Author Topic: Is the Obama administration's "war on terror" policy more of the same? (Read 3043 times)

Lucerin Red · « **on:** March 30, 2009, 02:00:31 AM »

GREAT video

http://reason.tv/video/show/738.html

relic2279 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2009, 03:27:09 AM »

No offense, but that was the least intelligent propaganda video I've ever seen.

Quote from: from the video near the end

He's gonna be Bush on steroids

Not only is he nothing like Bush, how is he "Bush on roids"?

"he will continue the same foreign policy"

Fucking bullshit. He is trying to make peace with Iran:
http://www.miamiherald.com/obama/story/959206.html

He said he wouldn't shoot the down N. Korean satellite launch:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7970985.stm

Sends his secretary of state on her first mission. Guess where? The second largest economy in the world. (Mind you, it's an important statement of who she vists first)
http://www.freep.com/article/20090216/NEWS07/90216016/1118/RSS
Guess which country Bush Ignored for 8 years... (Hint, it's Japan)

That is opposite of Bush foreign policy. Everything Obama does is a near contrast to Bush policies. He is still a politician, but at if you want to compare him to bush, at least make it worth while. This video is a complete joke. I could compare him to Bush better... (FISA etc...)

Then they're trying to nick him for Guantanamo bay? Saying his closing it is fake? Or forcing it on Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a "NATO" mission. Iraq/war on terror is NOT. These idiots are trying to compare the two. Realize the difference. Don't be a sheep.

Edit: typos

Lucerin Red · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2009, 05:18:23 AM »

Lol, I could say don't be a sheep to you. Every concern they voice in there is completely legitimate. Just because the new secretary of the state is visiting Japan doesn't mean shit. Bush visited Japan himself a number of times while in office. But everything you just listed is completely irrelevant.

Note, what is important in the video: FUCKING PRISONERS AND HOW WE HANDLE THEM!! Did you even listen to a god dammed word that was in there. Rewatch it. The Bush on steroids comment wasn't even talking about his foreign policy.

What you were supposed to take is Obama isn't allowing prisoners in Afghanistan constitutional protection.

That even though he is closing guantanamo bay, Leon Panetta, Denis Blair, and VP Biden have acknowledged that there will be a class of prisoner from Guantanamo, that will neither be taken care of in a civilian court, sent to a foreign jail, or released. What about black sites. Secret locations the CIA uses for prisons and interrogations. Obama suggested they would no longer be used as permanent sites, but they can be used for short term or transition. Who knows how long that will allow for. Which suggests that the policy of rendition will continue. So same shit that was going on in Guantanamo, just in different places.

While Obama has outlawed torture, Dennis Blair, the recently appointed head of the Director of National Intelligence refused to acknowledge waterboarding as torture. Leon Panetta, recently appointed CIA director, has a history of rendition while under Clinton, which Clintons policy and practice meant torture according to an informant. During his confirmation hearing, Panetta left open the possibility of rendition and said that the CIA would continue the practice of rendition in foreign countries , and he indicated that there would be assurances that prisoners would be treated humanly, but that falls short of the standard that the ACLU and liberty groups want.

In a case against a boeing subsidiary, where prisoners were transfered to facilities abroad, the Obama administration is saying that this case cannot move forward hoping to prevent the release of evidence. "Because even discussing this issues would make our national security weaker"

nates1984 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2009, 07:49:20 AM »

Quote

That is opposite of Bush foreign policy. Everything Obama does is a near contrast to Bush policies. He is still a politician, but at if you want to compare him to bush, at least make it worth while. This video is a complete joke. I could compare him to Bush better... (FISA etc...)

The video probably is a joke, I'll give you that, but if you honestly think we're going to have any meaningful change to foreign and monetary policy you're wrong. Slight shifts in policy and how we handle things relic, nothing more. We're still acting like the fucking world police, or are we NOT sending more troops to Afghanistan?

Fidel Casto? Venezuela? NAFTA? Patriot Act? Seems like Obama is continuing the same bullshit in most places. Have we strung up and hung the greedy and criminal bankers yet? Nope, Obama gave them money just like Bush, and it looks like that'll continue. Get back to me when that changes, then I'll believe it when you say things are different.

Go ahead and gobble up the least intelligent mainstream media.

Quote

Note, what is important in the video: FUCKING PRISONERS AND HOW WE HANDLE THEM!!

Fuck the prisoners. If you pick up a gun and fight you should expect as much.

relic2279 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2009, 09:14:51 AM »

I admit, I'll have to rewatch the video later. I was pretty drunk last night when I watched it.

The main thing I remember though, is that I could've compare him Bush better. The video was focusing on the wrong things.

lx4 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2009, 11:12:11 AM »

Yes, the way Obama is handling terrorism is pretty much Bush's policy with a face lift.

Bush's way of protecting America from terrorism was very effective and Obama realizes this. The problem with the way America has handled terrorism is that it has hurt its image in the world and effected the way some Americans view of their own country, all this hurts America. What Obama is trying to do in my opinion is getting rid of the things that hurts America the most like Gitmo (the hate America crowd couldnt wish for a better photo op). But keep the bulk of the anti-terror programs so that America still can have an effective counter terrorism strategy.

For the terrorist this might mean that instead of getting his face cowered with a wet blanket to simulate drowning at Gitmo he will instead get his testicles hooked up to a car battery in Egypt or Jordan. Not much of an improvement for him but its a drastic change in the level of American involvement.

If Obama can get enough of the world to love America again with his charming smile while still protecting his people from the next terror attack then thats a huge success.

AceHigh · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2009, 11:23:59 AM »

Basically he does the same thing as what Microsoft does with Windows 7 after Vista failure.

Still I think it will take more then his smile to make the world content with US again. Loving is out of question for now.

lx4 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2009, 11:32:56 AM »

Most people are stupid.

I spoke with my little brothers guitar teacher. He is like 40 and has long hippie hair and a huge marijuana leaf on his shirt, you know the type. He told me that Obama is the only thing he has ever liked about America.

Everyone knows about Guantanamo because for a long time there was something about it on TV almost every week. Few people knew or care about extraordinary renditions carried out by the CIA.

relic2279 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2009, 11:43:58 AM »

Well I'm pretty sure we've been torturing our enemies under every president since Washington, as probably the case with any other country who was fighting wars of some sort.
The thing with Guantanamo is that it was made public. (Ignorance is bliss?) Now why it was made public who knows. Leaks they say, but I'd guess Bush did it on purpose to scare "terrorists", mind games, etc... Now it seems he's gonna close it and go back to the status quo.

vicious796 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2009, 12:28:34 PM »

Ignorance is bliss. Obama's doing what he knows he can do, using the media outlets to spread what he wants heard. The nation was in love with the man for no real reason and a good amount of people still are. Granted, his approval rating has dropped but people still want to believe in "change". Use the media to your advantage and you have a happy country.

Lucerin Red · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2009, 01:48:08 PM »

I'm not sure where I stand on the whole torture thing, but the one thing I know where I stand on is the detainment of prisoners indefinitely without ever letting them see the inside of a court room. The way things currently are, the US government could bust into your house, throw a sack over your head, and detane you for years without ever telling you why, what exactly you did, etc, just as long as they FELT they had probable cause that linked you to terrorism. They don't have to prove shit to anyone.

lx4 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:39:28 PM »

Quote

The way things currently are, the US government could bust into your house, throw a sack over your head, and detane you for years without ever telling you why, what exactly you did, etc, just as long as they FELT they had probable cause that linked you to terrorism. They don't have to prove shit to anyone.

Yes but are they doing that? Only one US citizen has been captured on US soil and detained indefinitely. That guy had received training at an Al Qaeda camp and is believed to have been plotting to blow up several apartment buildings. So its not something your average Joe has to worry about.

Nikkoru · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:50:09 PM »

Quote from: lx4 on March 30, 2009, 10:39:28 PM

Quote
The way things currently are, the US government could bust into your house, throw a sack over your head, and detane you for years without ever telling you why, what exactly you did, etc, just as long as they FELT they had probable cause that linked you to terrorism. They don't have to prove shit to anyone.

Yes but are they doing that? Only one US citizen has been captured on US soil and detained indefinitely. That guy had received training at an Al Qaeda camp and is believed to have been plotting to blow up several apartment buildings. So its not something your average Joe has to worry about.

How would we know? And what's to stop them from using this power against anyone they want for no reason at all? Isn't it immature to think "as long as you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid"? These things don't get better, we won't suddenly stop being afraid of shadows - there won't be a time when terrorism isn't a threat. You need to draw a line as to what is acceptable for a state to do in the interest of our security - as far as I'm concerned this is so far past it you can barely see it.

relic2279 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:55:50 PM »

Quote from: lx4 on March 30, 2009, 10:39:28 PM

Yes but are they doing that? Only one US citizen has been captured on US soil and detained indefinitely.

Erm.

Maybe for terrorism, but they do it to regular citizens too.

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

He served 4 years before even seeing a judge.

vicious796 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 31, 2009, 12:19:59 PM »

For crimes he did commit.

Lucerin Red · « **Reply #15 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:07:13 PM »

Quote from: vicious796 on March 31, 2009, 12:19:59 PM

For crimes he did commit.

Isn't that for the Jury to decide? In this country you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. What if he didnt commit those crimes, but it looked like he did, and the police threw him in jail for those 4 years and he sat there waiting until he proved it court. How is that fair? A significant number of people that go into the court room are not guilty of a crime. But because we think that they did, we shouldn't give them a chance to defend themselves? It's so fucking easy to sit there and pretend like the government gets everything right and blames all the right people, but they don't always.

I worked for a computer company that worked with defense lawers on cyber crime cases, and there were a number of people that got accused of haneous crimes that the police and prosecution were convinced that they were guilty of, and with some time and work we were able to clear up and get the charges dropped. My mothers friend ran a computer repair center out of their home, and somebody stole his credit card and bought some child porn with it, but the police didn't care. They raided his house and threw him in jail. Luckily he was able to make bail, but it was 3 years before they gave him his computers back. 3 fucking years, do you realize how much money he was out. They destroyed his business's reputation. Those in prosecution are so fucking set on catching their man that innocent people get caught up in this mess.

The government isn't infaliable, and to assume that every person they arrest, detain, and torture without ever letting them see the inside of a court room is the right, guilty person is absolutely ridiculous. And so I say SHAME ON YOU for supporting this haneous and UNCONSTITUTIONAL behaviour. Where is our due process? Where is our freedom? You have no idea how many US citizens have been arrested and detained indefinitely, because they currently don't have to tell us. It's so fucking easy to sit there comfortably in front of your computer and ignore and deny that the what the government is doing is wrong. But just wait until it effects someone in your life. Rarely do these obusive powers go away, they only get stronger. I am particulary ashamed that you support this behavior and call yourself a republican. We are supposed to stand for small government. We don't want big brother.

vicious796 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:34:17 PM »

Whoah, whoah, whoah, slow down buddy. We're talking about what-if there. They knew this was their guy and they were right (he plea'd out of court and went on to write books about it). I'm not defending nabbing the innocent people, I'm for nabbing criminals.

About your friend or whatever, that sucks. I feel for that guy, but it's not all the fault of lawyers and courts. The public weighs in as well. There is no such thing as a perfect judicial system, ours has its own flaws. Child porn is a very touchy subject as it is so throw that on there and you're bound to have people with the wrong impression. Throw in the media coverage for touchy subjects like that (even if it's just a local newspaper) and it gets blown up.

There are people who are found guilty by a jury who are innocent as well. I repeat myself, there is no perfect judicial system. I applaud an investigation that leads to an arrest of a truly guilty party and sympathize with those who are arrested for false pretenses. Yes, it's easy for me to say "tough shit" for some people because I've never had someone I know closely go to jail for years for things they haven't done. I have, personally, sat in jail for a night for things I haven't done though. I know it's not cake and it's embarrassing but what are you going to do? Right all the wrongs of the world? Go for it, you have my support. Find a way to make judgement infalliable and speed up the process of all courts.

My co-worker has been in and out of court for over a year and a half now for a DUI charge. Repeatedly they've delayed his case. Where's the right to a speedy trial? It sucks for him but there's nothing I can do about it. He got nabbed and now has to suffer with it.

So, in short, I wasn't supporting the arrest of someone who did nothing. I supported the arrest of a man that did.

Lucerin Red · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:44:37 PM »

Quote from: vicious796 on March 31, 2009, 01:34:17 PM

So, in short, I wasn't supporting the arrest of someone who did nothing. I supported the arrest of a man that did.

and that is EXACTLY my point. Who decides they were the man that did. It's supposed to be the jury. The police/FBI/CIA/whatnot can absolutely believe that this is there man, and be totally wrong. Can you tell me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the government always has the correct man pinned. If you can't, then imprisoning someone without a proper trial is wrong. There's a huge fucking difference between days and weeks to years before seeing the inside of a court room. Kevin Mitnick spent jail time from 1995-1999 before he ever plead guilty.

vicious796 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:59:46 PM »

How often do the FBI go through a major investigation and get the wrong guy? Not to mention what he was a fugitive and was found with hard evidence.

Quote

When arrested he was found with cloned cellular phones, over one hundred clone cellular phone codes, and multiple pieces of false identification.

I think it was apparent they weren't wrong on this one.

zherok · « **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2009, 03:04:01 PM »

I'm pretty sure he was entitled to a trial by jury regardless. It becomes a slippery slope once you start presuming guilt.