Obama - all words no substance? ... (the answer seems clear)

[Spang]

What's ridiculous is you seem to think closing Guanto would end torture, or even curb it.

Outlawing rape didn't end torture either, but someone figured it was still a good idea to outlaw it. Closing Guantanamo is no different. It may not end torture or even curb it, but it's still a good idea.

[Leonaerd]

What's ridiculous is you seem to think closing Guanto would end torture, or even curb it.

Outlawing rape didn't end torture either, but someone figured it was still a good idea to outlaw it. Closing Guantanamo is no different. It may not end torture or even curb it, but it's still a good idea.

A world without rape would be much safer. You can't say the same about a world without torture.

[Spang]

You can't compare the two so easily, though. A world without rape would be much safer. You can't say the same about a world without torture.

Sure I can. Torture does not keep us safe, nor does it work. This guy explains it better:

If we need to keep evidence of torture, like photographs, secret, to protect our troops, doesn't that suggest that torture isn't a great way to keep them or us safe? - Josh Marshall

[Nick]

What's ridiculous is you seem to think closing Guanto would end torture, or even curb it.

Hi Leonard,

I don't think closing Guantanamo Bay would end US sanctioned torture. I do hope US torture will end, as well as torture by any other nation (fuck - look at North Korea, I don't see anyone giving a shit about the atrocities going on there?), or any person on any person. I know human nature in certain individuals means that it's going to be a long long process to eradicate human suffering in that respect: thousands upon thousands of lifetimes in an evolotionary sense, if we even were being optimistic Still, it's hardly an ideal worth forgetting just because it requires patience

Ultimately, none of that means Guantanamo shouldn't be closed and torture shouldn't be being enacted on people. It's torture, do we need to get into literal definitions here? It's pretty straightforward

I don't think it would "curb" it on any international or global humanitarianistic basis, but it would "curb" it in the sense that at least it wouldn't be happening to the people in Guantanamo Bay, who are humans like you and I. Whilst there are undeniably extremists kept there that are hellbent on the destruction of the USA in Guantanamo, there are also, and have provably have been, many innocent people who have had years of their life taken away in what are, frankly, unforgiveable conditions, by the US government.

Also, one of the main critiques I've gotten (and perhaps rightfully so) is that I am as extreme as those I rail against. How is the US any different in a national sense when it decries the loss of human rights, whilst perpetuating that same crime? (And that's without even going further into the hypocrisy of that statement when you look deeper into places like Afghanistan, which are in large geographical swathes, absolutely no different than they were before the US crusade to bring Christian Democracy to the region. Which, has absolutely failed pretty much in every respect apart from a few photo friendly heavily defended areas of Kabul. - But that's a whole different discussion argument - yet no less valid for it.)

Most importantly, as Obama himself has said, and any logically thinking person is aware, it's an absolutely idiotic and terrible PR move for the US to keep the place open. Most people aren't aware of the abuse going on, for example, in Agram Airbase, which I also find disgusting, but Guantanamo Bay is media fodder of the richest kind. Keeping that place open is a national disgrace.

I'm not quite sure where you got the impression that I thought all torture in the world would end upon the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

[Leonaerd]

Ultimately, none of that means Guantanamo shouldn't be closed and torture shouldn't be being enacted on people.

It just seems like a waste of breath to make an issue out of something that wouldn't affect what you want affected. You don't use scissors to get weeds out of a garden. My guess is Obama is just waiting for a time when he becomes less popular (inevitable) so that he can close guanto to gain populist support. The place is too valuable a political pawn to use yet.

[Nick]

Perhaps so, I just find that a horrible way to go about living your life, especially if your entire spiel is that you're an honourable Christian man with an ethical backbone. It sends out a pretty bad message of cultural priority as well.

[vn_Tanc]

By keeping the place open, with all reports suggesting the torture is still occurring on a daily basis (hi google), as well as the revival of military trials, an issue Obama previously criticised both implicitly and explicitly, then yeah, I guess if your memory is shorter than a goldfish's and you dislike historical factuality, I could see how it may be considered "hot air".

When did you turn into such a fucking arsehole?

I know exactly what you're complaining about you didn't need to repeat yourself. I asked "what promise"? I'd like to see an actual quote containing an actual promise, please. You know, in the name of this "historical factuality" you're such a fan of. I'm genuiniely interested to find out if there is one or whether you just implied one.

The only "promise" I remember is the one to close Gitmo "as soon as possible". Implicit and explicit criticism is a separate thing from a promise.

[Spang]

I'll help him, click this.

[vn_Tanc]

I'll help him, click this.

That's excellent, thanks.

Seems to me that Nick's indignation is a little premature.

[Aabidano]

That's merely a dishonest interpretation of a larger moral document that the US has decided to push for long enough that even basically intelligent people like yourself seem to have become immune to how absolutely ridiculous a statement that is.

It's the strict legal interpretation as taught to US, UK, AU and as far as know most other armed forces. I understand your point, but it's a legal issue you're referring to, not a moral one.

Per the document you reference, most of those people could be executed without ever leaving the battlefield if the countries capturing them vested that sort of authority on the officers present.

The UN human rights resolutions cover what you're referring to, as do the laws of nearly every civilized country. Not to say that those governments follow them.

[Sylvus]

It just seems like a waste of breath to make an issue out of something that wouldn't affect what you want affected. You don't use scissors to get weeds out of a garden.

Stepping away from Guantanamo, specifcially, for a moment; I would just like to point out how much I dislike that line of reasoning. Using scissors on your weeds wouldn't fix the problem, no, but it might help out a little. At least make it look a little better cosmetically, slow or stop the growth of certain weeds, potentially allow more sunlight, water, etc. to reach the plants that you actually want to grow...

Something does not have to be a panacea to be of benefit. Baby steps.

My guess is Obama is just waiting for a time when he becomes less popular (inevitable) so that he can close guanto to gain populist support. The place is too valuable a political pawn to use yet.

Don't you think that most of the people who would be most impressed by Guantanamo being closed are already pretty staunch Obama supporters? I'd say that the more reasonable explanation is that it does, in fact, take some time to figure out what to do with the detainees and close the place down.

[Xyun]

Not to mention that congress is stonewalling Obama. But nick has sand in his vagina so lets keep criticizing the man a few months into his term about a colossal issue that will take considerable time and political will to resolve. Reality is a bitch, nick, but that's no excuse to ignore it altogether.

[Leonaerd]

Don't you think that most of the people who would be most impressed by Guantanamo being closed are already pretty staunch Obama supporters?

Yes, which is why waiting to close the place would be somewhat of a fortified backbone of key support. By giving the appearance that it was a difficult hurdle to close it down (whether or not that is true is largely irrelevant, stonewalled congress aside), he's locking up votes for next term. Don't you think Obama would rather wait to ride out the recession and then use his major health potion?

I'd say that the more reasonable explanation is that it does, in fact, take some time to figure out what to do with the detainees and close the place down.

There are other places they could fly the detainees overnight. Those employed at Guanto could be utilized anywhere around the world. It would disappear overnight if it had to.

[Nick]

Hey Tanc, wasn't really attempting to be a fucking arsehole It must just come naturally to some of us

Perhaps my impatience is just that, impatient, nevertheless, the revival of military tribunals, even with new guidelines, is a pretty shocking state of affairs.

I was a huge fan of Obama, hell, he was a billion times better than any of the other candidates. Ultimately the problems are systematic, and he is just one man - that's not lost on me.

Still, with rendition sites and such still ongoing its not like criticism isn't valid. As for Xyun's post...well, I'll rise above it in a rare display of not bothering to be a "fucking arsehole".

[Keverian FireCry]

Am I the only one who sees a conscious change in Nick's more recent posts? Seems that Nick is actually encouraging a much healthier exchange of ideas when he takes a moment to consider other peoples opinions instead of earlier posts like:

You're a fucking idiot pseudo intellectual Obama fanboy if ever there was one.

The issue is black and white, you simply have too much to lose, with you're Obama sucking for months on end. The issue is very straightforward to everyone on the planet. American's are the worlds children when it comes to Politics. It's hardly HARD LEFT to wish Guantanamo was closed. Isn't that one of the reasons you voted for him? You fucking half assed shill.

That was directed at one of the most progressive, left-leaning people on this board (Xyun). Anyhow, Nick... I'm glad you seem to be open to discussion instead of insulting anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of what you say.

[Nick]

Hey Kev,

Yeah, that's what I've been going for a little. I guess some of my hysteria has become so boring and ridiculous that even I have become bored of it. Still, I guess time will tell if that continues, and how the VV crowd react to it.

I still no doubt will differ in my opinions to the majority of centre right US folk, but rather than exchange pointless schoolyard insults I'd be happy to go for a bit of conversation.

Although, that could be the final nail in the coffin for VV CE, where death of discourse has only survived on bitter hatred - and even that doesn't seem enough to kickstart a revival. Still, maybe that's only temporary, we shall see!

[Keverian FireCry]

Welcome back!

[Tyek]

Hey Kev,

Yeah, that's what I've been going for a little. I guess some of my hysteria has become so boring and ridiculous that even I have become bored of it. Still, I guess time will tell if that continues, and how the VV crowd react to it.

I still no doubt will differ in my opinions to the majority of centre right US folk, but rather than exchange pointless schoolyard insults I'd be happy to go for a bit of conversation.

Although, that could be the final nail in the coffin for VV CE, where death of discourse has only survived on bitter hatred - and even that doesn't seem enough to kickstart a revival. Still, maybe that's only temporary, we shall see!

I think it is great Nick. If we believe strongly in our views we should still be able to listen to others, respond with our own thoughts and every now and then we find out something we may not have known.

I never understood that with the Catholic Church, boycott something because you don't want to expose minds to it...if their faith is strong why would it matter and if it is not, why do you want them anyway?