There are things that I really don’t like about the way Bush/Cheney handled various things in Iraq. “Black” prisons, companies making previously unimaginable sums of money via contracts with the federal government, etc.
But…holding prisoners of war has never been wrong (providing that they are treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention).
The stance on torture is going to come into play with this administration also. Intellectually, I know – am convinced and convicted that – torture is wrong. Always. On the other hand, if my daughter were being held captive and I had somebody in custody that had information that could save her life…what would I do to get that information? In all honesty, I cannot say how far I would go. I like to think that I would not mistreat that person. In all honesty, I know that “original sin” seeps everywhere. Fear, protection…motives for getting information.
Is President Obama’s administration “betraying” those who voted for him on the basis of his stance on the war? That is for the followers to decide.
Myself, not knowing all the information that the government has…I don’t think I can say that he’s wrong…

Dang…that was me. I usually post in firefox (that remembers my name…)

Is President Obama’s administration “betraying” those who voted for him on the basis of his stance on the war?
It’s being conducted in the more appropriate place now, but I’m as convicted about war as you are on torture.
The other difference here is those people are not on US soil, yet.
funny link to crickets, btw, however it hosed my browser. so, not funny.

I only read the headline yesterday on Huffington, but it indicated the left were having a cow.
I did not follow the last 8 years enough to know whether the right called Bush out on very much, but the left does not hesitate to call out Obama. On some thing they are too quick.

“those people…”
The ones who are doing the torture (our side)? Or the ones who flew airliners into sky scrapers?

The latter are dead and getting their justice. I refer to the detainees in the story.

Thanks for clarifying…
question: if they are in the control of the US government, does it make a difference where they are?

There’s no way Obama was ever going to be able to deliver on all his foolish demogouge claims. The public just wouldn’t stand for it. He HAS to disappoint his lefty supporters to have any prayer of staying in office.

I agree with the thought that the detainees being held cannot use the US courts to challenge this. However, per simply being human and with the Geneva Convention, they should be treated fairly, humanly, even if they never treated others with this courtesy or the fact that they killed ours and other nations service men and women.
To do anything less is to cast ourselves in the same light that we condemn them with. It, in no way would give us a “higher ground” to stand in but rather would be a big farce and put us on the same level and perhaps, in a level worse, as they never made such a claims but we always do.
All the claims by former President Bush and I love the word “FORMER”, to justify the war, have sense been found to be a lie. There was no higher ground or moral imperative, it was simply political and there is also the simple fact that our Country gave Bin Laden the money and training to fight the Russians back in the 80”s. With the militant and fundamentalist view and belief of the Muslim religion pertaining to the U.S., it was only a matter of time for things to happen as they did. Was Bin Laden and his ilk justified in what they did? No, imo, nor was it justified by their religious view but we all know that fundamentalism really isn’t concerned with the actual verses of their holy books or belief system, it simply justifies its interpretation of it. Was the U.S. innocent? No. Our government has had its fingers involved in so many issues in different governments over time that it was only a matter of time before someone attacked. Was this the Bush administrations fault? No more than any other Presidential Administration. Presidential Administrations have been doing this for so long, who knows where it started but it was inevitable, after all the U.S. did it for power, control, influence and “National Security”.
To say it was always for National Security is hard to say but that’s were justification comes in the mess.
To get back to my original thought, enemy combatants should be treated using the Geneva Convention treaty of war. It was for the purpose of treating combatants humanly and fairly. Even if Afghanistan combatants are treating others in this matter, if we want to say we have the higher ground, we have to or else we’re not really different than they are.

sorry, missed this error.
Even if Afghanistan combatants are treating others in this matter,
should have read are “not” treating.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of a military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
Another thing to consider is that al-Qaida that was responsible for the terrorist attacks are in Afghanistan
Anyone that has actually listened to Obama’s words instead of what some media have fed them, would know that Obama has been very consistent about Iraq and Afghanistan. The people that bombed our buildings on 9/11 were not in Iraq.
Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win, August 01, 2007
At the Wilson Center:
“We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. …
And so, a little more than a year [2002] after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support “a dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq. I worried about a ” U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences” in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we “finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda.”
Since August 2007, Obama called for the deployment of at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan. After Bush finally agreed with Obama’s position, on Jul 15, 2008 McCain called for more troops in Afghanistan.
Obama also recognized the dangerous connection between Afghanistan and Pakistan long before anyone in the Bush administration or McCain. Since Obama was inaugurated, there have been several targeted missile attacks against al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. They have successfully killed several powerful al Qaeda leaders.
Many people, including my son, voted for McCain under the false allusion spread by the media that Obama would not keep us safe. My son lived in New York City when 9/11 happened. He also watches too much O’Reilly and Glen Beck.
Fact Check: Obama on Afghanistan, August 14, 2007
THE SPIN: RNC Chairman Mike Duncan twisted Obama’s statements and ignored the facts to smear Obama.
http://tinyurl.com/5jf9yy
A funny headline from a Toronto newspaper: Is Obama a closet conservative?
Obama has never been the liberal as portrayed by the media and the Republicans. They used one article that said Obama was the most liberal Senator, while ignoring other very detailed reports that listed seven Senators to the left of Obama and a larger number of Representatives to the left of Obama. It listed 9 Senators to the left of Clinton. McCain was on the left side of Republican members of Congress. In addition, some of the items used to determine liberal or conservative were controversial.

Is Obama a closet conservative?
No, I think he’s coming out of the closet pretty quick.

ZZ said on February 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM: There’s no way Obama was ever going to be able to deliver on all his foolish demogouge claims. The public just wouldn’t stand for it. He HAS to disappoint his lefty supporters to have any prayer of staying in office.
Boris says: I agree with ZZ that Obama can’t deliver on all his foolish demagogue with an “a” claims. But they were about as vague as predictions from the Psychic Friends Network or the Bible are anyway. It was political doublespeak from a political hack. But ZZ is probably right on this point but this is just an example of a clock, in this case a Cuckoo Clock being right twice a day. I disagree that Obama needs to disappoint the “lefty supporters” because they’ll just re-elect him no matter what he does. Obama was a history teacher. He wants to woo the most of the right and win re-election by a historically notable landslide. That’s what he wants to do now. And more power to him. We’ll all be hugging each other and getting along. Except for the religious fundamentalists.

Great, Boris agreed with me. I feel so vindicated. Now I have to go take a shower.

Isn’t Boris and ZZ agreeing on something one of the signs of the end times implied in Revelation?

Isn’t Boris and ZZ agreeing on something one of the signs of the end times implied in Revelation?
Only if they are not one and the same …

more obama derrangement syndrome, michele. he’s been president for barely 5 weeks and you are already attacking. hell, what am i thinking? you’ve been attacking him since he declared he was running and we shouldn’t expect otherwise while you continue to run with the frothing right-wing extremist pack at hotair.com.
obviously, you’re too fast to assume that obama will continue “business as usual” bush’s treatment of detainees at guantanamo bay at bagram and elsewhere. obama has signalled a clear change in how the war will be run and how the united states will treat its prisoners.
i’m no fan of torture, or of rendition to countries that would do the torturing for us, or of continuing to detain those who have been deemed neither terrorists nor a threat to us. obama is already (and rightly so) shifting the focus back toward al qaeda in afghanistan/pakistan and away from iraq.
maybe you should read up on at least three of the executive orders signed by obama on his second day as commander in chief that are clearly a move away from bush’s policies:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Ensuring_Lawful_Interrogations/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Closure_Of_Guantanamo_Detention_Facilities/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Review_of_Detention_Policy_Options/
these humans have the right to be treated humanely according to the geneva conventions. i will continue to hold obama to that and wait to see what he does in the months to come with respect to bagram before passing judgment.
“Of course the lefties had a cow over this when the Bush administration said the same thing, I wonder what their reaction will be now that their hope and change guy is not acting very changey? Probably this. They certainly won’t be calling it a war crime the way they did with Bush and they certainly won’t be calling for his impeachment.”
fyi, there are plenty of human rights organizations and left-leaning groups who are criticizing obama on this. and they should. they should keep pressure on obama and make sure that people, even prisoners and “enemy combatants,” be treated humanely as provided by the geneva conventions. too many righties were lock-step with bush’s treatment of these people. you should have been calling for his impeachment, too.
torture is the war crime that bush & cheney & rumsfeld should be tried for.
by the way, you and your fellows of the radical-right sure do whine a lot for obama not acting very “changey”.

It’s good that people are able to receive the credit loans moreover, that opens new opportunities.