponents Nazis.

I think that the variety of evidence of governmental misbehavior is readily strong enough to stand on its own without rhetorical flourish. If this board prides itself on the level of its discussion such rhetoric should be unnecessary and can come across as "twisting the knife". Almost all of us Americans on this board know our government is fucked up, our system damn near broken and that because of our size and power that this hurts others. Many of us also feel powerless to do anything about it because as previously mentioned the system is broken. And because of modern information flow we can hear the litany of our sins against the world every day, in exhaustive detail with but a few seconds of googling. It only takes a source and a verification to convince us of the next atrocity someone committed in the name of jingoism or imperialism or racism or all the other ugly -isms that seem to have consumed our society. I see little reason to kick us when we are down with some extra verbal trimmings. Instead of provoking discussion on the problem, it just provokes antagonism.

Yes, there are large segments of America that should hear that kind of stuff, but SDN in not large segments of America but a much more select audience. And this isn't saying don't continue to tear down America. We are big kids, we can take it and could use to lose some of our misplaced price. Just don't be petty about it because it teaches nothing and reflects poorly.

[Thanas]

Notice that the operative word was "forum" not "thread". I have already stated that I think Gitmo is immoral and that ideally it should never have happened and should be closed. I was talking in general of attempts in other threads to characterize certain U.S. politicians with people like Pinochet. The "Bush Junta" members should (and easily can) be judged and condemned upon the merits of their own misdeeds without necessity to engage in the childish practice of labeling everyone you don't like with some universally reviled title. We are supposed to be a board were you don't win a debate by being the first to call your opponents Nazis.

To my knowledge, neither I nor anybody else here has labelled the USA a nazi nation. If you tell me where and if it should happen, then feel free to drop me a PM and I will clamp down on that.

People however have labelled the USA a number of other less than favorable terms - corporatist, fascist, belligerent etc, and these terms are applicable. You may not like it, but they are.

I think that the variety of evidence of governmental misbehavior is readily strong enough to stand on its own without rhetorical flourish. If this board prides itself on the level of its discussion such rhetoric should be unnecessary and can come across as "twisting the knife". Almost all of us Americans on this board know our government is fucked up, our system damn near broken and that because of our size and power that this hurts others. Many of us also feel powerless to do anything about it because as previously mentioned the system is broken. And because of modern information flow we can hear the litany of our sins against the world every day, in exhaustive detail with but a few seconds of googling. It only takes a source and a verification to convince us of the next atrocity someone committed in the name of jingoism or imperialism or racism or all the other ugly -isms that seem to have consumed our society. I see little reason to kick us when we are down with some extra verbal trimmings. Instead of provoking discussion on the problem, it just provokes antagonism.

Let's be clear here. We are not going to enforce some kind of civility standard. FWITW, I try to be as civil as possible when posting.

Yes, there are large segments of America that should hear that kind of stuff, but SDN in not large segments of America but a much more select audience.

Really now? On this very same board we recently had several distinguish members repeating several slices of propaganda about wikileaks, for example. Seems like you have a very selective reading of the board.

And this isn't saying don't continue to tear down America. We are big kids, we can take it and could use to lose some of our misplaced price. Just don't be petty about it because it teaches nothing and reflects poorly.

Your two first sentences of this paragraph are completely hilarious, given that the rest of your post is just "don't be mean to us".

As for your last, I would like you to list several examples of people being petty about the USA torturing people or any other story.

[Dark Hellion]

To my knowledge, neither I nor anybody else here has labelled the USA a nazi nation. If you tell me where and if it should happen, then feel free to drop me a PM and I will clamp down on that.

People however have labelled the USA a number of other less than favorable terms - corporatist, fascist, belligerent etc, and these terms are applicable. You may not like it, but they are.

I wasn't saying people call the USA a nazi nation specifically, but was referring to the general internet phenomena of calling the opponent a nazi for an easy victory.

For example, lets go with George W. Bush. He was an incompetent moron who started a highly dubious war to try to one up his daddy. Now, many of his actions were illegal, immoral and as such he should be held accountable for them. Whether he ever will be is a debate about political realities. But he was not the dictators he has been compared to on this board. He was not Caligula or Pinochet. He was not a good person, but it cheapens both the crimes he committed and the criminals he is compared to if you so callously make the analogy. Its just like whenever some right-winger calls something a holocaust. Its cheap rhetoric that serves no purpose other than inflaming portions of the audience.

Same thing with saying the U.S. is fascist. Now there are definitely authoritarian and fascistic tendencies at work within the system and these should be pointed out and argumentatively demolished. But it is still (barely) a democracy and we don't have mass political executions or the other stereotypical trademarks of fascism as the connotations of the word imply.

Let's be clear here. We are not going to enforce some kind of civility standard. FWITW, I try to be as civil as possible when posting.

I was not asking for a civility standard. I don't give a fuck if someone wants to use mean words. But I think that there has been a decline in the rhetorical standard, which there are already myriad rules for. Asking that the commentary be directed at the issue at hand and not expanded to present implication about an entire nation of people is entirely reasonable. Think about how pissed you would be if someone implied that because those neo-nazis took over that small town's governance that Germans were all Nazi sympathizers. Now think about how it might piss of someone like me who lives in Chicago when it is implied all Americans are racist because of the anti-immigration stance of Arizona, which is thousands of fucking kilometers away.

Really now? On this very same board we recently had several distinguish members repeating several slices of propaganda about wikileaks, for example. Seems like you have a very selective reading of the board.

And I am rather sure that other Americans pointed this out as well. People will always be misinformed, mislead, or believe the convenient lie. This does not mean the audience fits with the average Joe. How many times have people had to point out the impracticality of certain systems in the U.S. because of the simple size of the country to Europeans? Does this imply that the board's Europeans have some inherent problem with geography or that sometimes otherwise intelligent people can believe stupid things or have stupid ideas?

Your two first sentences of this paragraph are completely hilarious, given that the rest of your post is just "don't be mean to us".

As for your last, I would like you to list several examples of people being petty about the USA torturing people or any other story.

Again, you should be mean but it should be remembered that there is a difference between criticism and demagoguery and that that difference can be very thin, especially when dealing with the barrier of ESL to American English and how connotation and denotation can shift. To return to a previous example, calling someone a Fascist in America is either a dire insult implying all the worst things from WWII or the kind of petty thing a teenager calls their parents.

As for other pettiness, there is the often vacuous commentary about Obama not being left enough. Unless backed with actual commentary about policies its just a cheap way to take a shot that people know will pass by the mods but is virtually identical to some tea-party candidate implying some Republican isn't right enough. If you want more examples I can get some others (I'd prefer PMs for this).

[Thanas]

I wasn't saying people call the USA a nazi nation specifically, but was referring to the general internet phenomena of calling the opponent a nazi for an easy victory.

You know what? I am getting pretty tired of you relating to "general things" when you cannot name a single thing when asked to come up with examples.

For example, lets go with George W. Bush. He was an incompetent moron who started a highly dubious war to try to one up his daddy. Now, many of his actions were illegal, immoral and as such he should be held accountable for them. Whether he ever will be is a debate about political realities. But he was not the dictators he has been compared to on this board. He was not Caligula or Pinochet. He was not a good person, but it cheapens both the crimes he committed and the criminals he is compared to if you so callously make the analogy. Its just like whenever some right-winger calls something a holocaust. Its cheap rhetoric that serves no purpose other than inflaming portions of the audience.

Same thing with saying the U.S. is fascist. Now there are definitely authoritarian and fascistic tendencies at work within the system and these should be pointed out and argumentatively demolished. But it is still (barely) a democracy and we don't have mass political executions or the other stereotypical trademarks of fascism as the connotations of the word imply.

Fascism is actually not contradictory to a democracy, except apparently by your own standards. No dice here. And the current US climate fulfills pretty much every definition of fascism.

I was not asking for a civility standard. I don't give a fuck if someone wants to use mean words. But I think that there has been a decline in the rhetorical standard, which there are already myriad rules for. Asking that the commentary be directed at the issue at hand and not expanded to present implication about an entire nation of people is entirely reasonable. Think about how pissed you would be if someone implied that because those neo-nazis took over that small town's governance that Germans were all Nazi sympathizers. Now think about how it might piss of someone like me who lives in Chicago when it is implied all Americans are racist because of the anti-immigration stance of Arizona, which is thousands of fucking kilometers away.

And I am rather sure that other Americans pointed this out as well. People will always be misinformed, mislead, or believe the convenient lie. This does not mean the audience fits with the average Joe. How many times have people had to point out the impracticality of certain systems in the U.S. because of the simple size of the country to Europeans? Does this imply that the board's Europeans have some inherent problem with geography or that sometimes otherwise intelligent people can believe stupid things or have stupid ideas?

Completely missing my point.

Again, you should be mean but it should be remembered that there is a difference between criticism and demagoguery and that that difference can be very thin, especially when dealing with the barrier of ESL to American English and how connotation and denotation can shift. To return to a previous example, calling someone a Fascist in America is either a dire insult implying all the worst things from WWII or the kind of petty thing a teenager calls their parents.

Or it is actually an accurate description of their political stance. It is funny that you argue for a more educated dialogue when you yourself seem to be barely educated on political philosophies and their definitions.

As for other pettiness, there is the often vacuous commentary about Obama not being left enough. Unless backed with actual commentary about policies its just a cheap way to take a shot that people know will pass by the mods but is virtually identical to some tea-party candidate implying some Republican isn't right enough.

That Obama is not left enough is pretty much a part of the public record by now. So once more, this comes down to "waah. They are being mean to me." No dice here. And again, without specific links it is very hard to judge your stance.

If you want more examples I can get some others (I'd prefer PMs for this).

No PM. If you want to accuse members of this board, at least have the balls to do it in public. Concrete examples, with links.

[Eleas]

Your point on due process was that before we can imprison anyone you have to "determine if they in fact should be imprisoned at all". You are incorrect. Individuals are often detained on suspicision of committing an offense, and it is not until trial that guilt or innocense is determined and thus if they should have been imprisoned at all.

I suppose I should really said "determine if in fact a crime has occurred". Whenever a person is arrested, it should be in response to something identifiable. It was this that I referred to, your nitpicking nonwithstanding.

Of course, all this is only true if the arrest is made by the police. Let's instead say that they are "arrested" by gang members high on PCP. They are then brought before a "court" where the guy who arrested them also serves as judge, prosecutor and defendant. That analogy actually corresponds with the situation we have, unlike the one you devised. And that is probably also the reason you think it's irrelevant. After all, reality is your enemy.

The rest of your comment is irrelevent.

No, it is not. Unlike your posts, mine contain actual points which you need to address instead of feebly trying to wave away. You claim there's a crime going on, and that if someone was near the scene, 'he would be arrested' by an unknown but benevolent force that just coincidentally must the be the United States. You have not established why this is the case, or why it is just, or on what grounds an arrest would be made, or defined the crime in question.

There is no possibility of impartial behaviour from the US in this instance. The US has no right to be their judge, because the US was the one fucking with them in the first case.

Evidence of impartiality being impossible?

Now you're just trolling, and transparently so. My meaning was perfectly fucking clear. True, in the technical sense it is possible, in the same way that it's possible that if you pet a wolverine it won't try to maul you.

Now, having acknowledged that I technically used the wrong term, I will also note that this was the only aspect of what I said that you dared address, meaning you have no actual rebuttal.

GITMO detainees won't get shit. There's no way in hell if we go by the precedent I gave.

Says what? Your gut feeling?

Relevant part bolded. This is the quality of TheHammer's argument. He can repeat your words back at you, but he won't understand their meaning.

As I've said over and over again, I'm not presuming to pre-judge any of the prisoners, therefore I don't need to fucking show they are guilty.

But you have already judged them -- the majority of them -- as being guilty for the crime of being captured by the US.

I said that many of them are probably deserving of imprisonment.

Without any justification whatsoever. Yes.

That's just playing the odds. I'm reserving actual judgement until after evidence has been presented. As I said, if I'm wrong I'll admit it. I'll be shocked, but I'll admit it.

The odds of what? Tell me, if I were to hijack a random bus and put the passengers in prison, would it be "playing the odds" to conclude most of them are guilty of... uh...something? After all, you have made no attempt to even tenuously connect them to a crime, and you have certainly not explained why the people arresting them had any right to do so.

Are you betting that most of them are probably not deserving of imprisonment?

Absolutely. Why? Are you betting you're not deserving of imprisonment yourself? See, I'm betting you really do, and that's apparently a compelling reason.

[TheHammer]

I wasn't saying people call the USA a nazi nation specifically, but was referring to the general internet phenomena of calling the opponent a nazi for an easy victory.

You know what? I am getting pretty tired of you relating to "general things" when you cannot name a single thing when asked to come up with examples.

I can't be certain, but I believe he was probably referring to this:

But deep down I think most people would make that same bet.

Most people also elected Hitler.

I admit I got drawn out into an argument I really didn't want to make. While I feel like the majority of the people at Guantanamo bay are "bad guys", I do not have any evidence of it. It is just a gut feeling. So when someone asks me to defend it, I really don't have tangible proof and I'm sorry I even stated my opinion on the matter. As evidence comes out, I'm sure it will be seen whether my "gut feeling" was right, or if it was way off base.

That being said, the whole reason I started posting in this thread was to dispute the idea, becoming increasingly common, that Obama is simply Bush 2.0 when the reality is he's doing the best he can given the political climate. As an idealist, its easy to sit back and chuck stones at something and say "You don't go far enough" rather than to look at the fact that significant steps were in fact made. It seems like everyone expected Obama to come in and undo eight years of Bush policy over night. Well as a realist, I know its not going to work that way. I can appreciate that these things take time, Obama has a lot of fish to fry and has Republicans who in many cases seem to be opposing him out of sheer spite. And I think a little credit is due for what has been done, and a little patience required for further steps to be taken.

[TheHammer]

Your point on due process was that before we can imprison anyone you have to "determine if they in fact should be imprisoned at all". You are incorrect. Individuals are often detained on suspicision of committing an offense, and it is not until trial that guilt or innocense is determined and thus if they should have been imprisoned at all.

I suppose I should really said "determine if in fact a crime has occurred". Whenever a person is arrested, it should be in response to something identifiable. It was this that I referred to, your nitpicking nonwithstanding.

Of course, all this is only true if the arrest is made by the police. Let's instead say that they are "arrested" by gang members high on PCP. They are then brought before a "court" where the guy who arrested them also serves as judge, prosecutor and defendant. That analogy actually corresponds with the situation we have, unlike the one you devised. And that is probably also the reason you think it's irrelevant. After all, reality is your enemy.

In all cases, I'd be arrested by an "authority", and prosecuted and judged by that same "authority". It doesn't change the order of things that you first apprehend suspects based on initial information, and later determine whether that initial information was valid and warranted further detention of those suspects. Loosely put, you don't first put a person on trial, then later arrest them for that trial. Even in a domestic court, I'd be required to post bail to be let out before trial, and yes Bail is sometimes denied if I were to be a flight risk. Your complaints about whether or not the US is a valid "authority" is beside the point. In areas controlled by the US Military they are the defacto authority.

The rest of your comment is irrelevent.

No, it is not. Unlike your posts, mine contain actual points which you need to address instead of feebly trying to wave away. You claim there's a crime going on, and that if someone was near the scene, 'he would be arrested' by an unknown but benevolent force that just coincidentally must the be the United States. You have not established why this is the case, or why it is just, or on what grounds an arrest would be made, or defined the crime in question.

No, the rest of your America bashing is in fact irrelevent to the point I want to make which is the order of events involved in apprehending suspects and when they are put on trial.

There is no possibility of impartial behaviour from the US in this instance. The US has no right to be their judge, because the US was the one fucking with them in the first case.

Evidence of impartiality being impossible?

Now you're just trolling, and transparently so. My meaning was perfectly fucking clear. True, in the technical sense it is possible, in the same way that it's possible that if you pet a wolverine it won't try to maul you.

Now, having acknowledged that I technically used the wrong term, I will also note that this was the only aspect of what I said that you dared address, meaning you have no actual rebuttal.

GITMO detainees won't get shit. There's no way in hell if we go by the precedent I gave.

Says what? Your gut feeling?

Relevant part bolded. This is the quality of TheHammer's argument. He can repeat your words back at you, but he won't understand their meaning.

More America Bashing and personal attacks. The point I'm making is that your gut feelings tells you that the US trials will be slated against the suspects regardless of evidence. You don't have any actual facts to back up that assertion.

I said that many of them are probably deserving of imprisonment.

Without any justification whatsoever. Yes.

No justification that is acceptable to you anyway.

That's just playing the odds. I'm reserving actual judgement until after evidence has been presented. As I said, if I'm wrong I'll admit it. I'll be shocked, but I'll admit it.

The odds of what? Tell me, if I were to hijack a random bus and put the passengers in prison, would it be "playing the odds" to conclude most of them are guilty of... uh...something? After all, you have made no attempt to even tenuously connect them to a crime, and you have certainly not explained why the people arresting them had any right to do so.

Are you betting that most of them are probably not deserving of imprisonment?

Absolutely. Why? Are you betting you're not deserving of imprisonment yourself? See, I'm betting you really do, and that's apparently a compelling reason.

You could make the bet you just proposed. It would be a poor bet, but nothing would stop you from making it. Maybe you think I'm making a poor bet. If so, just say so and leave it at that. I'm not trying to change your mind, therefore its not really a debate is it?

[Simon_Jester]

It seems like everyone expected Obama to come in and undo eight years of Bush policy over night.

No, but I was hoping he would come in and undo one year of Bush policy in one year. Or two years of Bush policy in two years. Maybe even three or four years of Bush policy in two years. But that's optimistic, I'd have settled for a one-for-one exchange: one year of Obama cancelling out one year of Bush. I didn't think that was unreasonable of me to expect- that Obama could undo in one year what Bush did in one year.

Hell, I would be more or less satisfied if could undo one year of Bush policy; we do have a depression for Obama to worry about and that takes a lot of his time too. I understand that.

It has now been two years. I would have liked Obama to undo three or four years of Bush policy. I would have expected Obama to undo two years of Bush policy. I would have been more or less satisfied if Obama had undone one year of Bush policy.

I have been disappointed.

[TheHammer]

It seems like everyone expected Obama to come in and undo eight years of Bush policy over night.

No, but I was hoping he would come in and undo one year of Bush policy in one year. Or two years of Bush policy in two years. Maybe even three or four years of Bush policy in two years. But that's optimistic, I'd have settled for a one-for-one exchange: one year of Obama cancelling out one year of Bush. I didn't think that was unreasonable of me to expect- that Obama could undo in one year what Bush did in one year.

Hell, I would be more or less satisfied if could undo one year of Bush policy; we do have a depression for Obama to worry about and that takes a lot of his time too. I understand that.

It has now been two years. I would have liked Obama to undo three or four years of Bush policy. I would have expected Obama to undo two years of Bush policy. I would have been more or less satisfied if Obama had undone one year of Bush policy.

I have been disappointed.

If Obama could have devoted all of his energy to simply "undoing Bush", then maybe things could have proceeded faster. Problem is, he's also got challenges of his own administration to overcome. Lets not overlook the fact that some big big things that the left was wanted for a long time have occured under Obama. DADT repeal, healthcare reform, etc.

[Eleas]

In all cases, I'd be arrested by an "authority", and prosecuted and judged by that same "authority". It doesn't change the order of things that you first apprehend suspects based on initial information, and later determine whether that initial information was valid and warranted further detention of those suspects. Loosely put, you don't first put a person on trial, then later arrest them for that trial. Even in a domestic court, I'd be required to post bail to be let out before trial, and yes Bail is sometimes denied if I were to be a flight risk. Your complaints about whether or not the US is a valid "authority" is beside the point. In areas controlled by the US Military they are the defacto authority.

No, it is not beside the point. You were the one talking about actual guilt or innocence. That presumes validity and, yes, adherence to actual justice. Not just the authority of naked force.

No, the rest of your America bashing is in fact irrelevent to the point I want to make which is the order of events involved in apprehending suspects and when they are put on trial.

Oh? So there is in fact a tangible crime for which these people are arrested? Do share. Of course, in light of all the facts that Thanas, Edi and PeZook (apologies if I missed anyone) have enumerated, in many cases the crime did not merit being sent to Gitmo, and there is ample evidence that many were innocent.

The difference between you and the rest in this thread is that they are willing to back up their assertions.

More America Bashing and personal attacks. The point I'm making is that your gut feelings tells you that the US trials will be slated against the suspects regardless of evidence. You don't have any actual facts to back up that assertion.

A bald-faced lie, and evident to anyone reading this thread. I already gave evidence of one precedent for restitution, and you countered it by claiming my example was a gut feeling sprung out of a desire to make America look bad. Furthermore, Thanas has described the travesty of justice afforded the prisoners, and we already know they're being held in conditions that are in no way reconcilable with the lawful treatment of prisoners. This thread alone has furnished me with example upon example in favour of my case. You have supplied...

...well, your own insistence that it's going to work out fine, plus a blithe disregard of all other points. You then call me an "America Basher" and imply I'm twisting the facts to suit my political beliefs, again with not a shred of evidence.

Where was I? Oh, right. The American military, having done all this, was discovered. They promised to end the abuses, but continued. Now this self-same organization wants to hold internal courts under its own auspices and within its own apparatus to sentence the prisoners. You may wait to see the results of this obviously impartial process. For myself, I am not obligated to dignify this idea by calling it anything less than a kangaroo court, so I will not.

Without any justification whatsoever. Yes.

No justification that is acceptable to you anyway.

Try me. Any sort of attempt at building your argument (i.e. sources, logical argument, attempts to back up your work) would be a good first step.

The odds of what? Tell me, if I were to hijack a random bus and put the passengers in prison, would it be "playing the odds" to conclude most of them are guilty of... uh...something? After all, you have made no attempt to even tenuously connect them to a crime, and you have certainly not explained why the people arresting them had any right to do so.

You did not address this at all, either.

Are you betting that most of them are probably not deserving of imprisonment?

Absolutely. Why? Are you betting you're not deserving of imprisonment yourself? See, I'm betting you really do, and that's apparently a compelling reason.

You could make the bet you just proposed. It would be a poor bet, but nothing would stop you from making it. Maybe you think I'm making a poor bet. If so, just say so and leave it at that. I'm not trying to change your mind, therefore its not really a debate is it?

A fair question. The thing is, as Thanas illustrated, it's not just you who subscribe to this mentality. The idea of sending these people on to Guantanamo "because they're in here for some reason" represents the exact same sort of muddy thinking, and that makes it as good a reason as any to call you on it.

[TheHammer]

In all cases, I'd be arrested by an "authority", and prosecuted and judged by that same "authority". It doesn't change the order of things that you first apprehend suspects based on initial information, and later determine whether that initial information was valid and warranted further detention of those suspects. Loosely put, you don't first put a person on trial, then later arrest them for that trial. Even in a domestic court, I'd be required to post bail to be let out before trial, and yes Bail is sometimes denied if I were to be a flight risk. Your complaints about whether or not the US is a valid "authority" is beside the point. In areas controlled by the US Military they are the defacto authority.

No, it is not beside the point. You were the one talking about actual guilt or innocence. That presumes validity and, yes, adherence to actual justice. Not just the authority of naked force.

No, the rest of your America bashing is in fact irrelevent to the point I want to make which is the order of events involved in apprehending suspects and when they are put on trial.

Oh? So there is in fact a tangible crime for which these people are arrested? Do share. Of course, in light of all the facts that Thanas, Edi and PeZook (apologies if I missed anyone) have enumerated, in many cases the crime did not merit being sent to Gitmo, and there is ample evidence that many were innocent.

No, I'm saying that at the point of aprehension, we are not at the point of determining guilt or innocence. All you are doing is looking back with 20/20 hindsight. The examples you cited appeared to show instances where the US had bad intelligence, or was outright lied to by individuals. But that's the only thing that gets sorted out via trial, where a defense can present evidence etc.

The difference between you and the rest in this thread is that they are willing to back up their assertions.

As I stated earlier, I regret saying my thoughts on the odds of most of these men being guilty. Whether I believe it or not, there is not enough evidence either way to make a definitive statement. But that doesn't invalidate the rest of my points.

More America Bashing and personal attacks. The point I'm making is that your gut feelings tells you that the US trials will be slated against the suspects regardless of evidence. You don't have any actual facts to back up that assertion.

A bald-faced lie, and evident to anyone reading this thread. I already gave evidence of one precedent for restitution, and you countered it by claiming my example was a gut feeling sprung out of a desire to make America look bad. Furthermore, Thanas has described the travesty of justice afforded the prisoners, and we already know they're being held in conditions that are in no way reconcilable with the lawful treatment of prisoners. This thread alone has furnished me with example upon example in favour of my case. You have supplied...

...well, your own insistence that it's going to work out fine, plus a blithe disregard of all other points. You then call me an "America Basher" and imply I'm twisting the facts to suit my political beliefs, again with not a shred of evidence.

Its already been acknowledge that Guantanamo under Bush held prisoners in horrible conditions. But under Obama, prisoner treatment has significantly improved.

Where was I? Oh, right. The American military, having done all this, was discovered. They promised to end the abuses, but continued. Now this self-same organization wants to hold internal courts under its own auspices and within its own apparatus to sentence the prisoners. You may wait to see the results of this obviously impartial process. For myself, I am not obligated to dignify this idea by calling it anything less than a kangaroo court, so I will not.

Aside from their continued detention, what "abuses" are you referring to? My understanding is that living conditions were improved, citing one of the articles Thanas posted. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49884.html

The odds of what? Tell me, if I were to hijack a random bus and put the passengers in prison, would it be "playing the odds" to conclude most of them are guilty of... uh...something? After all, you have made no attempt to even tenuously connect them to a crime, and you have certainly not explained why the people arresting them had any right to do so.

You did not address this at all, either.

Your analogy is flawed. Guantanmo detaninees were not selected "at random". There was some initial reason to detain these men. Are some of them there due to faulty intelligence? Being handed over by unscrupulous individuals? Certainly. But I'd expect many of the "long term detentions" would be because there was more to it than that. Again, I don't have hard facts because I'm not privy to such information. As the trials go on, I'd assume we'd hear more on the reasons why each man was detained.

You could make the bet you just proposed. It would be a poor bet, but nothing would stop you from making it. Maybe you think I'm making a poor bet. If so, just say so and leave it at that. I'm not trying to change your mind, therefore its not really a debate is it?

A fair question. The thing is, as Thanas illustrated, it's not just you who subscribe to this mentality. The idea of sending these people on to Guantanamo "because they're in here for some reason" represents the exact same sort of muddy thinking, and that makes it as good a reason as any to call you on it.

I think I've said all I can say on that matter.

[Thanas]

No, I'm saying that at the point of aprehension, we are not at the point of determining guilt or innocence. All you are doing is looking back with 20/20 hindsight. The examples you cited appeared to show instances where the US had bad intelligence, or was outright lied to by individuals. But that's the only thing that gets sorted out via trial, where a defense can present evidence etc.

Right. Evidence which cannot challenged if it is declared secret, evidence which cannot be made public etc is not evidence at all.

Its already been acknowledge that Guantanamo under Bush held prisoners in horrible conditions. But under Obama, prisoner treatment has significantly improved.

Please list the significant improvements and show how they even approach a reasonable standard of detainement. Fun fact - even if they were being held in five-star hotels, the mere fact that not one of them had a day in court makes it an unreasonable detention.

Aside from their continued detention, what "abuses" are you referring to? My understanding is that living conditions were improved, citing one of the articles Thanas posted. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49884.html

Your reading comprehension is poor to nonexistent if you think that article in any way says conditions were significantly improved.

Your analogy is flawed. Guantanmo detaninees were not selected "at random". There was some initial reason to detain these men. Are some of them there due to faulty intelligence? Being handed over by unscrupulous individuals? Certainly. But I'd expect many of the "long term detentions" would be because there was more to it than that. Again, I don't have hard facts because I'm not privy to such information.

Are you for real? The CIA picked up people because they only happened to share the last name with someone on their list. And then kept them for several years despite knowing about this. And then they tried to squash any trial or investigation into that matter. What makes you think they deserve any trust when they have been shown unwilling to fess up to their mistakes?

PS: The woman who made that mistake was recently promoted to a senior position in...guess what, updating the list of people searched for.

As the trials go on, I'd assume we'd hear more on the reasons why each man was detained.

No you would not, because these are secret trials.

I think I've said all I can say on that matter.

In short, you got no answer besides your gut feeling.

Concession accepted.

[Simon_Jester]

If Obama could have devoted all of his energy to simply "undoing Bush", then maybe things could have proceeded faster. Problem is, he's also got challenges of his own administration to overcome. Lets not overlook the fact that some big big things that the left was wanted for a long time have occured under Obama. DADT repeal, healthcare reform, etc.

DADT repeal occurred only after Obama received repeated kicks in the ass from the left to get moving; I see no reason to doubt that he'd have tolerated the policy indefinitely were it not for the fear that his own voter base will abandon him... which he gets no credit for. The same goes for his recent decision to stop defending DOMA: things you do under duress do not count to your credit.

Likewise, the health care reform bill turned into a huge disappointment for a lot of the people who supported it, because instead of a government-run system of insurance (or even the option of one), we get a system administered for profit by the very same people who made such a mess of the existing system.

The results Obama has obtained in this way are not large enough to justify the fraction of his administration he's spent obtaining them.

For the same reason, my complaint is not that Obama 'did not devote all his energy to undoing Bush.' It is that he did not devote any real fraction of his energy to undoing Bush. After, in effect, campaigning against Bush to win the 2008 election (which was very much a referendum on Bush, which is why the Republicans lost so decisively), Obama squandered the momentum his campaign had built up. He came into office promising 'change' and then didn't even visibly try to change critical things.

The government is still secretive, still shows arrogant disdain for human rights issues, still engages in a long-term war of undefined scope and duration against undefined opposition, and continues to enact intrusive security procedures that act to harass American citizens. I could tolerate all this, and Obama's failure to undo the Bush abuses, if in exchange we'd gotten a "new New Deal" along the lines of what we got in 1933-34: major domestic policy reforms with an eye to fixing our broken financial sector and curbing plutocratic elements in our society.

We didn't get that either.

Progressives in America are getting very little from Obama, most of it grudgingly. And America is suffering, and will continue to suffer, for it. The fact that he has done something, that he has not spent two years doing nothing but sit on his thumb, is not good enough. Not when he explicitly identified himself as a candidate people could vote into office to make things different.

If Obama doesn't stand for change, what does he stand for? Aside from Obama, I mean.

[Thanas]

Obama did not even try to change Bush policies (well, he apparently banned torture, but then claimed the right to kill US citizens). From day one, he has done nothing but stymy any legal challenges, protected the torturers and even went so for as to expand many of the programs of Bush.

[TheHammer]

No, I'm saying that at the point of aprehension, we are not at the point of determining guilt or innocence. All you are doing is looking back with 20/20 hindsight. The examples you cited appeared to show instances where the US had bad intelligence, or was outright lied to by individuals. But that's the only thing that gets sorted out via trial, where a defense can present evidence etc.

Right. Evidence which cannot challenged if it is declared secret, evidence which cannot be made public etc is not evidence at all.

I believe the new rules on evidence prohibit this as it was specifically cited by the defense as an unfair practice. Essentially, what is said is that if the evidence is of a secret nature trial is not going to be brought at all, thus a person ends up in the "third group" where they are detained without trial but having their status reviewed every six months. Thus persons in that group will eventually face trial when the evidence against them is no longer secret.

Its already been acknowledge that Guantanamo under Bush held prisoners in horrible conditions. But under Obama, prisoner treatment has significantly improved.

Please list the significant improvements and show how they even approach a reasonable standard of detainement. Fun fact - even if they were being held in five-star hotels, the mere fact that not one of them had a day in court makes it an unreasonable detention.

Well, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" aka torture have been stopped. I'd say that's quite an improvement. It may still not be adequate in your eyes, but it is a signficant improvement none the less.

I've got more details below, although they don't specifically apply to GITMO, they do illustrate the change in tone under Obama.

Aside from their continued detention, what "abuses" are you referring to? My understanding is that living conditions were improved, citing one of the articles Thanas posted. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49884.html

Your reading comprehension is poor to nonexistent if you think that article in any way says conditions were significantly improved.

Oh really? Quoted from the article, bolding is mine:

"The administration has significantly improved conditions. They have built a new prison to house the growing number of detainees — which has almost tripled since 2009.

The administration has also improved transparency — allowing journalists and human rights organizations to visit. Its means of determining whom to detain, however, has not kept pace with the physical improvements.

To be sure, detainees now get a hearing approximately every six months. This alone represents important progress. Under the Bush administration, detainees had no opportunity to make their case. They languished in a cramped, windowless Soviet-era prison for years — not even knowing the charges against them. Many were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including systematic sleep deprivation and stress positions. That practice appears to have been eliminated as well. "

Your analogy is flawed. Guantanmo detaninees were not selected "at random". There was some initial reason to detain these men. Are some of them there due to faulty intelligence? Being handed over by unscrupulous individuals? Certainly. But I'd expect many of the "long term detentions" would be because there was more to it than that. Again, I don't have hard facts because I'm not privy to such information.

Are you for real? The CIA picked up people because they only happened to share the last name with someone on their list. And then kept them for several years despite knowing about this. And then they tried to squash any trial or investigation into that matter. What makes you think they deserve any trust when they have been shown unwilling to fess up to their mistakes?

I acknowledge that mistakes were made in identity. Still does not mean that people were "taken at random".

PS: The woman who made that mistake was recently promoted to a senior position in...guess what, updating the list of people searched for.

Bueracracy in action? I'm not trying to justify the personnel management for the CIA or any other government entity.

As the trials go on, I'd assume we'd hear more on the reasons why each man was detained.

No you would not, because these are secret trials.

I believe that the point was that the new trials would not be "secret". I believe the administration will go to great lenghts to make them as transparent as possible. The Tribunals are the best that can be done currently because Obama doesn't have much other choice in the matter thanks to congressional interference. More on that in this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nistration

[Thanas]

I believe the new rules on evidence prohibit this as it was specifically cited by the defense as an unfair practice. Essentially, what is said is that if the evidence is of a secret nature trial is not going to be brought at all, thus a person ends up in the "third group" where they are detained without trial but having their status reviewed every six months. Thus persons in that group will eventually face trial when the evidence against them is no longer secret.

Which is, given typical US classification, up to fifty years. Effectively a life sentence. Great going there, idiot.

Well, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" aka torture have been stopped. I'd say that's quite an improvement. It may still not be ad-equate in your eyes, but it is a signficant improvement none the less.

An inadequate improvement is no improvement, especially as it does not address the issue of illegal detention.

Oh really? Quoted from the article, bolding is mine:

"The administration has significantly improved conditions. They have built a new prison to house the growing number of detainees — which has almost tripled since 2009.

The administration has also improved transparency — allowing journalists and human rights organizations to visit. Its means of determining whom to detain, however, has not kept pace with the physical improvements.

To be sure, detainees now get a hearing approximately every six months. This alone represents important progress. Under the Bush administration, detainees had no opportunity to make their case. They languished in a cramped, windowless Soviet-era prison for years — not even knowing the charges against them. Many were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including systematic sleep deprivation and stress positions. That practice appears to have been eliminated as well. "

Yeah, and you just happened to forget the various other stuff like how there are still no fair trials etc.

Your analogy is flawed. Guantanmo detaninees were not selected "at random". There was some initial reason to detain these men. Are some of them there due to faulty intelligence? Being handed over by unscrupulous individuals? Certainly. But I'd expect many of the "long term detentions" would be because there was more to it than that. Again, I don't have hard facts because I'm not privy to such information.

Are you for real? The CIA picked up people because they only happened to share the last name with someone on their list. And then kept them for several years despite knowing about this. And then they tried to squash any trial or investigation into that matter. What makes you think they deserve any trust when they have been shown unwilling to fess up to their mistakes?

I acknowledge that mistakes were made in identity. Still does not mean that people were "taken at random". [/quote]

Once again missing the point. Are you that stupid or just obfuscating?

Bueracracy in action? I'm not trying to justify the personnel management for the CIA or any other government entity.

Yes you are, as this is at the heart of the issue. You claim they are dangerous, yet the criteria for why they are dangerous were drawn up by incompetents.

I believe that the point was that the new trials would not be "secret". I believe the administration will go to great lenghts to make them as transparent as possible. The Tribunals are the best that can be done currently because Obama doesn't have much other choice in the matter thanks to congressional interference. More on that in this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nistration

Ah yes, he has no choice, right.

There are several compelling reasons why the use of torture-obtained evidence is barred by every civilized country for use in prosecution, and has been barred for decades if not centuries. A primary reason is because the most basic norms of Western morality demand that torture not be rewarded, which is what happens when the fruits of it are admissible in court to prosecute people. Those who say that Obama is justified in imprisoning people without charges because the evidence against them was obtained via torture and is thus unusable in court are repudiating this long-standing Western moral principle by justifying imprisonment based on evidence obtained by coercion (we know they're guilty because of the evidence we got from torture, so we have to detain them).

But the moral repugnance of this position is even worse than that: at least people who are prosecuted using torture-obtained evidence have the opportunity to defend themselves in court and to call into question the reliability of that evidence. But what Obama is doing -- and what some of his supporters are defending -- is to deny detainees even that opportunity. Obama is keeping these people imprisoned without any charges, and then pointing to secret torture-obtained evidence to justify that imprisonment. He's not even prosecuting them using torture-obtained evidence. He's going beyond that: he's imprisoning them without bothering to prosecute them, while his supporters publicly claim that we know they're guilty -- or "dangerous" -- by citing untested, unseen evidence that the government claims can't be used because it was coerced. Anyone who supports indefinite detention on this ground is doing something much worse than justifying the use of torture-obtained evidence to prosecute someone: they're justifying imprisonment without trials based on evidence they know -- and which they admit -- was obtained by torture.

If you're someone who wants to claim to find torture repugnant: fine. But if you simultaneously justify the imprisonment of people based on evidence obtained by torture, then your protestations are meaningless. Wanting to use evidence obtained by torture is functionally incompatible with claims of finding torture morally unacceptable. After all, what's the point of barring the use of torture-obtained evidence in trials only to then imprison people anyway without trials based on that very evidence?

Then there are the glaring empirical flaws with this excuse for indefinite detention, i.e., we know they're Dangerous but can't prosecute them because of torture. Here's the most obvious flaw: among progressives, liberals and most other critics of the Bush torture regime, the idea that "torture doesn't work" long enjoyed sacred status. This is what anti-torture advocates claimed over and over and over again: torture doesn't work because it's unreliable, produces false confessions, causes the person to say whatever they need to say to make the torture stop, etc. etc.

If that's true, then what possible justification is there for assuming that someone is guilty -- that they're a Terrorist who is Too Dangerous To Release -- if the only real evidence against them was obtained via torture? Doesn't that mean, by definition, that the evidence is unreliable and shouldn't be used to assume their guilt or dangerousness? And if there is evidence beyond that obtained by torture, then why can't they be prosecuted?

Put another way, with regard to those individuals whom Obama has ordered imprisoned without trials based on the notion that they cannot be prosecuted but are too dangerous to release, only 1 of 2 possibilities exist; either:

(1) there is substantial evidence that they're guilty independent of the torture-obtained evidence, in which case they can be prosecuted using that legitimately obtained evidence, or,

(2) the only real evidence against them is evidence obtained by torture, which means that it's unreliable, which means that no decent person should be assuming they're guilty -- or deserving of imprisonment -- based on such evidence.

What's the way out of that dilemma for those who claim that Obama's indefinite detention order is justifiable because of all the dangerous Terrorists we can't prosecute due to Bush's torture? This excuse has never made any sense because of this glaring contradiction, and I've been posing this same question for over a year to those defending Obama's indefinite detention scheme on the "blame-Bush's-torture" ground and I could never get an answer. What is the answer?

Meanwhile your link is also very comical.

All detainees remain free to challenge the legality of their detention in US federal court, through the habeas corpus process. Ultimately, the only detainees who will be subject to the order will be those who lose their habeas cases.

Which is missing the point that every such attempt to do so has been squashed by the administration. Now, if there are suddenly new trials, I'll eat my word, but Obama has used the state secrets doctrine every time when this came up.

[Thanas]

Oh, btw, the executive order still contains the state secret doctrine:

In exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to protect national security, including intelligence sources and methods, the PRB may determine that the representative must receive a sufficient substitute or summary, rather than the underlying information. If the detainee is represented by private counsel, the information provided in subsection (a)(4) of this section shall be provided to such counsel unless the Government determines that the need to protect national security, including intelligence sources and methods, or law enforcement or privilege concerns, requires the Government to provide counsel with a sufficient substitute or summary of the information.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... o-bay-nava

[TheHammer]

I believe the new rules on evidence prohibit this as it was specifically cited by the defense as an unfair practice. Essentially, what is said is that if the evidence is of a secret nature trial is not going to be brought at all, thus a person ends up in the "third group" where they are detained without trial but having their status reviewed every six months. Thus persons in that group will eventually face trial when the evidence against them is no longer secret.

Which is, given typical US classification, up to fifty years. Effectively a life sentence. Great going there, idiot.

I never said it was perfect. Merely that its better than they had under Bush where they had no such review and no chance for their status to change for the better.

Well, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" aka torture have been stopped. I'd say that's quite an improvement. It may still not be ad-equate in your eyes, but it is a signficant improvement none the less.

An inadequate improvement is no improvement, especially as it does not address the issue of illegal detention.

I don't think that statement holds water. An improvement is an improvement plain and simple. My point was never about illegal detention, merely that treatment of prisoners had improved under Obama.

Oh really? Quoted from the article, bolding is mine:

"The administration has significantly improved conditions. They have built a new prison to house the growing number of detainees — which has almost tripled since 2009.

The administration has also improved transparency — allowing journalists and human rights organizations to visit. Its means of determining whom to detain, however, has not kept pace with the physical improvements.

To be sure, detainees now get a hearing approximately every six months. This alone represents important progress. Under the Bush administration, detainees had no opportunity to make their case. They languished in a cramped, windowless Soviet-era prison for years — not even knowing the charges against them. Many were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including systematic sleep deprivation and stress positions. That practice appears to have been eliminated as well. "

Yeah, and you just happened to forget the various other stuff like how there are still no fair trials etc.

You asked me to show how the article detailed "significant improvement" and I did. I never said we had reached an ideal situation, merely that steps had been taken towards that direction.

I acknowledge that mistakes were made in identity. Still does not mean that people were "taken at random".

Once again missing the point. Are you that stupid or just obfuscating?

My point is that if you are going to use an analogy you should use one that is applicable and valid. Guantanamo prisoners weren't taken at random. You may not like the criteria under which they were taken, however that does not mean criteria did not exist.

Bueracracy in action? I'm not trying to justify the personnel management for the CIA or any other government entity.

Yes you are, as this is at the heart of the issue. You claim they are dangerous, yet the criteria for why they are dangerous were drawn up by incompetents.

I've already withdrawn my opinion as far as the percentage guilty vs innocent. It was immaterial to the rest of my points and not something I care to argue further.

I believe that the point was that the new trials would not be "secret". I believe the administration will go to great lenghts to make them as transparent as possible. The Tribunals are the best that can be done currently because Obama doesn't have much other choice in the matter thanks to congressional interference. More on that in this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nistration

Ah yes, he has no choice, right.

Yeah, he has no choice. He's tried to transfer prisoners to other countries but no one seems too interested in taking any of them. He is prohibited by congress from trying them in the United States. So he's left with his current option.

There are several compelling reasons why the use of torture-obtained evidence is barred by every civilized country for use in prosecution, and has been barred for decades if not centuries. A primary reason is because the most basic norms of Western morality demand that torture not be rewarded, which is what happens when the fruits of it are admissible in court to prosecute people. Those who say that Obama is justified in imprisoning people without charges because the evidence against them was obtained via torture and is thus unusable in court are repudiating this long-standing Western moral principle by justifying imprisonment based on evidence obtained by coercion (we know they're guilty because of the evidence we got from torture, so we have to detain them).

But the moral repugnance of this position is even worse than that: at least people who are prosecuted using torture-obtained evidence have the opportunity to defend themselves in court and to call into question the reliability of that evidence. But what Obama is doing -- and what some of his supporters are defending -- is to deny detainees even that opportunity. Obama is keeping these people imprisoned without any charges, and then pointing to secret torture-obtained evidence to justify that imprisonment. He's not even prosecuting them using torture-obtained evidence. He's going beyond that: he's imprisoning them without bothering to prosecute them, while his supporters publicly claim that we know they're guilty -- or "dangerous" -- by citing untested, unseen evidence that the government claims can't be used because it was coerced. Anyone who supports indefinite detention on this ground is doing something much worse than justifying the use of torture-obtained evidence to prosecute someone: they're justifying imprisonment without trials based on evidence they know -- and which they admit -- was obtained by torture.

If you're someone who wants to claim to find torture repugnant: fine. But if you simultaneously justify the imprisonment of people based on evidence obtained by torture, then your protestations are meaningless. Wanting to use evidence obtained by torture is functionally incompatible with claims of finding torture morally unacceptable. After all, what's the point of barring the use of torture-obtained evidence in trials only to then imprison people anyway without trials based on that very evidence?

Then there are the glaring empirical flaws with this excuse for indefinite detention, i.e., we know they're Dangerous but can't prosecute them because of torture. Here's the most obvious flaw: among progressives, liberals and most other critics of the Bush torture regime, the idea that "torture doesn't work" long enjoyed sacred status. This is what anti-torture advocates claimed over and over and over again: torture doesn't work because it's unreliable, produces false confessions, causes the person to say whatever they need to say to make the torture stop, etc. etc.

If that's true, then what possible justification is there for assuming that someone is guilty -- that they're a Terrorist who is Too Dangerous To Release -- if the only real evidence against them was obtained via torture? Doesn't that mean, by definition, that the evidence is unreliable and shouldn't be used to assume their guilt or dangerousness? And if there is evidence beyond that obtained by torture, then why can't they be prosecuted?

Put another way, with regard to those individuals whom Obama has ordered imprisoned without trials based on the notion that they cannot be prosecuted but are too dangerous to release, only 1 of 2 possibilities exist; either:

(1) there is substantial evidence that they're guilty independent of the torture-obtained evidence, in which case they can be prosecuted using that legitimately obtained evidence, or,

(2) the only real evidence against them is evidence obtained by torture, which means that it's unreliable, which means that no decent person should be assuming they're guilty -- or deserving of imprisonment -- based on such evidence.

What's the way out of that dilemma for those who claim that Obama's indefinite detention order is justifiable because of all the dangerous Terrorists we can't prosecute due to Bush's torture? This excuse has never made any sense because of this glaring contradiction, and I've been posing this same question for over a year to those defending Obama's indefinite detention scheme on the "blame-Bush's-torture" ground and I could never get an answer. What is the answer?

Again, I'm not arguing we have reached the ideal situation. Just that we've made significant progress not found under Bush.

Meanwhile your link is also very comical.

All detainees remain free to challenge the legality of their detention in US federal court, through the habeas corpus process. Ultimately, the only detainees who will be subject to the order will be those who lose their habeas cases.

Which is missing the point that every such attempt to do so has been squashed by the administration. Now, if there are suddenly new trials, I'll eat my word, but Obama has used the state secrets doctrine every time when this came up.

I guess we'll see right?

[Edi]

Tl;dr version of TheHammer's posts:

"I have absolutely shit for evidence, but will insist on repeating my arguments like a broken record and will not concede anything."