Skip to main content

In an editorial posted by the New York Times on Saturday afternoon, the editorial board condemned the Obama administration's involuntary deportation of a Guantanamo prisoner to Algeria. The prisoner, 35-year-old Abdul Aziz Naji, was cleared of any charges in a wide-ranging review of Guantanamo prisoner status last year. Naji begged not to be sent back to Algeria, a country he fled after being attacked himself at age 17 or 18 by extremists. Naji feared the Algerian government could not protect him against the Islamic fundamentalist rebels that have been fighting the somewhat more moderate Islamic government for some twenty years now.

The Times editorial continues the story:

Though he offered to remain at the prison, the administration shipped him home last weekend and washed its hands of the man. Almost immediately upon arrival, he disappeared, and his family fears the worst.

It is an act of cruelty that seems to defy explanation.

The response of the Obama administration has been terse and self-serving. They say they have gotten assurances from the Algerian government that Mr. Naji, who was never charged with any crime, would not be mistreated or tortured when sent back. The Times notes that a 2008 Supreme Court decision gives "broad discretion to decide when to accept such promises from a foreign government." But human rights groups have long derided such assurances.

According to a diary at Daily Kos by geomoo, Doris Tennant, one of Mr. Naji's attorneys, states she and Naji's other attorney, Ellen Lubell, were informed by the Algerian ambassador "that his government cannot protect him from extremists, who he very much fears will attempt to recruit him because of his association with Guantanamo."

The Times editorial picks up on information about country conditions in Algeria that I had noted in an article at Firedoglake last Tuesday. According to the Times:

The State Department’s human rights report on the country, issued in March, said that reports of torture in Algeria have been reduced but are still prevalent. It quotes human rights lawyers there as saying the practice still takes place to extract confessions in security cases. People disappear in the country, the report said, and armed groups — which obviously made no promises to the administration — continue to act with impunity.

Even more outrageous is the fact that the Obama administration ignored the fact that Mr. Naji had applied for political asylum in Switzerland, denying a request for a stay of deportation from his attorneys. No one knows why the Obama administration has drawn a line in the sand over Naji and another Algerian prisoner, Farhi Saeed Bin Mohammed, who won his "freedom" via habeas appeal last year. Judge Gladys Kessler has been fighting the D.C. Circuit Court to keep the men from being transferred to Algeria, but a 5-3 decision by the Supreme Court late last week paved the way for the administration's criminal action.

"Criminal" or Stupid, Either Way It's Outrageous

"Criminal" will no doubt be too strong a word for many of you. But the forcible deportation of a person back to a country where he fears persecution, torture, execution, etc. is known in the law as refoulement, and the international legal principle of not returning such an individual as the principle of non-refoulement. This recognized basic human right was written into international protocols beginning with the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and later into the Convention Against Torture treaty, of which the U.S. is a signatory. Not even the Bush administration, in the hundreds of "detainees" it released from Guantanamo, violated this principle.

In a comprehensive analysis, journalist Andy Worthington has described the unbelievable context of the Obama administration's cruel behavior:

This was a bleak day for US justice, not only because it involved the Supreme Court blithely disregarding the UN Convention Against Torture’s "non-refoulement" obligation, joining in an unholy trinity with the D.C. Circuit Court and the Obama administration, but also because it brings to an abrupt, cruel, and — I believe — illegal conclusion a struggle to release prisoners without violating the UN Convention Against Torture, which, for the most part, was actually respected by the Bush administration....

With the Uighurs, the Bush administration recognized its "non-refoulement" obligation, refusing to return them to China, and finding new homes for five of the men in Albania in 2006. When the Obama administration inherited the problem of the remaining 17 men, who had, in the meantime, won their habeas corpus petitions, it found new homes for 12 of them in Bermuda, Palau and Switzerland, although five still remain at Guantánamo, and, last spring, the administration turned down a plan by White House Counsel Greg Craig to bring some of the men to live in the US, which would have done more in the long run to defuse scaremongering about Guantánamo than any other gesture.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) decried the Obama administration's forcible removal of Mr. Naji. Mr. Bin Mohammed could also be deported at any time.

CCR supports the ongoing efforts of the U.S. State Department to close Guantánamo Bay, particularly in the face of unyielding resistance from Congress and the seemingly detached indifference of the White House to the continuing plight of the men held in our notorious prison. However, the solution to Guantánamo Bay does not rest on forcing detainees to return to countries where they fear torture and persecution. It is not only illegal, but also bad policy.... Forced repatriations make the United States appear complicit with repressive regimes and are certain to outrage Arabs and Muslims around the world at a time when our government needs their support.

Is There Anything to Be Done?

In a letter the other day to supporters, CCR wrote:

The Obama Administration violated both U.S. and international law by forcibly repatriating Mr. Naji, and Center for Constitutional Rights is now deeply concerned as neither his wellbeing nor whereabouts are known....

Please write the Algerian Embassy in Washington, DC (at mail@algeria-us.org) and the Permanent Mission of Algeria to the United Nations at mission@algeria-un.org and demand that the Algerian government immediately account for Mr. Naji’s whereabouts and well-being. They must tell us where he is and provide assurances that he is well. The Algerian government should also comply with international law prohibiting the use of secret detention and torture. Moreover, the Algerian government must protect Mr. Naji from extremist forces in Algeria who may try to recruit him and harm him when he resists joining them. Finally, the Algerian government should in the future not accept forced repatriations of its citizens who fear they will be harmed in the country.

The court’s decision and the actions of the Obama administration are an outrage and another blow against the international position of non-refoulement, or non-return of refugees and the persecuted, as described in the UN Convention Against Torture and other international treaties and protocols. This action marks the U.S. as an uncivilized nation, a nation busily disassembling the rule of law in the name of empire building.

It's possible that Aziz is a test case, as they will want to release others to countries where they fear persecution. They can let "friendly" governments "dispose" of their prisoners. I also believe it’s possible they intend to seed some small number through as possible double agents among the Islamic "extremist" groups, and this is one way to manufacture bona fides after being held so long. A very dangerous game for everyone involved.

It's noted above that Switzerland has taken up an application for asylum from Mr. Naji (it is, I believe, on appeal there). The simplest solution would be to offer Mr. Naji, who never harmed any U.S. person, asylum in this country, but as FDL/Seminal diarist powwow notes in a comment at Emptywheel yesterday:

For other Bill-of-Attainder-esque reasons, the following Congressional restrictions also deserve highlighting:

   The Homeland Security Appropriations Act includes two additional provisions affecting the treatment of Guantanamo detainees. Section 553, which appears to apply beyond the end of the 2010 fiscal year.... prohibits the use of funds appropriated under that act to "provide any immigration benefit" to any former Guantanamo detainee, including a visa, admission into the United States, parole into the United States, or classification as a refugee or applicant for asylum.51 The prohibition is similar to proposals introduced earlier during the 111th Congress; however, the other proposals would apply permanently, whereas the prohibition in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act appears to apply only to funds appropriated by that act.52

In any case, if they can get away with the criminal return of Aziz Naji without popular furor, then they can proceed with more of the same. This was all prefigured when al-Libi — the man who told the U.S. about Saddam and WMD (under torture — he later recanted the "confession") — was mysteriously found dead in his Libyan cell and there was no call for investigation.

Don't Ignore This Issue

Thus far the Daily Kos community has essentially ignored the outrageous Naji deportation (the diary by geomoo was a notable, but mostly ignored exception). I hope this diary begins the rectification of that. The New York Times editorial reminds us there is "no reason to deliver prisoners to governments that the United States considers hostile and that have a record of torture and lawlessness."

Call the White House: 202-456-1111, or write them if you wish. Let them know there is line beyond which support for this administration ends, and the forceable return of an innocent prisoner, tortured and imprisoned for eight years by the United States, to a country he fled over 15 years ago, in fear for his life, is exactly such a line.

Originally posted to Valtin on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 11:35 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (244+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clyde, Paolo, Superskepticalman, Angie in WA State, Garrett, tgs1952, Lcohen, itsbenj, copymark, Timaeus, El Zmuenga, AaronInSanDiego, Detlef, mimi, mattman, wu ming, lysias, LEP, KateG, darrelplant, eeff, sobermom, expatjourno, Creosote, Heart of the Rockies, Gustogirl, opinionated, EvieCZ, TheMomCat, Boston Boomer, conchita, mint julep, Pithy Cherub, stevej, chuckvw, Fe, Major Tom, Wamsutta, psnyder, Dallasdoc, Winnie, DeadB0y, businessdem, grannyhelen, JimWilson, churchylafemme, NYFM, MmeVoltaire, Catte Nappe, AbsurdEyes, alizard, Pohjola, cevad, AllisonInSeattle, zerelda, Deward Hastings, fran1, lyvwyr101, rmx2630, greeseyparrot, Big Tex, nailbender, chumley, bobdevo, historys mysteries, marina, NoMoreLies, jrooth, CTPatriot, disrael, Roadbed Guy, LostInTexas, mgris, corvo, panicbean, Simplify, truong son traveler, chidmf, Dobber, Burned, SJerseyIndy, RichterScale, skrekk, FunkyEntropy, WisePiper, LodinLepp, Cory Bantic, peacestpete, JanL, Ekaterin, Indiana Bob, dancewater, jay23, vilegrrl, SoulCatcher, meghna, Showman, esquimaux, gwilson, vigilant meerkat, whitewidow, ActivistGuy, Yellow Canary, victoria2dc, koNko, KenBee, sailmaker, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, eglantine, erratic, Glorfindel, thegood thebad thedumb, Sagebrush Bob, NearlyNormal, Cenobyte, jim d, frankzappatista, big annie, Dreaming of Better Days, kurt, airmarc, PhilW, BentLiberal, tegrat, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, dov12348, lightfoot, dotsright, miamiboats, possum, crankyinNYC, terryhallinan, Cofcos, Jimdotz, DWG, joyful, tahoebasha2, aliasalias, gatorbot, artisan, jayden, Uberbah, Chung Fu, RIP Russ, uciguy30, keikekaze, cloudbustingkid, willb48, sk4p, condorcet, kingneil, Robert Naiman, zerone, indyada, elwior, Wes Opinion, lineatus, alliedoc, Cassandra Waites, geomoo, rubine, mofembot, temptxan, S C B, moneysmith, petulans, o the umanity, Support Civil Liberty, DixieDishrag, Zulia, allie123, Robobagpiper, CIndyCasella, ZhenRen, LaFeminista, FudgeFighter, cameoanne, smellybeast, MufsMom, DontTaseMeBro, DeepLooker, greengemini, divineorder, CanyonWren, proud2Bliberal, h bridges, Nailbanger, asym, allep10, edtastic, ohmyheck, angel d, cassandraX, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, sulthernao, Alec82, rb137, marabout40, icemilkcoffee, jethrock, shenderson, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, Mike in Denmark, Earth Ling, 4kedtongue, SunsetMagnolia, Otteray Scribe, HylasBrook, al ajnabee, heart of a quince, Gracian, wildlife advocate, sixthestate, poorbuster, BlueJessamine, Situational Lefty, The Narrative, ThAnswr, miscanthus, marleycat, Grandma Susie, shekissesfrogs, Faroutman, svboston, Druggy Bear, daveusf, Skitters, skeptiq, Sunspots, BlueDragon, virtual0, laker, FireBird1, damfino, dance you monster, mojada, banach tarski paradox, drnononono, SFUSA17, Crikes a Crocus

    If only every tip represented a phone call to the White House on this. That is my fondest wish. Let them know that liberals and progressives... hell, just decent Americans will not stand for this kind of behavior by their government.

    Take a stand.

    War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

    by Valtin on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 11:29:10 PM PDT

    •  The calls need to go to congress first. (18+ / 0-)

      As I linked in my other comments, the senate was seriously against (90-6) doing anything on Guantanamo, to the extent that it seemed they just wanted to wish the problem away.  With that sort of opposition even from Democrats, it seems to me the pressure needs to be applied to congress first, since they control the purse strings.

      •  Writing Congress is fine (77+ / 0-)

        but in this case, emailing the Algerian government, and protesting the administration's policies on these kinds of deportations is exactly what's needed, because it is the administration that makes these decisions.

        When it comes to closing Guantanamo, the administration has actually been hamstrung by Congress, as you point out. (Though how much they have fought this out against the Congressional opposition is a matter of some disagreement among commentators.)

        Before you go off suggesting what should be done, please realize that real human beings, facing real immediate dangers are what's at stake here, and not your political opinion, or ax to grind with Congress (an "ax" I share, btw).

        Did you know that Farhi Saeed Bin Mohammed could be similarly deported at any moment? Did you know that the reason he was granted habeas last year was because the evidence produced against him by the government was manufactured through the torture of now-freed former prisoner Binyam Mohamed? Did you know the case against him was so weak that a Guantanamo Military Review Board said he should have been released back in 2007? He, too, is afraid of being tortured or persecuted upon return. Like Naji, he'd rather stay a prisoner at Guantanamo than be returned to Algeria. Now why would anyone want that, except....

        If you'd said, in addition, call or contact Congress, I'd have supported that. But your call here is meant to throw off the needed help. Now why is that?

        War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

        by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:14:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Great diary Valtin (51+ / 0-)

          Sorry you have had to deal with the roving band of apologists who so often frequent threads rightly critical of the administration's poor record on torture, indefinite detention and other "war on terror" related issues.  

          Excellent work.  

          "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

          by Alec82 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:20:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, Alec82 (44+ / 0-)

            Though the roving band tonight is a truly motley crew, short on facts, making assertions that even a lazy reader of the diary knows are wrong, etc.

            Also, it's such bad form to attack a diary that is trying to help someone who's life is in danger. I hope these people wake up soon and use their energies to fight when it really makes sense. There's plenty of unfair attacks from the right on the Obama administration, but some choose to make their stand here. Sad.

            War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

            by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:26:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This diary (17+ / 0-)

              Is trying to help an inncocent person that may be, but by adding what such inflammatory comments as:

              "Criminal" or Stupid, Either Way It's Outrageous

              "Criminal" will no doubt be too strong a word for many of you.

              and

              but a 5-3 decision by the Supreme Court late last week paved the way for the administration's criminal action.

              So since the Supreme Court led the way now the 'criminality' according to you is upon the head of President Obama?

              Whatever point you are attemptingt to make about prisoner release is totally lost because the diary appears to be yet another hit peice upon President Obama which I find such name calling regularly here in my Red State of KY by Republicans of the 'criminal' President Obama, on whatever, they want to begin investigations as soon as they are the majority in the House--

              Yeah I call and write President Obama frequently and I STILL support him greatly!

              I don't listen to unwarranted attacks like those stated above no MATTER which side is making them, the Right OR the Left--

              to me it's all for the same reason to Bring President Obama down, NOT the issue at hand.

              Please vote Democratic in November. If the GOP wins we will all be forced backward another decade, who wants that?

              by Wary on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:54:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Unwarranted attacks (49+ / 0-)

                I don't listen to unwarranted attacks like those stated above no MATTER which side is making them, the Right OR the Left--

                You may not listen to them, but you certainly read them, elsewise you wouldn't have so much to say. Always cracks me up when people say "I don't listen to" something, and then they rant about that something.

                It's really sad that you turn this issue into being about wanting to bring Obama down. Obama's administration is not imperfect. It's up to the public to call the administration on things.

                We also know that under Obama, rendition still occurs. I find that deplorable too. Look, it's a nasty world, and Bush/Cheney doctrines made it even nastier. Our military and the CIA and other agencies still engage in a lot of nastiness. If we don't pressure our leaders to end as much of that as possible, they will have no reason for doing so.

                And yes, the deportation decisions may have been more the doing of the military or CIA, but that does not relieve the President of responsibility for not halting the refoulement. And hopefully, if we are vocal about this, it will save others from being deported under such conditions.

                One of the things about being president, is that when nasty things happen, you are considered responsible. The buck stops at the president. So it's really ineffective to get all lit up about making this story about Obama bashing, and not being more concerned with the issue-at-hand.

                We all support Obama. Otherwise we'd be posting at Red State and not DK.

                "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

                by MillieNeon on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:57:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fodder for the Right Wing (4+ / 0-)

                  The Obama administration would quickly send home six Algerians held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but for one problem: The men don't want to go. Given the choice between repatriation and incarceration, the men choose Gitmo, according to their lawyers.

                  They will state that this shows that Guantananmo Bay is a great!  place that does not torture so what's the big deal?  Which they no longer do under this President.  But they did and that's all move along now nothing to see here with them.    But it's still catnip  for them that they chose  Cuba over going back home - . because at home they would be tortured.    

                  We all support Obama. Otherwise we'd be posting at Red State and not DK.

                  Not true. There are many here who certainly do not support him and want to primary him and let us know that every chance they have.  There are many here who are not even Democrats and did not vote for him and will not vote for him. . But they sill post here.   A lot of them.  

                  "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                  by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:16:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Primary him? (50+ / 0-)

                    So decisions about whether someone is sent back to a place where they will be persecuted and tortured should be made based on whether or not it will be fodder for the Right Wing?

                    And isn't that the problem we just saw with Sherrod getting fired so quickly?

                    Jesus, if we are going to expect Obama to make decisions based on what the Right Wing will think and/or do, we are in deep trouble.

                    And we know that no matter what Obama or Dems do, the right wing will find a way to spin it against us.

                    It's true there are some trolls here. But not a lot. And they are so obvious.

                    There are also a lot of people who critique the administration rationally like they'd critique anyone or anything else, on individual issues and actions. Unfortunately, these people are often called Obama bashers.

                    This diarist is talking about a very serious issue. It's also a call to action. To call it Obama bashing is misguided and takes the focus off the real issue being discussed here.

                    "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

                    by MillieNeon on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:45:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The new york times can't get its self to out (6+ / 0-)

                      for judging and damaging Acorn. what makes you think they have the right to call anybody out. What they did to Acorn was just as bad.

                    •  I'm sorry, but this is not (7+ / 0-)

                      a serious issue. The guy got a day in court. No way in hell would the previous administration allow that.

                      This guy was set free and told to go home. No way in hell would the previous administration allow that.

                      Suddenly, we're discussing torture because the possibility exists that it could happen to him at home by criminals other than the ones perpetrated by his own government, and that is now the same as waterboarding? Give me a friggin' break folks.

                      Obama allowed this individual his day in court, and then let him go free. What part of that is misguided? He forgot the condo on a resort island? WTF? The US does have a responsibility to act fairly and justly regarding POW's, but what the hell else do people want here?

                      Jobs, health care, climate change, etc are important issues. But not this. One detainee who was tried and set free gets the third degree by uber-progressives because he was told to go home, and now Obama is just as bad as GWB? That just doesn't hold water...

                      "They got the guns, but we got the numbers..."

                      by danktle on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:00:22 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  you completely missed my point. (4+ / 0-)

                      and i don't even know where to begin.
                      you took what i said at the end to your throw away comment about how everyone who posts here supports Obama.

                      you wrote:

                      We all support Obama. Otherwise we'd be posting at Red State and not DK.

                      I said , no that is not true. And stated:

                      Not true. There are many here who certainly do not support him and want to primary him and let us know that every chance they have.  There are many here who are not even Democrats and did not vote for him and will not vote for him. . But they sill post here.   A lot of them.  

                      You then took my primary comment and applied it to the subject of this diary,
                      Which does not make sense. At all.

                      It had nothing to do with the subject of this diary.
                      That comment was written in reply to your comment thrown in at then end of your post.
                      Your comment had nothing to do with the subject of this diary.
                      Neither did my reply.
                      You chose to mash them together.  

                      And nowhere did I say we should not do anything about this.
                      Again, you are twisting my words.
                      I simply said this is fodder for people like my brother, who thinks Gitmo is great.
                      I so know for a fact I will not hear that this proves it should stay open.
                      Since they don't torture. People don't want to leave.
                      Of course that has nothing to do with Aziz.
                      And I did not say it did.
                      So don't imply that I did.

                      And I did not say the diarist was Obama bashing either.
                      My comment was about the nonsense you wrote that everyone on DK suports Obama. That is blatantly false.
                      You took my short post and twisted it and made up crap to suit your narrative.

                      I should have never responded to your post.
                      For that, I apologize. Won't happen again.

                      "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                      by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:02:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Returning a prisoner... (25+ / 0-)

                        ...who was never charged or prosecuted to a country where the administration KNOWS, despite reassurances to the contrary, that he will be tortured or killed, and basing that decision -- even in part -- on the fear of how the right wing will politicize a decision to allow the prisoner to stay until another country will grant him asylum, is not only cruel, it is cowardly.

                        Meta aside (aren't you sick of having your comments parsed because you throw in what you say amounts to a throw away line?), the administration isn't saying that it has based its decision to send Naji back to Algeria because of any such fears.  It is you who suggests that the decision is a good one because it robs the right of a potential defense of keeping Guantanamo open.  Honestly, Christin, is this how you think the administration should be making its decision wrt closing Guantanamo or how it rectifies the individual cases of the detainees who remain there?

                        That man is probably dead.  He was never guilty of anything that got him sent to Gitmo in the first place.  This is how the administration should right the wrongs of the previous administration?  Because its afraid of what people like your brother will say?  Seriously?

                        •  politics over lives (11+ / 0-)

                          politics and greed trump all.  not wanting to extend this discussion, but i am reminded of those who defend the administration's handling of bp and the gulf.  

                          •  as usual (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sherijr

                            conchita, as usual. you drop in simply to  drop a turd.
                            i am not defending greed.  
                            stop dragging BP and the gulf in to every diary in which you want to insult someone.
                            this diary is not about BP or the gulf.
                            And  I did not and never have defended BP either, so  either say something substantial that is not a flat out lie, or move on and check the insults that you insist on dropping due to some long ago perceived slight.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:40:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  christin, i'm not getting into a pissing match (6+ / 0-)

                            with you.  there is no perceived slight.  what i react to with regard to you is how poorly you treat others at this site.  you know this quality in yourself and have expressed awareness of it.  you know that it also impacts you negatively and that you can't control it, yet you continue to indulge in it.  

                            this last comment by you relying on an analysis based on political gain, reveals your mindset.  i have seen humanity in some of your posts and i think beneath it all there is something there, but your first nature reaction is not one that i trust and at this point i don't think it is productive to engage with you.  

                            as for bp, as i wrote above, this is not the place to discuss bp.

                          •  then don't. (0+ / 0-)

                            you have said this before.  that you won't engage.
                            but then you do.
                            you show up to attach to a comment i make. when you are not involved in the discussion.   and that comment is an insult, a smear, or an ad hom.

                            i do not like a lot of what you write either.
                            and don't agree with your opinions.
                            but i never reply to those comments.
                            i never insult you. i don't ad hom. i don't  throw out invectives.
                            i don't instigate. i don't imply what i think you meant.
                            i just stay quiet or stay away.

                            you said you would - but you do not.

                            writing this:

                            not wanting to extend this discussion, but i am reminded of those who defend the administration's handling of bp and the gulf.  

                            then this:

                            * [new] christin, i'm not getting into a pissing match (0+ / 0-)
                            with you.  there is no perceived slight. one that i trust and at this point i don't think it is productive to engage with you.  

                            and then doing the complete opposite. is hypocrisy.
                            you don't get to insult someone, then whine, i cannot engage and i won't.

                            as for yet another tedious conchita  pop psychology analysis of a kossak,
                            I suggest you stop doing this to people. you are not a doctor. and you're always wrong. and it's just another excuse to throw out more insults.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:20:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  . (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            chuckvw, churchylafemme

                            if i wanted to engage, i could easily cite comments from your comment history, in other words, comments you have made.  i'm leaving now, have a garden project to complete.  why not do the same?

                          •  lol. (0+ / 0-)

                            yes. why not write again how you won't engage.
                            and then engage.
                            i am outside. staring at my eight new pots of lantanas with nowhere to put them. maybe i will give you one.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:50:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  clarification (6+ / 0-)

                            politics over lives refers not just to christin's comment but the many here who seem to have forgotten that we are discussing human beings not simply political advantage.

                        •  you must like to hear yourself talk. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sherijr

                          or seriously get off lecturing and pontificating when you're bored.
                          i did NOT defend what happened to him.
                          you just flat out lied.

                          It is you who suggests that the decision is a good one because it robs the right of a potential defense of keeping Guantanamo open.

                          i never said this, period.
                          never. lying doesn't change that.

                          It is you who suggests that the decision is a good one because it robs the right of a potential defense of keeping Guantanamo open.  Honestly, Christin, is this how you think the administration should be making its decision wrt closing Guantanamo or how it rectifies the individual cases of the detainees who remain there?

                          as for this other non sensical  remark:

                          Meta aside (aren't you sick of having your comments parsed because you throw in what you say amounts to a throw away line?)

                          it was not my throwaway line.
                          that's your problem, that you want to parse it.
                          it was hers.
                          she made a false statement.
                          i said it was false.
                          and showed why.
                          simple. as that.
                          the end.
                          you're the one who wants to parse it. have fun.

                          i never realized that you you everything spelled out for you in black and white.  or you get very confused.
                          if you think what my brother...oh you know what?
                          never mind. you're playing your games and i'm not up to this bullshit today.

                          "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                          by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:21:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            conchita, churchylafemme, Vtdblue

                            As usual, Christin, you're good at pointing out what you didn't say.  And I'm guilty of trying to make sense of what you DID say -- which is nothing.

                            Fodder for the right wing (and something for your brother to crow about).  BFD
                            There most certainly are Obama Bashers here.  BFD  
                            The NYT (Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd are blowhards) sucks and I'm thinking about losing my pity for it and canceling my Weekender subscription.  BFD.
                            Ain't it a shame if the Algerians tortured or killed him?  :(
                            I hope he's ok, because I love the movie Pretty Woman and real life should have those kinds of endings.  

                            I'm bored?  Textbook case of projection, my dear.

                          •  again - (0+ / 0-)

                            not in the mood for your bitterness and cruelty again  today.
                            i've seen you play this before.
                            i don't know how i let myself get sucked into it.
                            or ever think you were sincere.

                            i know you think it's fun, or amusing to repeat what i wrote, and then write Big Fucking Deal  after after what i stated i think and feel.
                            you're so witty and oh so cutting and dismissive.
                            and so superior to me.
                            stupid me bringing up a hollywood ending - i know.

                            i'm not bored at all. i 'm not into the internet games you play 4ked.
                            here or anywhere. i told you that last week.
                            i do care about what happened to him. I did not make light of it.
                            this  was just cruel.

                            Ain't it a shame if the Algerians tortured or killed him?  :(
                            I hope he's ok, because I love the movie Pretty Woman and real life should have those kinds of endings.  

                            you keep telling us  what a prick you are. those are your words.
                            your posts.
                            but you know what? it's nothing to brag about. you're not 17 anymore.
                            how old do you have to be to finally get that?
                            i think you said you were in your mid 40's?
                            sad.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:05:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Christin... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...you know exactly everything i've written here over the last couple of months, and I'm flattered.  

                            You're so victimized here.

                          •  no. i don't know everything (0+ / 0-)

                            you have written.
                            i never said that. i am going by this:

                            Except it's not a joke.

                            I  am a prick in real life.  Ask both of my friends.

                            God help you if you think I'm bad here.

                            by 4kedtongue on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 04:39:38 PM EDT

                             Better yet, I'd write Halter in just to be a prick in real life and not just here.

                            by 4kedtongue on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 04:17:31 PM EDT
                            [ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]

                            I can be a prick when I have to be.  And baby, you can bring it out.  Now we can do the George and Martha Waltz (shout out to Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?), or we can come to an understanding.

                            Care to play Let's Make a Deal?

                            by 4kedtongue on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 08:03:13 PM EDT
                            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                            i'm not sure what you're doing here 4kedtongue.
                            you admit it's a game. you admit you like to play.
                            you think it's fun to be cruel.
                            i can be a ass, but i don't ever enjoy being cruel as you seem to do.
                            as i stated to you in reply to your very first attack on me in this diary.
                            i 'm not into this today or up to your games. just not.
                            and i'm not a victim. not yours. not anyones.
                            stop thinking you are a bad ass by writing you are a prick on daily kos and in in real life.
                            and stop thinking i am your victim.
                            no one is your fucking victim - not ever.
                            not in real life. not on a blog.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:41:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let me make myself... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            churchylafemme, aliasalias

                            ...perfectly clear.  Responding to you and anaonobamawhoever:

                            I have no allies or enemies on this site...I find the very notion of such relationships on a blog asinine in the extreme.  I find many who expect such relationships here to be silly and manipulative.  But I find the honesty about the desire or expectation of some members here to have such relationships to be very revealing.
                            There are diarists and commenters whom I respect -- including a few with whom I disagree...I expect, without flattering myself too much, that there are others here who feel the same way about me without considering me an ally or an enemy -- LOL (can't even type that without laughing my ass off.)
                            I post my opinions, and I question the statements/opinions of others with whom I disagree.  I usually don't waste my time agreeing with someone other than to rec their comments, but spend most of my time commenting where I disagree.  I can be self-drepecating, sarcastic, sardonic or biting in my remarks depending on my mood (I won't pretend to have just one.)  If I make you chuckle one day and piss you off the next, so be it.
                            I never come at anyone with the rule book or engage in name calling unless I'm making an ironic point or pointing out what I believe to be a double standard or outright hypocrisy.

                            I spend ENTIRELY too much time responding to you.

                            Sorry if you're feelings are hurt or you feel betrayed, sucked in, or 'played with', but frankly, I don't give a shit.

                          •  sure..... (0+ / 0-)

                            go tell me another one of your strange stories  how you hated someone so much. you fought, then said let's meet face to face. and now you are BFFs! Or not. It was a made up story I gather to show how you cared last week. But now you don't care?  Who you hurt?  You do not  give a shit because you're so tough pounding away on your keyboard "4kedtongue".  Yes yes, We know. You're a "prick" and have no friends. Sure.

                            uhhuh.

                            And even there I duked it out on occasion.  There's a commenter there by the name of Ormond Otvos.  He and I would go round and round over gay marriage and Obama.  I live in SF, he lives close by.  I suggested that we meet and see if we could have a civilized conversation face-to-face.  As it happens, despite almost a generation that separates us in age, we have become friends and enjoy spending time in each other's company.

                            by 4kedtongue on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 08:20:54 PM EDT

                            then of course there's your other story about meth use and how you left him  and god knows what else you made up.

                            i feel sorry for you.  a middle aged guy yelling
                            i'm a prick! let's make a deal!
                            what a joke you are. an internet joke.

                            except it's not a joke.

                            I  am a prick in real life.  Ask both of my friends.

                            God help you if you think I'm bad here.

                            by 4kedtongue on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 04:39:38 PM EDT

                            =======================

                            Better yet, I'd write Halter in just to be a prick in real life and not just here.

                            by 4kedtongue on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 04:17:31 PM EDT
                            [ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]

                            ========================
                            I can be a prick when I have to be.  And baby, you can bring it out.  Now we can do the George and Martha Waltz (shout out to Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?), or we can come to an understanding.

                            Care to play Let's Make a Deal?

                            by 4kedtongue on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 08:03:13 PM EDT
                            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                            i told you i'm not your victim. no one is your fucking victim. ever. only in your online fantasies.   you're the one that told me "let's make a deal." you play. i don't. that's the whole point to my reply to you.  you don' t hurt my feelings. i just said you are a cruel pathetic little man.   who of course, calls himself a prick.

                            Sorry if you're feelings are hurt or you feel betrayed, sucked in, or 'played with', but frankly, I don't give a shit.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:35:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  by the way - we both (0+ / 0-)

                            had our say in this diary. it's enough now.
                            end this or take it private.   but enough.
                            you got enough comments/attacks lobbed at me in other parts of this diary that i purposely ignored. and i won't respond.  so end it here.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:41:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never said I hated... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...someone and asked to meet face-to-face in order to make friends.  I said we tussled quite a bit on a blog.  I ENJOYED our exchanges -- I thought, and still think, he was/is an intelligent person and it was worth getting to know him in Real Life, if he was up for it.  We were actually considering starting our own blog.  

                            What story about meth use?  About the guy I had been dating?  Different kind of blog, Christin.  Not a purely political blog, more of a coffee clatch -- political, social, tiny, pop, rant, irreverent.  Just because I don't consider people my 'friends' doesn't mean I don't respect some of the opinions of the people where I post.  Nor does it mean I'm afraid to reveal things about myself or my private life.  Life can be confusing with no right or wrong answers -- I exposed myself and wanted feedback.  I really am flattered that you've taken the time to follow me from blog to blog to blog -- hahahahaha.

                            'Let's Make a Deal' doesn't mean I never disagree with you.  You want to call it an attack, that's up to you.  How many times during this entire exchange, Christin, have I come at you with a personal attack?  How many times have I characterized you as a liar, or a small person, or an idiot, or an enemy, an internet joke?  You project all of your negative personality traits on to those you sink your teeth into, and once your mouth fills with blood and YOU'VE had enough, it's time for everyone to have had enough.  LOL

                          •  This guy has a few screws loose. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Christin

                            just google his uid and read some of his stuff elsewhere.

                            Not only does he flip flop around like a fish out of water, he turns on allies and cozies up to enemies depending on the deference shown his loony rants.

                          •  Hahahaha... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...too much, Magnum PI.  You keep googlin'.

                            :)

                          •  I didn't google (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Christin

                            I was there.

                          •  Not nearly... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...as one-dimensional as you prefer your foils to be.

                            The ability to appreciate a well-reasoned diary -- even if it's one I don't agree with, is not evidence of flip-flopping or cozying up...it's evidence of an open mind.

                            Who are you?  I don't recall ever reading anything you've ever written which would have inspired me to engage in even a cursory search of your opinions.

                            :)

                          •  thanks A - we had a decent (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AnonObamaAid

                            exchange a few days ago.
                            i did not realize it was meaningless.
                            i get it now.
                            thanks.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:42:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  sent you an email re other news. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Christin
                          •  :-) (0+ / 0-)

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 11:16:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  You don't know that (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sherijr

                          you are repeating what the defense attorney is arguing.

                          Those aren't facts.  Defense attorney's represent their clients - I was one for a while.  What they say isn't gospel.

                          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

                          by fladem on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:00:37 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  I did not miss your point (8+ / 0-)

                        You said critiquing the administration on this would be fodder for the right wing. I responded to that first. And said people who post here support Obama.

                        You pointed out that wasn't true, and there are people here who want to primary Obama.

                        I agreed that there are trolls here, but they are easy to spot (for anyone with intelligence), and that too often anyone who critiqued anything done in the administration was lumped in with the trolls.

                        So you obviously missed my point.

                        But you never responded to my original point in your post that we shouldn't decide actions based on what we think the right wing reaction will be. Didn't the Sherrod thing just teach us that?

                        "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

                        by MillieNeon on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:21:06 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  you most certainly did miss my point. (0+ / 0-)

                          and you missed it again.
                          and you again state the same exact  misstatements you did the first time.
                          thinking that if your post them again, slightly different, it is additional data to back up what you said the first time.

                          You stated that everyone posting here supports Obama.
                          That is a ridiculous statement that is false.
                          The end.
                          There is nothing to discuss so drop it.
                          you were wrong.

                          my point to posting that short paragraph about gitmo was that people who scream obama is still torturing make fools of themselves.
                          a man who was cleared for any wrong doing by the Obama administration and freed - wants to stay in Cuba.
                          because if he goes home.
                          he will be tortured.
                          he wants to stay in Cuba - because if he goes home.
                          he will be tortured.
                          do you understand that?
                          if you do, there is nothing more to discuss.
                          if you don't. keep reading it.
                          because it makes perfect sense.

                          i am not defending sending him back.
                          i have stated we should have waited.
                          so stop repeating yourself to someone who does not disagree.
                          it is a waste of your time, and mine.
                          again - you don't need to hear yourself talk along with 4ked, when I already stated:

                          This is so very very sad. He was cleared of all charges.   He was given his "day in court" by this Administration and cleared.   His application was in review.  He was in Cuba for so so long, unjustly held.  They clear him. Good. They say we will free you. Great. And then it all goes into the crapper.  I just wonder why we could not have waited until Switzerland made a decision.

                          I hope he is safe somewhere. In my hollywood ending world, he was offered protection that we don't know about in order to keep him safe.

                          "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                          by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:30:30 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You lied (6+ / 0-)

                            you said you weren't going to respond to me anymore.

                            And you are really not following our "conversation" very well. My original response to you was about not basing our actions on what we think the right wing reaction will be.

                            You NEVER addressed that comment of mine, choosing instead to focus on an aside I put in, which I already dealt with.

                            Nobody is screaming.

                            Are we a country that champions liberty and civil rights for all or not? Are we a country that obeys the Geneva Conventions (not sending people "home" to be tortured or killed) or not? These are really the important questions this diary asks.

                            Your concern was about what would be fodder for the right wing. That was my original point in replying to you. You do not deal with that.

                            And the way you are dealing with this, shows you have some interest in deflecting from the real conversation of this diary. Why is that?

                            "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

                            by MillieNeon on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:36:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  okay. (0+ / 0-)

                            this is getting silly now, and is a waste of your time. and mine.
                            it is you who can't follow this from the very beginning, and no amount of explaining the same thing to you over and over seems to change that.

                            i said i apologized for attaching to your initial comment.
                            that i would not make that mistake again.
                            you turn that into calling me a liar. which is as silly as the rest of your insults.
                            you are twisting my words to suit your narrative.
                            you are twisting my words and making them into your own to try to prove you are correct and i am wrong.  you are making things up  - things i never said.

                            You win Millie - you are right. I am wrong.
                            Same thing i told 4Ked - not into your games today.  
                            So here - I concede. I have nothing more.  
                            You can  claim victory since it's very important to you - to the point where you twisted what I have said.
                            You can either keep spinning your wheels or take your  lap.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:48:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again you fail to see (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            4kedtongue

                            The "you lied" was not calling you a liar. It was a humorous reaction to your posting after you said:

                            As usual, Christin, you're good at pointing out what you didn't say.  And I'm guilty of trying to make sense of what you DID say -- which is nothing.

                            which certainly implies you wouldn't be responding to my posts anymore.

                            And you NEVER addressed my original post to your comment:

                            They will state that this shows that Guantananmo Bay is a great!  place that does not torture so what's the big deal?  Which they no longer do under this President.  But they did and that's all move along now nothing to see here with them.    But it's still catnip  for them that they chose  Cuba over going back home - . because at home they would be tortured.

                            But as another poster here said to you:

                            As usual, Christin, you're good at pointing out what you didn't say.  And I'm guilty of trying to make sense of what you DID say -- which is nothing.

                            And from other responses to you, it's obvious that this is your game. Distortions of what people are saying in their response to you and not addressing the pertinent issues.

                            Yay! I win. Thanks for handing me the victory. I'll keep it next to my collection of salami ends.

                            "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

                            by MillieNeon on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:37:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

                            My first block quote should have been

                            I should have never responded to your post.
                            For that, I apologize. Won't happen again.

                            Damn turbo mouse.

                            "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

                            by MillieNeon on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:38:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Great comment, Christin.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Christin
                  •  so depriving the Republicans of a talking point (9+ / 0-)

                    takes priority over whether a person is knowing placed into a situation where kidnapping and torture is the likely outcome?

                    I find that argument appalling.

                    I do support Obama as President, and greatly hope that he will be re-elected. But that doesn't mean that I think his administration is incapable of ever doing anything wrong:

                    The Obama administration [...] battled Mr. Naji’s lawyers all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to send him to Algeria. Mr. Naji argued that once he was in his home country, he would be tortured ...

                    I believe Obama is strong enough to absorb valid criticisms, and that we do not need to make a strategy of emulating Republicans by being apologists for our leaders no matter what.

                    •  This from a Kossack who makes a practice (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      churchylafemme, 4kedtongue

                      of calling others sick and twisted, telling them something must be wrong with them, that they have serious, serious issues.  I've observed her bullshit for quite a while now, quite disgusting.

                      Free online (PDF) Dr. Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, one of the most important books ever written.

                      by kbman on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:20:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  uh-huh. (0+ / 0-)
                        * [new] There is no hope in this (0+ / 0-)

                        We really just have to not help them create dead-threads.
                        If there's nobody left arguing with them then they post comment after comment to each other patting themselves on the back for "standing up to the haters" and protecting the president.  And while this is far from an exhaustive list, some of the worst recent offenders include:

                        missliberties
                        fcvaguy
                        Christin
                        Little Lulu
                        matrix
                        johnnie rae (thought the Shirley Sherrod episode seems to have caused a shift)
                        drache
                        fou
                        CornSyrupAwareness
                        kalmoth
                        askew
                        nyseer
                        OIL GUY
                        APA GUY

                        Mostly these folks are authoritarian followers.  A few are also social dominators.  They are the flaw in community moderation.
                        Free online (PDF) Dr. Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, one of the most important books ever written.

                        by kbman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 06:03:36 PM EDT
                        [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                        The shower and sauna facility there, The Ritz, is open to everyone and is just a big open area with about 50 showers and three sauna rooms.  There is also a firepit lined with seating area and a stage.  The evening the fair ended I was there with my ladyfriend sitting around the fire with about 40 other naked people singing along to "Thank You Dirt" ...

                        Thank you dirt,
                        You made my lunch,
                        My salad, my sandwich, my milk and my crunch,
                        Thank you dirt, thanks a bunch!

                        Kind of puts things in a healthy perspective.

                        by kbman on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:14:22 AM EDT
                        [ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]

                        "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                        by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:22:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And what is your point? (0+ / 0-)

                          Is there something sick and twisted about being unashamed of one's naked body?  I also notice you cut off the beginning of that post which mentioned the context at the Oregon Country Fair - made it sound too normal I guess.

                          I HIGHLY advise you to read Riane Eisler's Sacred Pleasure.

                          It explores where all those nasty authoritarian attitudes come from, the ones that say that naked bodies are naughty and that pleasure is a sin - very authoritarian and controlling.

                          It looks like YOU may be the one with some serious issues here.

                          Free online (PDF) Dr. Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, one of the most important books ever written.

                          by kbman on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:28:29 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  . (0+ / 0-)

                            oh. my. god.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:00:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh get over yourself (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat, 4kedtongue

                            Now you're just being a judgmental jerk.  You've apparently been mining my comment history looking for ammunition.  This is the best you could come up with.  The second comment is particularly interesting seeing as how you've removed it from the context of the diary and removed part of the content/context of the comment.  Nice job.  That's exactly the kind of stuff that propagandists like Breitbart do, selectively edit people's words to make them appear somehow sinister.  You don't even do your readers the courtesy of providing links to the comments you've copied.  That's probably because you son't want them to be able to easily see the context you've stripped away.

                            Free online (PDF) Dr. Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, one of the most important books ever written.

                            by kbman on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:13:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  BTW - thanks for reposting that list (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          churchylafemme, 4kedtongue

                          of the troll patrol.  I think it needs more exposure.

                          Free online (PDF) Dr. Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, one of the most important books ever written.

                          by kbman on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:29:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  . (0+ / 0-)

                            your obsessive  vendettas against many long time respected and/or beloved users of this site, your callouts,  your grudge matches and harassment,  and  proclamation that you will continue to so this, are noted. thanks kbman.

                            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:59:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You way overinterpret what I've said I'll do (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat

                            What I will NOT do is allow y'all to continue harassing diarists like nyceve without push back.  Your bluster and intimidation tactics have no place here.  This is no vendetta, no grudge match, it is simply a matter of standing up to a group of people who have been trolling the diaries of "long time respected and/or beloved users of this site."  It is a matter of taking a stand that y'all should not be allowed to disrupt conversations about serious issues because they might reflect poorly on the president or his administration.  It is a matter of standing up for the ideals of the platform of the Democratic Party, even when those Democratic politicians run the other way - especially when they run the other way.

                            Nice try at playing the victim card though.

                            Free online (PDF) Dr. Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, one of the most important books ever written.

                            by kbman on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:21:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  PUT ME ON THAT LIST NOW!!!! (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Christin, Lawnguylander, 4kedtongue
                  •  seems like most (0+ / 0-)

                    of the prisoners in Guantanamo wish to stay there.  I guess it's not a place to be. I thought all the rumors about how bad it was were just BS. I was right.

                •  You didn't respond (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  geomoo

                  to the basic point: calling this criminal is flat wrong.  

                  You wrote six paragraphs, but ignored the basic point.

                  I can think of four things of the top of my head that I very much disagree with Obama about.  

                  This action isn't criminal.  The Obama administration is following US Law here - the issue was litigated to the US Supreme Court which upheld the decision.

                  It is in fact revealing that this diary says nothing about the grounds that both the US and the DC Circuit Court cited for its decision.  

                  There is much about this case that is murky according the the Scotus blog linked to at the top.  I don't like much the Obama has done in this area.  But the facts as I have read them suggest the following:

                  1.  Even Kessler concedes the defendant's connections to AQI.  In fact, many of these connections are in Europe.
                  1.  In the 10 previous cases where detainees had been sent to Algeria, there is no evidence that anyone had been tortured. The defendant's attorney argues that this is not enough to prove that he won't be subject to prosecution.    The defendant doesn't want to go to Algeria. That is clear.  Just because he says he would be persecuted is not determinative, however, and much of the litigation to date is about the standard to apply to that decision.
                  1.  Much of the litigation here has been subject to seal.  It is difficult to really know the facts here.  This is disturbing in and of itself.  Nonethless, the best summary is here:

                  http://www.scotusblog.com/...

                   

                  The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

                  by fladem on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:51:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Just like in the movies, when the bad guy (25+ / 0-)

                is obsessed with the star, can think of nothing else but how to bring down the brave police detective, stalks him 24 hours a day.  Except this isn't the movies.

                The former administration established a regime of torture, in violation of domestic and international law, of jus cogens, and of the fundamental principles of western civilization and of every major religion.  After ignoring their obligations under the convention against torture to investigate these crimes against humanity, the Obama Administration in now in for a pound by committing crimes related to that torture regime.  Even if you somehow find a way to disagree with Valtin on this issue, to think those of us who stand against torture are simply assessed with Obama is petty almost beyond belief.

                A democracy so eager to turn every issue over to the imagined goodness of its leadership may as well be a monarchy.  Democracy is a full-time business, not just about winning elections.

                Don't believe everything you think.

                by geomoo on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:38:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I used the word "criminal" (12+ / 0-)

                for reasons stated in the article. I wanted to bring attention to the fact that this action breaks international laws.

                It bothers me a great deal that the concern over language trumps the concern over a human life.

                As for whether Obama is responsible or not, whether this man had his "day in court" has someone elsewhere on the thread has stated, I once again ask that people learn the facts.

                Mr. Naji never had his day in court but was incarcerated without charges for eight years. A military panel reviewed his situation, and decided the case against him was bogus. Attorneys for Mr. Naji tried to block his deportation, and that's why his case was in court.

                This article IS an attack against the policies of the Obama administration regarding refoulement of prisoners. Even the NYT ed board found the actions "cruel" and defying explanation.

                War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

                by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:20:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It's not criminal if the President does it? (8+ / 0-)

                Catchy.

                Perhaps we should just criticized the American troops who fought for the principles of the Geneva Convention?

            •  Writing Congress will not help in this individual (6+ / 0-)

              case, you are absolutely right - but I think you are being a bit harsh on the commentator, as they did make one valid point, something that struck me as well when I was reading the article:

              Though he offered to remain at the prison, the administration shipped him home last weekend and washed its hands of the man.

              Realistically, I can certainly imagine no one here would be writing celebratory diaries if he was allowed to "remain at the prison", would we?

              Now of course, in this instance, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE not to send him to the Swiss if they were willing to take him, and that is why I agree with your diary; you are right on the money, and they shouldn't have rushed so quickly as to competely blow this.

              However, there is a bit of a contradiction that we're not acknowledging here, and it involves the expediency with which Guantanamo is being closed; assertions in the past by Obama that the prison needs to be closed but also closed responsibly have been met by groans, but this case is a prime example of how things can be handled quickly and as a result disasterously.

              This case was handled horribly, but as a result of trying to do things too fast.

              More to the point, however, it was just a bad decision, not just from the perspective of any one ideology but just an objectively bad call.  What happens if this man is forcibly recruited and involved in an attack against the US, then it will be OUR fault - wasn't avoiding this one of the reasons to be careful in where people are released?  This is why I don't entirely agree with this: "The response of the Obama administration has been terse and self-serving".

              I don't see how this action was good for the Obama administration or for anybody; it was the wrong call for EVERYONE involved.  This is one of the arguments that needs to be made when making calls; this is bad for Naji, this is bad for human rights, this is bad for national security.  There is no contradiction there.

              77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

              by ShadowSD on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:30:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How much more (20+ / 0-)

                "horrible handling" of anything are we supposed to keep turning a blind eye to?

                STOP the demonstrable liars who deliberately and with malice ABUSE the private company airwaves which used to belong to The People.

                by o the umanity on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:18:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  right. (0+ / 0-)

                  Giving Gitmo detainees a trial, granting them due process, and letting them go free when found to be innocent is "horrible handling." Especially when GWB and co. would't dare allow such a thing.

                  A Gitmo detainee being deported is "horrible handling,"
                  and now akin to torture if I'm following some of the comments correctly...

                  Out of curiosity, what is a better way to handle this situation? Send him anywhere but back home? Grant him asylum in the US?

                  "They got the guns, but we got the numbers..."

                  by danktle on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:12:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There was no due process for Aziz. (20+ / 0-)

                    For his attorney's letter announcing the heart-breaking end of their years of pro bono advocacy:

                    Although the Supreme Court declared over two years ago that the Guantanamo prisoners have a right to challenge their detention in federal court, he could not pursue his habeas case because the Obama executive review team (consisting of representatives from the Departments of Justice and State, along with other top federal agencies) cleared him--essentially admitting there was no legal basis for his detention--though he was prevented from obtaining the court ruling to which he was entitled.

                    Don't believe everything you think.

                    by geomoo on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:53:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  *sigh* (0+ / 0-)

                      Regardless of the details, I just don't see it the same. Your blockquote is littered with the kind of judgement that still shows the current administration is doing something, and not actively trying to be cruel. Perhaps this will get corrected, but for crying out loud, they at least took a look at this guy's case and found him to be innocent. It doesn't add up to the sheer outrage demonstrated in this thread over one individual who is not a US citizen, when we have so many bigger problems to deal with here at home.

                      "They got the guns, but we got the numbers..."

                      by danktle on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:00:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I didn't see the claim that this administration (13+ / 0-)

                        was actively trying to be cruel.  If you saw such a claim, you are right to call it out.

                        The Obama administration has not distinguished themselves on the issue of Guantanamo and torture.  The inherited a tough problem, but they have not responded in keeping with liberal principles.  In doing so, they have opened themselves up to being charged with complicity.  This most recent act is against international law.

                        What matters to me is that our country set up a regime of torture.  I want to see my country make clear that with Obama came a new commitment to the rule of law.  I have seen the opposite of this.  This is why I am upset.  It has nothing to do with being out to get Obama; it has to do with basic human decency commitment to civilized values.

                        Don't believe everything you think.

                        by geomoo on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:14:09 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I see where you think I'm crazy then... (0+ / 0-)

                          The Obama administration has not distinguished themselves on the issue of Guantanamo and torture.

                          This is news to me because I see a clear change in direction on both fronts. I feel that I can understand the complexity of closing down a POW camp where half of the folks may be as bad as purported, and the other half were completely innocent. It takes awhile to sift through that kind of mess...

                          As for the banning of torture, I don't see substantial evidence to the contrary to say that the current administration has failed to curb the practice. It may not have happened immediately, and there are still rogue soldiers who will disobey the new precedent.

                          I see where I'm advocating an "it's the thought that counts" perspective, but in my heart of hearts, I really think a lot of folks here overlook the complexity of many issues facing the president. It's never going to be as cut and dry as "just fix the damn thing."

                          I'm not a die hard Obama supporter, but I am a die hard skeptic, so I will continue to consider both sides of the story no matter what anyone says.

                          And yes, I'm quite capable of discussion, so a tip of the hat to you for being civil in your response.

                          "They got the guns, but we got the numbers..."

                          by danktle on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:39:07 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  A die hard sceptic (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            o the umanity

                            does not say a thing like "I see a clear change in direction on both fronts".

                            Tell me please the clear change in direction of post '06 Bush and Obama.

                          •  There it is. (0+ / 0-)

                            The much anticipated "there-is-no-difference-between-Obama-and-Bush" fallacy.

                            Here's a quick list:

                            The ordering closed of Guantanamo Bay Prison, a move that Bush mildly supported after McCain lost the election.

                            The banning of accounting practices hiding the severity of the national defecit.

                            Outlawing torture by US forces.

                            Matter of fact, I'm getting tired of digging these up for you. This is how to use the internet. Have a nice day.

                            "They got the guns, but we got the numbers..."

                            by danktle on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:45:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The reason for distrust of the Obama admini (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Knucklehead, o the umanity

                            The most damning example I know of under Obama was reported byScott Horton in Harpers.  A model soldier had come forward about what he saw on the night officials at Guantanamo claimed three detainees committed suicide.  He had been on watch that night and had seen events unfold.  From what he saw, he knew the official NCIS account is wrong. What he saw strongly suggested torturing to death.  He knew at least two other soldiers who would corroborate his story.  After Obama was elected, he came forward.  The only reasonable explanation for what happened next was that Obama's DOJ ignored the new evidence and supported the Bush era cover-up.

                            If you accept this report as fact, then it becomes very difficult to think of Obama's presidency as marking a sufficient change in direction.  Many Obama defenders stress the notion that Obama is not as bad as Bush, is different than Bush.  Obama had the chance to distinguish himself from Bush in more than words, and I think he has fallen short in essential respects.  He is not the same as Bush, but he has protected the criminality of the previous administration and in some cases he has continued it.

                            Here's how Horton ends his article:

                            The Justice Department thus faced a dilemma; it could do the politically convenient thing, which was to find no justification for a thorough investigation, leave the NCIS conclusions in place, and hope that the public and the news media would obey the Obama Administration’s dictum to “look forward, not backward”; or it could pursue a course of action that would implicate the Bush Justice Department in a cover-up of possible homicides.

                            Nearly 200 men remain imprisoned at Guantánamo. In June 2009, six months after Barack Obama took office, one of them, a thirty-one-year-old Yemeni named Muhammed Abdallah Salih, was found dead in his cell. The exact circumstances of his death, like those of the deaths of the three men from Alpha Block, remain uncertain. Those charged with accounting for what happened—the prison command, the civilian and military investigative agencies, the Justice Department, and ultimately the attorney general himself—all face a choice between the rule of law and the

                            expedience of political silence. Thus far, their choice has been unanimous.

                            Don't believe everything you think.

                            by geomoo on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:22:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  good grief (10+ / 0-)

                    letting them go free

                    Translation: Returning you to a place where you will be likely killed = FREEDOM!

                    This is what chump Change looks like.

                    by Wamsutta on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:31:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The issue is that there is a conflict (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hawkjt, RinaX

                  On one hand we push Obama so hard on Gitmo because we believe he is responsible for the delay in closing despite the fact that it's Congress holding things up; it is reasonable that once Obama makes it crystal clear to the rest of the executive branch he wants things taken care of as quickly as possible, in their expediency, an injustice like this is more likely to occur.

                  This simply may have been a negative unintended result of a nonetheless correct action: to attempt to empty and close Gitmo more quickly.

                  Life is full of correct actions with negative unintended results.

                  If it wasn't, it wouldn't be so damn messy.  Sometimes you can do the right thing and still have things go wrong.

                  Given how badly we all want Guantanamo closed, you'd think this argument would at least get a passing thought - but no, the only drive is to connect everything to an "Obama administration is incompetent and it starts from the top" narrative, which I think is ludicrous given a uniquely corruption-free and results oriented government relative to other modern Presidencies, along with a number of serious problems that are however systemic and slow to change; I just think it's staggering that this would be the example on which to validate the narrative you cite, when the bungle in this case was if anything as a result of an effort to do something we've legitimately been pushing for for years, closing Gitmo as quickly as possible.

                  77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

                  by ShadowSD on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:01:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think this was about haste (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                eglantine, ShadowSD

                The Obama administration is very well aware of treaty obligations referring to non-refoulement. There exists an entire systems of courts -- the immigration courts (now under Dept of Homeland Security auspices) -- that decides these issues M-F, 52 weeks a year.

                Furthermore, the Obama administration appealed this man's situation all the way to the Supreme Court. Such things are done with specific intent. Now, everyone is asking why? My answer is that it is a test case so they can dispense with refoulement questions without public outcry.

                We are in agreement that it was wrong. But this case is only tangentially related to the battle to close Guantanamo, and the actions of the Obama administration around this deportation had its own inner logic and political need.

                War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

                by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:51:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Could you elaborate on the political need? (0+ / 0-)

                  Because that is part I'm not grasping.

                  The only benefit to the Obama agenda I can see to Naji being sent away instead of remaining in Guantanamo is that it would more quickly empty and close that facility in accordance with Obama's promise, and in accordance with the wishes of progressive voters who would be more likely to turn out this year for Democrats as a result.

                  How else does Naji's deportation and potential recruitment by enemies of the US possibly put the Obama government in a stronger position?

                  77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

                  by ShadowSD on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:17:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  really? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Knucklehead, eglantine

                    The only benefit to the Obama agenda I can see to Naji being sent away instead of remaining in Guantanamo is that it would more quickly empty and close that facility in accordance with Obama's promise, and in accordance with the wishes of progressive voters who would be more likely to turn out this year for Democrats as a result.

                    Then why hasn't he sent Omar Khadr home to Canada then instead of continuing to prosecute him in a kangaroo court?

                    You seriously think that progressive voters will see returning a Gitmo detainee to a country that might torture him (basically extraodinary rendition by proxy) as bringing some kind of political win for him and the Dems? Really? (And I'm talking about progressives here - not the ConservaDems who have no problem with the idea that his life might be in danger and are willing to take that risk in some warped attempt to score more votes.)

                    Or did I misread your comment?

                    Some of the comments in this thread (and I'm not singling out yours) are absolutely appalling.

                    "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

                    by catnip on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:20:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You act like Obama personally signed off on (0+ / 0-)

                      the Naji case, when that is a far lower down decision while the overall policy on closing Gitmo was Obama's choice, not the specifics of the Naji case, which certainly wasn't handled by him.

                      To the extent that you misread my comment, it was because you assumed I shared the assertion that Obama personally ordered what happened in the Naji case, and that he thought such a decision would somehow gain progressive votes; I said no such thing, because that would be absurd.

                      77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

                      by ShadowSD on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:05:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  really? again? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        eglantine

                        And where did I say he personally signed off on it? This is his administration's doing though and the buck stops with him. So, if you consider that to be "signing off", so be it.

                        ***

                        Then please explain what you were trying to say. Long day, I'm tired and I apologize but some of the comments in this diary have my blood boiling (my default reaction to people (not you) who don't seem to care about human rights abuses or who only care when they can use them to attack the Republicans.)

                        "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

                        by catnip on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:24:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  They don't speak for me (0+ / 0-)

                          And I will be very clear.

                          Earlier, you said:

                          You seriously think that progressive voters will see returning a Gitmo detainee to a country that might torture him (basically extraodinary rendition by proxy) as bringing some kind of political win for him and the Dems? Really?

                          No, I don't; I am NOT asserting the actions on this case were planned by Obama to gain progressive votes, because as I said earlier, that would be absurd.

                          I am suggesting that closing Gitmo sooner gets progressive votes generally speaking, that is all, and that this correct goal led to a rush and an injustice in this case, because they weren't willing to wait to see if the  Swiss would take him or even to let him stay in his Guantanamo cell.  That sure as hell doesn't mean that we're responsible for pushing for the correct measure, but sometimes the correct measure still has unintended consequences, and since Obama's influence on this has thus far been pushing his admin to finish this more quickly, I find it hard to admonish him for the correct overall approach he has instituted when an underling took it too far; after all, then I'd essentially be arguing that Gitmo should take longer to close than the President intends, and I'm sure as hell not about to do that.  I hope there is justice in this case but I think on balance Gitmo has taken far too long to close and that Obama's efforts to close it as quickly as possible are therefore correct, and not themselves an areas; the liabilities of this expediency given the natural error rate of humans should not be a surprise to us, but it is a lesser price than keeping the place open for longer.

                          77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

                          by ShadowSD on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 05:14:12 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  okay (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            eglantine

                            Thanks for taking the time to explain your position to me.

                            However, I don't agree with this supposition:

                            this correct goal led to a rush and an injustice in this case, because they weren't willing to wait to see if the  Swiss would take him or even to let him stay in his Guantanamo cell.  

                            Are you sure that's the reason?

                            And if it was, why hasn't he sent Omar Khadr back to Canada? These "military tribunals" are a sham.

                            "lesser price"? I find that somewhat callous when we're talking about possibly placing somebody's life in jeopardy. We'll have to agree to disagree.

                            "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

                            by catnip on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:42:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  It always seeps out, doesn't it? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              barath, lordcopper, Hawkjt, yorkiedoglover

              Your derision for people that don't hate Obama.

              What could BPossibly go wrong?? -RLMiller

              by nosleep4u on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:41:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Eh... (4+ / 0-)

            I've never once frequented much less commented on a thread about such issues before, and I've been posting here for many years.

            I just find it odd that the diarist doesn't give any context about how it's not just the administration's poor record on Guantanamo, but congress's as well.  That includes almost all the progressive senators that everyone thinks of as "good" on war or terrah issues.  (Take Feingold, just to name one.)

          •  To all the apologists who HR'ed me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eglantine

            in righteous indignation when I called Obama sadistic or at best crassly indifferent to the plight of ordinary people - may I have my HR removed please?

            Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

            by virtual0 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:01:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Why do this? (5+ / 0-)

            Why make this diary one more piece of fodder in these annoying and utterly pointless wars by saying certain people are coming to say certain things before they even do. Why not at least wait for someone to actually say something than preemptively bash this other side?

            I know this isn't precisely a straw man argument, but I do think, quite often, both sides in this inane battle are guilty of caricaturing the other side, especially in these preemptive comments. Of course, both sides are certain that they are the polite ones, while the other people are the mean and nasty ones. I'm so done with all of that.

            I'm sure I could see some sort of flame war below this over that, but I'm leaving this diary now.

            Excellent diary, btw, which I rec'ed, but decided not to tip because of this. It's an important topic, but I get so irritated with this crap I hardly come here anymore.

            Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

            by LABobsterofAnaheim on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:09:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I arrived much earlier (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw, LostInTexas, geomoo

              Check the timestamps.  Several of the comments that were hidden attacking the diarist were made before I wrote my response to him.  So:

              Why not at least wait for someone to actually say something than preemptively bash this other side?

              Someone did show up; there was no preemption.  

              I've studiously avoided many ongoing fights on this site over the last several months.  I just notice general trends.  

              "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

              by Alec82 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:24:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I agree about the pre-emptive arguing. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw, condorcet, Alec82

              It has become commonplace to attach to the tip jar a prediction of vile behavior from the other side, usually putting in their mouths some extreme examples.  This is childish and fruitless, indicating a certain eagerness to engage the battle rather than any desire to contribute positively.

              I don't think this poster was doing that; he was referring to what had already happened.  That doesn't make your point is any less important.

              Don't believe everything you think.

              by geomoo on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:57:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's really not. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, sherijr, Amber6541

          Just because I differ in my take of how you ascribe blame in this diary doesn't mean I like what happened any more than you do.

          Nor do I have a particular ax to grind with congress, or is it meant to "throw off the needed help", so I'm surprised at you ascribing motive to my comments.

          But let's take the two things you say here:

          emailing the Algerian government, and protesting the administration's policies on these kinds of deportations is exactly what's needed, because it is the administration that makes these decisions.

          I just don't buy that Americans emailing the Algerian government does a bit of good.

          And protesting the administration's policy on this without getting at the root of the problem - a lack of a long term plan for all held at Guantanamo, thanks to senate obstruction...

          •  If you have no ax to grind with Congress (18+ / 0-)

            over Guantanamo -- you who posted the names downthread of those few Senators who did vote for closure -- then what in the world is your point?

            Public pressure on foreign and domestic governments is exactly how human rights groups conduct their business. If none of that does any good (and I agree, it often does not, but sometimes it does), then I guess you believe Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc. should just shut up shop now, because that's the logic of your statement.

            In forwarding the email addresses for Algerian officials, I am following the lead of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Some here would probably rather follow the advice of barath.

            Thanks for your contribution.

            War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

            by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:30:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Honestly, I don't know why I even commented. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sherijr

              My point was simply to remind folks of the bigger picture - that if you want sane and reasonable things to happen for those held at Guantanamo, sane and reasonable policies have to be enacted and funded by congress over the long term.

              But to be called an "apologist" in some comments and have stuff like this:

              I guess you believe Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc. should just shut up shop now

              written about me...I seriously don't know why I even tried to write a single comment in this diary.

              I guess folks don't like to be civil anymore.

              •  Where have I not been civil? (12+ / 0-)

                Your wrote:

                I just don't buy that Americans emailing the Algerian government does a bit of good.

                I replied (emphasis added):

                Public pressure on foreign and domestic governments is exactly how human rights groups conduct their business. If none of that does any good (and I agree, it often does not, but sometimes it does), then I guess you believe Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc. should just shut up shop now, because that's the logic of your statement.

                Now why did you edit my comment the way you did? I can only surmise it was to make me look intolerant. Uncivil.

                You never note my overall general agreement with your larger statement. I can only think then that you aren't really interested in winning over people, but complaining about how mistaken I am.

                War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

                by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:44:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You ascribed motive. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Christin, DFWmom, geomoo

                  You ascribed motive to many of my comments.  I never did that to any of yours, nor to the diary.  I had no motive except to clarify that the senate has been making things difficult.

                  But generally, (and this is not about what you've written, but what some other commenters have written), I don't get why others are uncomfortable ascribing some blame to congress.  The fact that I'm saying that both congress and the white house are to blame seems to upset folks, as if it absolves the white house.  I know it's uncomfortable to think that the vast majority of the senate is not with us on these issues, but, there it is.

          •  Your right about letters not doing much good. (5+ / 0-)

            Once the torturers are already in power they will continue their abuses until they are removed. As much as I would like the dems to win, to vote for those who carry out these kinds of acts will never lead to progress and is not the way forward for our country.

            The abusers must be confronted and defeated regardless of party affiliation.

            •  It was the GOP who championed and bgan torture (6+ / 0-)

              but now are you giving the Democratic Party the Party of "Torturors"?

              So your comment leads one to think that in voting out the Dems and replacing them with the REAL mastermind behind torture, the ORIGINAL masterminds of torture, then everything will be reconciled for the betterment of those being tortured..

              After all, the GOP is running on furthering Bush policies, they stand fully behind TORTURE and the reason Guantanamo is NOT closed is because of OPPOSITION to closing it, they constantly stand behind resuming TORTURE and yet the claim being made is that it's the Democratic Party that i the party of torture, so vote THEM out to reinstall the ORIGINAL Torture party.

              Please vote Democratic in November. If the GOP wins we will all be forced backward another decade, who wants that?

              by Wary on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:31:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We've always tortured. (19+ / 0-)

                It's a bipartisan tradition.  

                It's just that Dubya Bush was much more blatant and open about it, which is why torture is now openly accepted by a majority of Americans.

              •  wrong. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                conchita, Dallasdoc

                "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

                by bigchin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:44:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  what the post said was (9+ / 0-)

                to vote for those who carry out these kinds of acts will never lead to progress and is not the way forward for our country

                regardless of who is doing the acting.

                Please! When will we get it through our heads that the promise of We're Better Than The Other Guys just isn't enough?

                STOP the demonstrable liars who deliberately and with malice ABUSE the private company airwaves which used to belong to The People.

                by o the umanity on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:27:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  We no longer torture, and don't get sucked (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Gustogirl, Amber6541, soothsayer99

                in by this person's need to start yet another frame war.
                Aziz wanted to stay in Cuba.
                Because he would be tortured if sent home.
                Ergo - under President Obama, we did NOT torture him in Cuba.
                Before that, it's a given.
                But under this Administration, we did not.

                This is so very very sad. He was cleared of all charges.   He was given his "day in court" by this Administration and cleared.   His application was in review.  He was in Cuba for so so long, unjustly held.  They clear him. Good. They say we will free you. Great. And then it all goes into the crapper.  I just wonder why we could not have waited until Switzerland made a decision.

                I hope he is safe somewhere. In my hollywood ending world, he was offered protection that we don't know about in order to keep him safe.

                Background

                Aziz Abdul Naji asserts he was in Pakistan as an aid worker, performing zakat -- charitable work.[7] He described losing a leg to a land mine while performing charitable service near embattled Kashmir. He lost his leg prior to al Qaeda's attack on the USA, and spent a year in medical rehabilitation in Pakistan. His capture came shortly after his release from the hospital during a trip to Peshawar, where he was to meet a marriage broker.

                Clearance by Obama Administration's Guantanamo Review Task Force

                No charges have ever been brought against Mr. Naji by the US government.[7] On May 20, 2009, he was cleared for transfer by the Guantanamo Review Task Force established by President Obama’s Executive Order of January 22, 2009.

                Combatant Status Review Tribunal

                Initially the Bush administration asserted that they could withhold all the protections of the Geneva Conventions to captives from the war on terror. This policy was challenged before the Judicial branch. Critics argued that the USA could not evade its obligation to conduct competent tribunals to determine whether captives are, or are not, entitled to the protections of prisoner of war status.

                Subsequently the Department of Defense instituted the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The Tribunals, however, were not authorized to determine whether the captives were lawful combatants -- rather they were merely empowered to make a recommendation as to whether the captive had previously been correctly determined to match the Bush administration's definition of an enemy combatant. However, the Supreme Court eventually ruled these tribunals unconstitutional in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

                "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:27:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  They Write Letters (8+ / 0-)

            Amnesty International Success Stories.

            Government torture, rendition, and disappearance depend on and are protected by secrecy.

            Letters, emails, publicity campaigns, exposure, media coverage, and the like, have always been one of the best means to help stop it.

        •  How many other cases of these kinds (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Amber6541, soothsayer99

          of deportations have there been?

          "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

          by marabout40 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:25:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  For executive decisions (8+ / 0-)

        the buck stops with....

        Wait for it...

        Congress.

        Smh

        "Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists" - President Obama, March 31

        by justmy2 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:25:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The President (6+ / 0-)

        Has superior descretionary powers in this case. Don't forget to CC the WH on your letter to Congress and Congress on your letter to the President.

        "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

        by koNko on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:29:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  BS (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        Obama could have closed Guantanamo by Executive Action. Guantanamo is an extension of Likud foreignh policy interests, so it is staying open.

      •  Lolwut? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Valtin, eglantine

        Um, I'm sorry, the administration doesn't get a pass on illegal cruelty just because Congress made its job harder.

        They could've released her into the U.S. Would it have been risky? Probably. But it was the right thing to do. They did the wrong thing. Therefore they did wrong.

        “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

        by Jyrinx on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:43:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Stop passing the buck to Congress. (0+ / 0-)

        Congress wasn't holding this man.  The Executive was.

        As I linked in my other comments, the senate was seriously against (90-6) doing anything on Guantanamo

        And if Obama had been serious about closing it, he would have written an executive order to transfer all prisoners to domestic facilities and been done with it.  Instead, he kicked the can down the road, let Republicans take over the debate on the issue, and then conveniently signed a bill denying funds to the transfer of prisoners.

        ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

        by Uberbah on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:47:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Been calling and registering my complaints. (11+ / 0-)

      I would rec you but my opposition to the apologists for this type of behavior has for some reason caused this site to limit my rec abilities.

      That this site even tolerates those who defend these abuses speaks volumes about how low some at this site are willing to go as long as Obama is elected.

      •  oh the irony. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sherijr

        I would rec you but my opposition to the apologists for this type of behavior has for some reason caused this site to limit my rec abilities.

        I wish I could rec Meteor Blades fifty six billion times for that.

        "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

        by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:29:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Calls to White House pointless. No one home. (10+ / 0-)

      NY Times editorials on Naji, on Climate, on Elizabeth Warren all calls on Beldar's BIG PHONE to the Obama White House.

      All unanswered.

      The real question is why they have to be made in the first place? Why are the political instincts and actions of this White House so craven and despicable?  

      Fox News racists run midnight tapes and the White House leaps into action to obey.  NY Times runs full page editorials and there's no one home at the White House to answer the phone.

      Take a stand.

      Indeed, against a White House run amok.

      •  Yes (3+ / 0-)

        absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        I thought Obama was different.

        I was wrong.

        Time to correct the mistake.

        •  Yeah, what are you going to do? (5+ / 0-)

          vote republican for a change?

          Sheesh.

          •  oh he writes this nonsense all the time. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            psnyder, danktle, sherijr

            He also stated he was not a Democrat.
            He did not support Obama.
            And that we wants the blood of all Democrats to stain the floor of Congress or something crazy like that - when they lose.
            He's just here to post his usual hate and primary talk.
            And this diary should not be about his hate.

            It's gonna be good to watch you eat crow (2+ / 3-)
            when we laugh in your face come November.

            Cheerleaders have made my mind up completely. If they are the face of the democrats I want nothing to do with them!

            by NCIndy on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 12:42:46 PM EDT
            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

            by Christin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:33:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You get on that. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yorkiedoglover

          Time to correct the mistake, huh? By doing what? Making an even bigger one?

          Last I checked, the economy, immigration, climate change, health care, financial reform were ALL a bigger priority than where Gitmo detainees went after getting a day in court - something the previous administration would've never allowed.

          This guy gets set free, and because he's told that he has to go home, the administration is now guilty of torture. You didn't personally say that, but that's what many others here seem to be getting at -- Being repatriated is no different than the torture that was committed under the previous administration.

          So you go find a new candidate who will will give a televised apology and let former Gitmo detainees move to the resort destination of their choice. Is that it? Again, not to straw man you, but what else can be done here?

          "They got the guns, but we got the numbers..."

          by danktle on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:50:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "craven and despicable"? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena, psnyder

        This is NOT a discussion about Bush/Cheney.  Quit thread-jacking.

        The only constant is change - Heraclitus

        by Gustogirl on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:07:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Consider it done. (8+ / 0-)

      I'm not a US citizen but I am human.

      "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

      by koNko on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:30:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Th e phone call has been made (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      conchita, Dallasdoc, Valtin, Burned

      along with an e-mail cc'd to my Senators and House Rep.

      Thank you

    •  i'll make the call, valtin (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, Valtin

      it is the least i can do.

      •  Much thanks to... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        conchita, chuckvw

        koNko, TheMomCat, conchita and others who will call, write the letters, etc.

        So far the administration has not deported bin Mohammed, and that's likely because they are waiting, gauging the reaction.

        The many men, the majority innocent, at Guantanamo deserve our special assistance in this case, because the outrages done upon them, and because the world needs to know the U.S. will make good on its mistakes.

        The administration's actions -- and recent actions by Congress as well -- sadly are marching things in the opposite direction. Whatever political capital Obama gained in releasing prisoners over the past weeks just got blown out of the water by a serious violation of human rights, one the administration took to the Supreme Court to be validated for them. They've proven they cannot be trusted on this issue, but they may be susceptible to public pressure.

        War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

        by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:16:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Meet the new boss .......... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      ....... same as the old boss.  

      This thread is full of trolls, at least one of which is very likely a zombie. Zombies and trolls: Seen any elves lately?

      by ThAnswr on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:51:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One more black mark... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, cameoanne

      Sometimes this administration does shit that makes them look quite nearly as remarkably incompetent and heartless as their predecessors.

      SOMEBODY needs to be held accountable for this. Accountability breeds competent decision-making.

      The two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen. ---- Bob Lemon

      by miamiboats on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:11:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm shocked, SHOCKED (35+ / 0-)

    to learn that the Obama administration is dropping the ball on human rights and torture.

    After its closure of Gitmo and other black prisons, its forthright investigation and prosecution of Bush era torturers, and its courageous condemnation of Israeli war crimes in Gaza maybe this just didn't make it onto their radar screen.

    </purist snark>

    Thanks for the diary but sadly all the emails and phone calls won't get anything done with Obama and Company as far as I can tell. I would love to be convinced otherwise.

    She said that she was working for the ABC News
    It was as much of the alphabet as she knew how to use

    by Paolo on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:01:38 AM PDT

  •  Heartlessness (36+ / 0-)

    One can forgive much - and in the current situation we have to forgive much - but this callousness toward innocent human beings (whom we have greatly harmed) is loathsome.

    www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:04:46 AM PDT

  •  Unbelievable (on a smaller scale) (28+ / 0-)

    that the WH comments line is closed on weekends and evenings. You'd think that one could call anytime and at least leave a recorded message.

    I guess one can always call the switchboard and give a piece of your mind, but please be nice to the operator.

    202-456-1414

    For those of you so inclined:
    FAX: 202-456-2461

    War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

    by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:14:32 AM PDT

  •  This is not change I can believe in; this is not (28+ / 0-)

    good for anyone. It energizes the radical jihadists, appals moderates, and rivals Bush for cruelty

  •  What, you expect the President to be a magician? (25+ / 0-)

    Besides, he's doing everything he said he would do, so don't be so concerned. Here's a new photo of the President playing hopscotch with a small group of euphoric children.

    /s

    Btw, thank you for this diary.

    Here comes sunshine.

    by LodinLepp on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:48:13 AM PDT

  •  Incomprehensible! (5+ / 0-)

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:48:20 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for making the rec list (23+ / 0-)

    I've been there enough over the years that I really only get excited now when I know the cause is special, needs attention, and can offer something for the reader to do. This is one of those times.

    This week I spent my first time ever on a jury. Despite its inconvenience, I was impressed how this part of the system works, and it gave me faith that justice is possible.

    The people are the fourth branch of government. "We, the people." Please let the Obama administration know we won't stand for this kind of behavior.

    War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

    by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:58:43 AM PDT

  •  Nothing worse than a democrat trying to (19+ / 0-)

    'look tough' by trying to out-asshole the republicans. I just hate it. By now it's a familiar pattern w/ the Obama admin. They are really really scared of being accused of 'weak on terror'

  •  And Here is the Link of that Article (0+ / 0-)

    Link Below.
    Fear of Freedom

    For every action there is an equal and opposit reaction to the force. All Democrats minus GOP equals

    by 2010ftc on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 02:38:00 AM PDT

  •  Yes, it's wrong, but congress doesn't help here. (7+ / 0-)

    Wasn't the vote in the senate on funding the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners almost unanimously against?

    That means that all the supposed progressive heroes in the senate - pick your favorite - voted to tie the president's hands in what he can do with those held in Guantanamo.

    Found it - it was 90-6 against funding closure:

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

  •  Had to get rid of the evidence. (24+ / 0-)

    When you are already a nation that torturers it is but a small step to do something like this.

    I imagine at some point we will become like Argentina was when Pinochet's "homeland security" murdered opponents.

    Even now on Kos if you criticize Obama for rendition or his support of Bush's unconstitutional abuses you will at the least be confronted by apologists or even hide rated by them.

    As progressives we need to let the powers that be know they will not get our vote if they continue this sort of bullshit.

    That this position garners opposition at Kos is very telling. It should go without saying that we would never support torturers or those that spy on us.  

  •  This is mission impossible. (8+ / 0-)

    Guantanamo has to be closed, so what do you do with detainees? If you can't send them back to their countries and no other country accepts them? There's no good solution that I can think of, and I don't really see what the administration is supposed to be doing. What do you suggest?

    The administration got assurances that the Algerian administration would protect this person, there's a transfer of responsibility. Then if Alegria's administration fails, is it the US administration's fault? If so, then shouldn't the US extend its protection to all inhabitants of Algeria, and accept them on its territory if they feel threatened at home?

    •  Here's my solution (26+ / 0-)

      If no other country would take them, then offer them political asylum in the United States. Not to mention a cash settlement for all the pain and loss of liberty taken from them. I'm not talking about "terrorists" here, but innocent people swept up in Bush's furor to show the U.S. would respond terror for terror after 9/11.

      If it were you, French Imp, would you want the U.S. to turn it's back on you, leave you to the tender mercies of both sides in a country suffering a vicious civil war?

      Your assertion re the U.S. extending its protection to all Algerians is a reductio ad absurdum argument. You may be surprised to know that the Homeland Security Courts have awarded many Algerian asylum applicants political asylum in the U.S. because of a well-founded fear of persecution if they returned. Does anyone then make the same argument about U.S. extension of protections to "all inhabitants of Algeria."

      Gosh, the silliness of some of you.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Valtin, We are at war and he has not been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        condorcet

        processed through the court system.

        Relevant law and procedures
        See also: refugee law

        The United States is obliged to recognize valid claims for asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. As defined by these agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or place of habitual residence if stateless) who, owing to a fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the state. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The signatories to these agreements are further obliged not to return or "refoul" refugees to the place where they would face persecution.

        This commitment was codified and expanded with the passing of the Refugee Act of 1980 by the United States Congress. Besides reiterating the definitions of the 1951 Convention and its Protocol, the Refugee Act provided for the establishment of an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) to help refugees begin their lives in the U.S. The structure and procedures evolved and by 2004, federal handling of refugee affairs was led by the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) of the U.S. Department of State, working with the ORR at HHS. Asylum claims are mainly the responsibility of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

        Asylum

        The Refugee Act

        The Refugee Act of 1980 created The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program to provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival in the United States. Title IV, chapter 2 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains the provisions of the Refugee Act which are reflected in the following text:

        [Note: The Refugee Act was reauthorized through the year 2002. H.R.3061 Text, PDF Sponsor: Rep Smith, Lamar (introduced 10/12/1999). Latest Major Action: 11/13/1999 Became Public Law No: 106-104. Title: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend for an additional 2 years the period for admission of an alien as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(S) of such Act, and to authorize appropriations for the refugee assistance program under chapter 2 of title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Exact Language: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR REFUGEE ASSISTANCE. Section 414(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1524(a)) is amended by striking ``1998 and 1999'' and inserting "2000 through 2002''. Approved November 13, 1999.]

        INA: ACT 411 - OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT
        Sec. 411. [8 U.S.C. 1521]

        (a) There is established, within the Department of Health and Human Services, an office to be known as the Office of Refugee Resettlement (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the "Office"). The head of the Office shall be a Director (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the "Director"), to be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the "Secretary").

        (b) The function of the Office and its Director is to fund and administer (directly or through arrangements with other Federal agencies), in consultation with the Secretary of State,1/ programs of the Federal Government under this chapter.

        FOOTNOTES FOR SECTION 411
        INA: ACT 411 FN 1

        FN 1 Paragraph (1) of § 162(n) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Pub. L. 103-236, 108 Stat. 409, Apr. 30, 1994) substituted a reference to the Secretary of State for a reference to the U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs; paragraphs (2) and (3) of that section deleted subsequent references in § 412 and § 413 to the Coordinator. INA: ACT 412 - AUTHORIZATION FOR PROGRAMS FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT OF AND ASSISTANCE TO REFUGEES Sec. 412. [8 U.S.C. 1522]

        (a) Conditions and Considerations.

        (1)(A) In providing assistance under this section, the Director shall, to the extent of available appropriations,

        (i) make available sufficient resources for employment training and placement in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency among refugees as quickly as possible,

        (ii) provide refugees with the opportunity to acquire sufficient English language training to enable them to become effectively resettled as quickly as possible,

        (iii) insure that cash assistance is made available to refugees in such a manner as not to discourage their economic self-sufficiency, in accordance with subsection (e)(2), and (iv) insure that women have the same opportunities as men to participate in training and instruction.

        (B) It is the intent of Congress that in providing refugee assistance under this section-

        (i) employable refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible after their arrival in the United States;

        (ii) social service funds should be focused on employment-related services, English-as-a-second-language training (in non-work hours where possible), and case-management services; and

        (iii) local voluntary agency activities should be conducted in close cooperation and advance consultation with State and local governments.

        (2)(A) The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1), shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.

        (B) The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.

        (C) Such policies and strategies, to the extent practicable and except under such unusual circumstances as the Director may recognize, shall-

        (i) insure that a refugee is not initially placed or resettled in an area highly impacted (as determined under regulations prescribed by the Director after consultation with such agencies and governments) by the presence of refugees or comparable populations unless the refugee has a spouse, parent, sibling, son, or daughter residing in that area,

        (ii) provide for a mechanism whereby representatives of local affiliates of voluntary agencies regularly (not less often than quarterly) meet with representatives of State and local governments to plan and coordinate in advance of their arrival the appropriate placement of refugees among the various States and localities, and

        (iii) take into account-

        (I) the proportion of refugees and comparable entrants in the population in the area,

        (II) the availability of employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources (including educational, health care, and mental health services) for refugees in the area,

        (III) the likelihood of refugees placed in the area becoming self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance, and

        (IV) the secondary migration of refugees to and from the area that is likely to occur.

        (D) With respect to the location of placement of refugees within a State, the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) shall, consistent with such policies and strategies and to the maximum extent possible, take into account recommendations of the State.

        (3) In the provision of domestic assistance under this section, the Director shall make a periodic assessment, based on refugee population and other relevant factors, of the relative needs of refugees for assistance and services under this chapter and the resources available to meet such needs. The Director shall compile and maintain data on secondary migration of refugees within the United States and, by State of residence and nationality, on the proportion of refugees receiving cash or medical assistance described in subsection (e).

        In allocating resources, the Director shall avoid duplication of services and provide for maximum coordination between agencies providing related services.

        (4)(A) No grant or contract may be awarded under this section unless an appropriate proposal and application (including a description of the agency's ability to perform the services specified in the proposal) are submitted to, and approved by, the appropriate administering official. Grants and contracts under this section shall be made to those agencies which the appropriate administering official determines can best perform the services. Payments may be made for activities authorized under this chapter in advance or by way of reimbursement. In carrying out this section, the Director, the Secretary of State, and such other appropriate administering official are authorized-

        (i) to make loans, and

        (ii) to accept and use money, funds, property, and services of any kind made available by gift, devise, bequest, grant, or otherwise for the purpose of carrying out this section.

        (B) No funds may be made available under this chapter (other than under subsection (b)(1)) to States or political subdivisions in the form of block grants, per capita grants, or similar consolidated grants or contracts. Such funds shall be made available under separate grants or contracts-

        (i) for medical screening and initial medical treatment under subsection (b)(5), (ii) for services for refugees under subsection (c)(1),
        (iii) for targeted assistance project grants under subsection (c)(2), and
        (iv) for assistance for refugee children under subsection (d)(2).

        (C) The Director may not delegate to a State or political subdivision his authority to review or approve grants or contracts under this chapter or the terms under which such grants or contracts are made.

        (5) Assistance and services funded under this section shall be provided to refugees without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion.

        (6) As a condition for receiving assistance under this section, a State must-

        IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
        TITLE IV-MISCELLANEOUS AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

        CHAPTER 2 - REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
        INA: ACT 412 - AUTHORIZATION FOR PROGRAMS FOR DOMESTIC

        RESETTLEMENT OF AND ASSISTANCE TO REFUGEES

        (A) submit to the Director a plan which provides-

        (i) a description of how the State intends to encourage effective refugee resettlement and to promote economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible,

        (ii) a description of how the State will insure that language training and employment services are made available to refugees receiving cash assistance,

        (iii) for the designation of an individual, employed by the State, who will be responsible for insuring coordination of public and private resources in refugee resettlement,

        (iv) for the care and supervision of and legal responsibility for unaccompanied refugee children in the State, and

        (v) for the identification of refugees who at the time of resettlement in the State are determined to have medical conditions requiring, or medical histories indicating a need for, treatment or observation and such monitoring of such treatment or observation as may be necessary;

        (B) meet standards, goals, and priorities, developed by the Director, which assure the effective resettlement of refugees and which promote their economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible and the efficient provision of services; and

        (C) submit to the Director, within a reasonable period of time after the end of each fiscal year, a report on the uses of funds provided under this chapter which the State is responsible for administering.

        (7) The Secretary, together with the Secretary of State with respect to assistance provided by the Secretary of State under subsection (b), shall develop a system of monitoring the assistance provided under this section. This system shall include-

        (A) evaluations of the effectiveness of the programs funded under this section and the performance of States, grantees, and contractors;

        (B) financial auditing and other appropriate monitoring to detect any fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in the operation of such programs; and

        (C) data collection on the services provided and the results achieved.

        (8) The Attorney General shall provide the Director with information supplied by refugees in conjunction with their applications to the Attorney General for adjustment of status, and the Director shall compile, summarize, and evaluate such information.

        (9) The Secretary, the Secretary of Education, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State may issue such regulations as each deems appropriate to carry out this chapter.

        (10) For purposes of this chapter, the term "refugee" includes any alien described in section 207(c)(2).

        Continue

        The Refuge Act

        For every action there is an equal and opposit reaction to the force. All Democrats minus GOP equals

        by 2010ftc on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:21:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        conchita, ohmyheck

        except those who don't share your views of silliness and when you seem to consider that 'reduction ad absurdum' is fallacious: it is a valid logical argument.

        Of course I agree that :

        1. anyone who has been condemned unjustly and moreover has suffered ill treatments deserves a just compensation.
        1. anyone who feels threatened in his country can ask for political asylum and should be granted it if his/her claim is well substanciated.

        However this diary is neither about 1) nor about 2). As far as I know this Algerian citizen has not asked for political asylum, has he? European countries also recognize the right to ask for political asylum, but unfortunately European governments are restricting considerably this right.

        •  Naji does have a claim for asylum in Switzerland (0+ / 0-)

          CCR:

          Mr. Naji had applied for political asylum in Switzerland, and his application was proceeding through the Swiss courts with the support of human rights groups and other advocates in that country.

          I mentioned this in the diary, too. The Times editorial mentions is as well.

          Switzerland is unique in that a person can ask for asylum there without being present on the territory. Whether he could have been successful in his asylum application is one thing, but it was made, and as the Times editorial noted, it wasn't taken into consideration.

          War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

          by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:39:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Algeria is not really a democracy (0+ / 0-)

            but it's not an awful dictatorship as you seem to imply, either. If I understand well the diary, Naji fears islamist opponents, not the Algerian government.
            This is not a case of sending someone to a state which will imprison or torture him.
            Is it a fact that Naji has had problems since his arrival in Algeria, or will certainly face them in the near future? Can't he just wait for the result of his application in Algeria?

    •  "Then if Alegria's administration fails, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      is it the US administration's fault?"

      Of course. You don't trust the assurances of the governments of third world helhholes. Duuh.

      So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

      by skeptiq on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:37:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  oh, now I want to know (0+ / 0-)

      why no other country wanted to take him. Did he try to ask for asylum in other countries? Did they refuse? When did he start to apply for asylum?

      And yes, even the US could have given him asylum, but I think, the US government also couldn't assure that he wouldn't be mistreated here in the US ... just saying.

      What a fucking farce.

      "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

      by mimi on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:25:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In America, people are given trials. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc

      If they are innocent, they are released. The fact that these people have not been tried only proves that they must be innocent.

      If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

      by SadieB on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:16:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would hope 2010ftc and barath, (22+ / 0-)

    that the focus could remain on the defense of an innocent man who after being wrongly held prisoner for 8 years, was dumped, BY the US Government alone and afraid, into an environment where he feared for his safety, and begged not to be returned to, instead of on the defense of a man who though also in constant danger, chose that life, and lives in lush surroundings with 24/7 security.

    Call the Whitehouse on Monday.
    Someone needs to find this guy and we then need to make it right by him.

    Education is too big to fail. Truth is too big to fail. Justice is too big to fail. Peace is too big to fail.

    by Burned on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:26:38 AM PDT

  •  They found the communication. (9+ / 0-)

    President Obama
    The White House
    Washington DC

    Dear President Obama:

    In answer to your concerns, we will make sure Mr. Naji is treated well here.  Yes, yes - that's right. That's the ticket. Treated well.

    Sincerely,

    The Algerian Government

    No one will believe it's the Blues if you wear a suit, `less you happen to be an old person, and you slept in it.

    by dov12348 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:49:24 AM PDT

    •  Well played. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Valtin, dov12348

      That's probably exactly what the letter said from Russia and Tunisia before the exact same thing was done by Bush.

      Of course, that was just before Human Rights organizations verified those very detainees were abused by the governments that provided assurances they wouldn't be...

      More and Better Democrats

      by SJerseyIndy on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:35:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The difficulties of theory (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    conchita

    [..] seems to defy explanation.

    Sadly, the same can be said of many things that the current administration has done and not done. Obama is, or wants to be, the rational manager of a rational world: we live in the other one.

    It's easier to supply plausible explanations for the acts of the right. Soon, then, no more headaches for the explainers.

  •  Whatever else may be said about Obama, (16+ / 0-)

    but he has been largely a FAIL on human rights issues.

    So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

    by skeptiq on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:35:57 AM PDT

  •  One of the consequences of confusing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alba, ohmyheck

    a state obligation with a human right is that it's never clear who's responsible for doing what.

    Do the agents of the U.S. federal government have an obligation to protect a person from harm that might come to him as a consequence of his relocation?  As a matter of fact, no-one can protect a person from all potential harms.  All that can be prevented is a repetition of the same harm -- and then only if it was intentionally inflicted in the first place.

    Does a person who was injured by mistake in the first place (deprived of liberty for no reason) deserve to be compensated in some way?  Yes.  Does the compensation have to be in a form that meets the injured party's every demands ad infinitum?  No.

    I don't think our agents of federal government are legally empowered to release Guantanamo detainees into mainland U.S.  The law as it relates to agents of government is different from the law's application to individuals.  The law tells agents of government what they MAY and MUST do--nothing less and nothing more.  The law tells individuals what they MUST NOT do without incurring a penalty.  The law as it applies to private corporations is grossly deficient because it tells them what they MAY do, as it does public corporations, but without any limitations, and leaves out what they MUST NOT do entirely.

    The Constitution is not a menu for an exclusive diner.

    by hannah on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:36:41 AM PDT

  •  It's not about Naji, it's about Algeria (4+ / 0-)

    Algeria is on our good list, so the US won't do anything that questions its ability to keep people like Naji safe.  In that regard it's like Colombia.  So if it's really an act of cruelty--and I'm not entirely sure about that, but let's say that it is--it certainly doesn't defy explanation.  It's the usual explanation, "reasons of state."

  •  There are no happy endings (15+ / 0-)

    to a program of torture and unlawful detention.

    The best we can do is acknowledge our crimes, attempt restitution for the victims, and investigate, prosecute and punish the criminals who did this in our names.

    "The Universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it." Marcus Aurelius

    by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:00:31 AM PDT

  •  Oh man, that is too much (7+ / 0-)

    Kudos for writing this diary!  

    So, THAT is how Obama closes Guantanamo RESPONSIBLY?
    Unfortunatelhy this is one of Obama's expressions he uses over and over again in his speeches that feel like a slap in your face.

    My God, why couldn't he wait til Switzerland gets his act together and accepts his request for asylum?

    I am so ashamed that Germany apparently didn't consider taking him in. It's disgusting, everywhere you look the governments in power neglect to protect human rights.

    "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

    by mimi on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:03:31 AM PDT

  •  I'm sorry for Mr. Naji (0+ / 0-)

    I really am, if anything cruel or worse has happened to him.  Just one more life put on a foul track by Bu$hCo.

    But right now, in the USA, there are over 300,000,000 citizens and legal residents whose safety and well being are a larger concern in my world.

    We can't fix everything ruined by the previous administration in a perfectly equitable way.  It will just not happen.

    If I make a call it would be about...
    Jobs
    Tax Cuts the NYT is trying to turn into an "Epic Battle"
    Jobs
    Clean Energy
    Jobs
    Removing religion from the government and military
    Jobs
    Not falling for Kim Dong Illogical's bull$hit
    Did I mention Jobs?
    ...
    ...
    Mr Naji

  •  Right...... (9+ / 0-)

    The response of the Obama administration has been terse and self-serving. They say they have gotten assurances from the Algerian government that Mr. Naji, who was never charged with any crime, would not be mistreated or tortured when sent back.

    That's right up there with Senator Jeff Sessions believing that BP will pay all damage claims because they told him so.

    Who was the idiot in the state department that believed Algeria's word when that country is considered unsafe to travel in because of its political situation?

    Aud, the Deep Minded

    by HylasBrook on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:40:37 AM PDT

  •  much from Obama defies explanation (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dallasdoc, Valtin, ohmyheck, SFUSA17

    alas...

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:42:29 AM PDT

  •  A knee Jerk Op Ed from The New York Times (9+ / 0-)

    ...again, claiming Obama is "heartless & indifferent" to ordinary people's plight, at the end of the very week Obama triumphed over the GOP in the congress for extending the "unemployment benefits."

    Sigh!

    About the Naji case, if it was left to me, I would hold my tongue and judgment until I know the details and in this case, The New York Times article failed to convince me of their mastery of it, either.

    Although CCR's efforts are admirable in terms of humanitarian grounds, they fell short when it comes to the rationalizing of their demand that Naji's whereabouts to be made known, immediately.

    Why it fell short? Because when the whereabouts of someone is openly known in a case like this, then their safety also would be compremised.

    It is very possible is that the "disappearance" of Mr. Naji has everything to do with his safety, at the moment. The Algerian gov (not necessarily without the knowledge of the US gov) could have him kept safe for the time being, and that sounds very much likely to me. His famiy is also kept safe by not knowing of his whereabouts.

    Guantanamo is a hell-knot that was created by the Cheney/ Bush admin's monster ball in the last decade, and no amount of blaming of Obama is going to help untangle it anytime soon.

    Check  please

    •  Yup, another msm driven diary. (7+ / 0-)

      BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
      A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.
      palin's ability to sound like a vuvuzela while twittering is remarkable.

      by amk for obama on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:09:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There was no reason to send this (18+ / 0-)

        innocent man back to Algeria at this time. There was no reason to expose this man to possible harm.

        The disposition of Guatanamo, thanks to a feckless Congress, remains unresolved. Why was this man not allowed to remain there at least until that resolution has been achieved? He ASKED to be allowed to remain there, rather than face his likely fate in Algeria.

        What, is there like an 11 am checkout time at Guantanamo? Sorry, Naji, gotta change the sheets and make up the room for the next reservation.

        Your knee jerk reaction to defend all things Obama is disgusting and heartless.

        Pop quiz - Q: How did the incrementalist kick his heroin habit? A: By shooting up three times a day instead of four.

        by WisePiper on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:37:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wow, just a one-line factual post brought about (4+ / 0-)

          this poutrage ?

          WTF do you know about my views on torture ?

          BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
          A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.
          palin's ability to sound like a vuvuzela while twittering is remarkable.

          by amk for obama on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:43:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Twist, twist, twiiiiist thy logic... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          amk for obama, soothsayer99

          There was no reason to expose this man to possible harm.

          There is no evidence that he has been exposed to "possible harm," as of yet.

          rather than face his likely fate in Algeria.

          "Likely fate" is not fate and the "likeliness" of it is open to debate...

          Sorry, Naji, gotta change the sheets and make up the room for the next reservation.

          You are creating a false impression here that we are continuing to bring new prisoners to Guantanamo. Any evidence on that?

          Your knee jerk reaction to defend all things Obama is disgusting and heartless.

          Shitty attempt on twisting rhetoric, if you ask me. If I am calling out against knee jerk reactions to blame Obama, then I must be having knee jerk reactions defending all things Obama, in addition to being "heartless."

          When I ask, in other words, that people hold their horses from judging too soon against the president, especially in the face of lacking clear evidence of what really has happened, then I am the one who is judging too soon in defense of the president?

          Your "logic" would put Glenn Beck's shame...lol!

          •  In your oh-so-reasonable request that (9+ / 0-)

            we wait until the facts are in (or indeed until Naji actually DOES meet grievous harm in Algeria) before we rush to judgment here, you neglect to explain why the Administration chose to push this issue through the courts to get the ruling handed down by the Supremes.

            You and amk for Obama are both dodging the question: What was the urgency of repatriating Naji to Algeria? At this point we know Naji was innocent of the charges that landed him in Guatanamo in the first place. We know that he expressed fears about his fate should he be returned to Algeria. We know Algeria's track record of gross human rights abuses. We know, thanks to Congressional actions, that Guantanamo is not closing any time soon.

            So, what's the deal here, Sport? How, in your NON-Beckian logic, is it justifiable to ignore this innocent man's plea and FORCE him to encounter possible harm in Algeria?

            Pop quiz - Q: How did the incrementalist kick his heroin habit? A: By shooting up three times a day instead of four.

            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:04:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What "evidence" will be enough (0+ / 0-)

            to convince you?

            Grizzly photos on Torquemada's Facebook page?

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:03:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Knee-jerk reaction to "knee-jerk" op-ed. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, esquimaux, soothsayer99, Tulips

      Fair enough that GITMO was created by Bushies (with the help of Democrats, which is worth noting).

      Only, Bush didn't send this man back to Algeria.

      Someone else did.

      So, blame Bush!

      And vote Democrat....

      More and Better Democrats

      by SJerseyIndy on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:25:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Only, Bush didn't send this man back to Algeria. (0+ / 0-)

        And what happened to this man after being sent to Algeria?

        Anything you know about that? Positive? Negative? Is he still in Algeria?

        What do you know at this point that the judgment of Obama about Naji's fate is well timed and not a knee jerk one?

        I am listening

        •  Who knows what happened? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itsbenj, Dallasdoc

          And that's sorta the point, now isn't it?

          Anything could've happened.

          Which, you'll note, would NOT have happened if just one of this innocent man's requests were paid attention.

          And THAT'S the important, underlying point that I take away.

          More and Better Democrats

          by SJerseyIndy on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:06:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I meant us by "who" (0+ / 0-)

            Who knows hat heppended

            And that's sorta the point, now isn't it?

            Anything could've happened.

            You certainly don't think the US dumped the ex Guantanamo inmate somewhere in the desert and didn't care about his whereabouts and whatabouts after that?

            It is "we" the general audience who is making these knee jerk reactions don't know exactly what happened to Naji. And there is a good reason that we don't know more details other than "he was deported to Algeria." He is an ex Guantanamo inmate meaning that Naji's protection is a legitimate national security issue. Obama did not create Guantanamo and the security issue caused by its inmates' in the aftermath while we are trying to "responsibly close" it, as the president states. "Responsibly" means he is going to put the US security on top of his proirities while doing the right thing. Not an easy job, but don't tell that to knee jerk finger pointers. The government cannot reveal Naji's whereabaouts not only because it will comprimise his safety but also US security. My hunch that he is at a safe place and that the US didn't just dump him somehere and forgot about him comes from the fact that his family does not know "or claim to not know" his whereabouts. "Not knowing" is also necessary for the safety of the family.

            In your zeal to blame somone, you are ignoring the complexity of this issue.

            We need more critical thinking education in this country...

            Damn soon...

    •  Guantanamo became Obama's hell knot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      decca, Dallasdoc, eglantine

      in January 2010. He is responsible for his decisions and actions.

      If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

      by SadieB on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:27:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  First things First (0+ / 0-)

    The people who are/were in Guantanamo were there so that they could be coerced and/or tortured into making false confessions that would provide the Bush administration with a casus belli.

    Address this 2x4 in your eye before trying to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin.  I think you'll find that it clarifies the proper next steps immensely.

    "The Universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it." Marcus Aurelius

    by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:28:27 AM PDT

  •  A nightmare /nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Valtin, eglantine

    I must be dreaming...

    by murphy on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:20:30 AM PDT

  •  How sad that the guy's best legal option (6+ / 0-)

    was confinement at Guantanamo.

    And how miraculous that Congress discovered the funding power.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:32:59 AM PDT

  •  Don't be so surprised (9+ / 0-)

    Obama is a politician as Rev. Wright said when Wright was asked why Obama was distancing himself from Wright. Obama is going to do what Obama wants to do for his self-serving political interests. After Obama voted for the passge of FISA to continue warrantless wiretapping, I knew we were in for a rude awakening. How many broken campaign promises does it take before they become lies?

  •  US continues to ignore international law (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dallasdoc, SadieB, esquimaux

    what a shocker.

    I did campaign on the public option, and I'm proud of it! Corporat Democrats will not get my vote, hence I will not vote.

    by Jazzenterprises on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:41:24 AM PDT

    •  Speaking of international (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pgm 01

      not many countries have been willing to assist the US by accepting detainees. Canada refused, EVEN a Canadian citizen detainee.

      This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

      by Agathena on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:36:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Canada is currently being run by conservatives (0+ / 0-)

        and so their position is similar to the conservatives here in this country.  They essentially believe that even those who have been cleared as being innocent of terrorist charges are tainted by the fact that they were rounded up as terrorists and so you can't have someone like that in your country.

  •  silly phrase: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SadieB, marina, condorcet, in2mixin, zenox

    "involuntary deportation"

    IS there such a thing as a "voluntary deportation"??

    Oh yeah, it's called "leaving the country"


    'The great religions are the ships. The poets are the lifeboats. Every sane person I know has jumped overboard.' - Hafiz

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:41:33 AM PDT

    •  That phrase... (0+ / 0-)

      ..must have been added to jack up the "unfairness" level of Obama admin. Anything to make them appear tyrannical...

    •  I should have written (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias

      "contested deportation"

      But language is so much important than issues, isn't it?

      I did wish to emphasize the involuntary and coerced nature of the action.

      Did you know, AK, that the principle of non-refoulement was partly enhanced after WW II because of the return of fleeing Jews from Germany, and the belief they had no legal status from which to object to their deportations?

      First they came for...

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:51:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. damned if you do, damned if you don't. (6+ / 0-)

    I'll have to keep perusing the comments, but I just cannot see eye to eye with those who bash the administration over this. I want to see someone give the man credit for 1) Giving Naji any day in court at all - something the previous administration would've eternally rejected, 2) Letting him go free after a judge actually found him to be innocent.

    What else can be done? There's no way in hell that the Administration is going to grant a Gitmo detainee asylum in the US, and AFAIK, there isn't anyone living here now who was a former detainee. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Letting this individual get a fair hearing and allowing justice to be served seems to trump any misdoing by the administration. It seems to me to be just another example of someone who didn't get a million dollar check personally signed by Barack Obama...

    "They got the guns, but we got the numbers..."

    by danktle on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:44:25 AM PDT

  •  Amnesty International USA (5+ / 0-)

    The positions of Amnesty USA seem to lead Naji to fall through the cracks.  On one hand, there is a concern about responding to terror with justice.  A part of this is closing Gitmo.

    But then there is detention of immigrants, another problem of human rights violations created by Bush and the GOP.

    But the decision to deport Naji, which seems to fit the bill in terms of basic human rights, creates a different problem with the NYT editorial highlights.  Naji has had problems - he and others report - with the Algerian government.

    But to call the deportation an act of cruelty misses the broader point, which is that restoring America's leadership abroad requires us to take responsibility for "cleaning our own house first".  We obviously lost huge credibility on these issues with the realities of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.  But we cannot go on perpetuating the failed policies of the past and then attack Algeria for torturing detainees.

    The international community is bigger than one nation, and hopefully it can bring pressure and attention to bear on Algeria's government abuses of power.

    Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

    by Benintn on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:10:44 AM PDT

    •  "cleaning our own house first" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joedemocrat, seeta08, Benintn, zenox

      yes..

      Bush/Cheney and the GOP extended USA violations of International Human Rights law into bold blatant and brutal new territory..

      But USA torture is nothing new and has been going on covertly and overtly for eons both abroad and at home

      While i respect the committment and scholarship of this diarist with regard to the issue of torture -- the narrow framing of this diary invites misplaced outrage..

      There are a multitude of actors to blame for the persistence of Guantanamo and human rights violatiions -- the previous adminsitration the Senate (who refused to fund the closing of Guantanamo), the SCOTUS and yes the American public who generally does not care about international issues of torture let alone torture of some 2.5 million American citizens in the context of the prison industrial complex USA

      I would tip and rec this diary if this larger context were clear.. Instead the specific focus on Obama is both inaccurate and a clarion call for the tireless administration critics to leap forth at yet another opportunity to manufacture more outrage

      "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

      by soothsayer99 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:39:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama is in charge. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pithy Cherub, Dallasdoc, Valtin, eglantine

        He's the one responsible. "The dog ate my homework" is getting very old.

        If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

        by SadieB on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:32:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How simplistic (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joedemocrat, Benintn, ThisIsMyTime

          the abject failure to understand the complexity of US government and the fact that a President is not a King or a magician is really what is getting old..

          i am going to quote another diary and I quite frankly agree

          That our President is blamed for everything that happens is beyond ridiculous. I see very little difference between Rush Limbaugh's Barack the Magic Negro and the rantings of so called progressives that every thing that happens or fails to happen must fall at the feet of Barack Obama.

          "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

          by soothsayer99 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:38:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama administration is responsible (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pithy Cherub, Valtin, aliasalias

            It deported an innocent man to a country where he faces a serious threat of torture, execution, and persecution.  There is lots of blame to go around, but Obama is one of those responsible.  His administration makes the ultimate decision.  Deport Naji or don't deport him.  The Supreme Court said, we'll let the administration decide.  It decided, and it made the wrong decision.  This was the President's call.

            •  Obama is not responsible for the gov't of Algeria (0+ / 0-)

              He is responsible for the Executive Branch of the US Government.

              He's not responsible for the legislative branch, although his party is currently in the majority and therefore he has more say than what Bill Clinton did after 1995.

              And he's not responsible for the judiciary, although he is responsible for nominating judges (and again, the legislative branch led by the GOP is responsible for their own failure to advise, consent, and vote to put these good judges and attorneys through to serve their Constitutional duties.).

              Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

              by Benintn on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:41:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He is responsible (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chuckvw, Valtin

                for the decision to send Naji to Algeria, where he faces the danger of execution, torture, and persecution.

              •  Obama, or his legal appointees (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                eglantine, aliasalias

                are responsible for appealing lower court decisions protecting Naji from deportation. This was not a mistake of ommission, but of commission. It went against international laws and precedents, even of his own administration, not to mention (gasp) of the previous administration, at least on this issue.

                War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

                by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:33:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Obviously, at some point, a decision was made (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  soothsayer99

                  to turn Naji over to Algeria.

                  As far as international laws and precedents, can you expand on that?  What precedent is there for Gitmo and the blatant and repeated violations of human and legal rights that took place there?

                  Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

                  by Benintn on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:42:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Rantings rantings rantings (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eglantine, aliasalias

            ...the rantings of so called progressives that every thing that happens or fails to happen must fall at the feet of Barack Obama.

            Emphasis added.

            Strawman argument. Everything? What about the deportation of one innocent man, tortured by the Bush administration? Just one thing. One man's life.

            How jump to "everything"?

            The president is not a king or a magician, but he is the chief executive of the country, responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. Or is that too close to being responsible for "everything"?

            War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

            by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:36:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  maybe you do not read (0+ / 0-)

              here often enough

              this critique has merit

              I was not specifically referring to you in this context - but rather the flow of much commentary that followed

              i will repeat what i said directly above

              While i respect the committment and scholarship of this diarist with regard to the issue of torture -- the narrow framing of this diary invites misplaced outrage..

              There are a multitude of actors to blame for the persistence of Guantanamo and human rights violatiions -- the previous adminsitration the Senate (who refused to fund the closing of Guantanamo), the SCOTUS and yes the American public who generally does not care about international issues of torture let alone torture of some 2.5 million American citizens in the context of the prison industrial complex USA

              I would tip and rec this diary if this larger context were clear.. Instead the specific focus on Obama is both inaccurate and a clarion call for the tireless administration critics to leap forth at yet another opportunity to manufacture more outrage

              "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

              by soothsayer99 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:46:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  This is NOT a dog ate homework reply.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThisIsMyTime, soothsayer99

          This is simply common sense and pragmatism...

          President Obama inherited an economic and foriegn policy mess. No President could clean this up in  18 months and I doubt he can in one term.

          Obama faces a problem that no previous President since FDR has faced. People expect him to clean up a 30 year mess in 2 years when we don't have the political will to do it..

          "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

          by joedemocrat on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:36:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And now, the Algerian gov't is responsible. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThisIsMyTime, soothsayer99

          Obama is not responsible for the actions of the government of Algeria.  He is responsible for the government of the United States of America.

          And so, sending Haji to Algeria (where, apparently, he has citizenship) and walking it home diplomatically with State Department oversight and monitoring is the right thing to do.

          You disagree with this?

          Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

          by Benintn on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:40:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not the right thing to do (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Indiana Bob, aliasalias, PhilJD

            It is a firmly established principle of international and domestic law, not to mention a requirement of morality and basic decency, that one is forbidden to send someone to another country, including the individual's country of citizenship, where he or she faces a serious risk of persecution, including execution and torture.  Most democracies scrupulously adhere to this obligation.  The United States usually adheres to it, as it has done, for example, with regard to the Uighurs.  In this case it violated its legal obligation.  It should not have done so.

            •  this administration won't apologize to Maher Arar (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Valtin, eglantine

              even tho his home Country ,Canada, did just that but not the administration of Shrub or Obama.
              But back to the subject of the diary, I will call, email the WH, and contact my Senators about this to get some heat on the subject.
              Thanks Valtin for this diary because I don't read the NYTs but I had read about this via an email from the ACLU.

              without the ants the rainforest dies

              by aliasalias on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:40:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Well said. The hypocrisy of this place is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soothsayer99

        just mind boggling to say the least. Well said again.

        ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

        by ThisIsMyTime on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:24:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  ok (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soothsayer99, zenox

    nice to see people so concerened about citizens of algeria...

    I mean this problem hasn't existed until the NY Times wrote a piece on it and it certainly didn't exist under previous Presidents..

    Jerry Brown for CA_GOV 2010

    by GlowNZ on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:46:03 AM PDT

  •  Valtin, thanks for your hard work on this, though (9+ / 0-)

    I personally would stop short of painting the Administration's decision as criminal. But you are clearly more informed than I.

    Continuing to lob drones into Pakistanwith the goal of killing alleged terrorist leaders, and killing innocent civilians in the process..... now I would call that criminal.

    However, care for this man's plight is important to me. I hope to read more from the Administration. Thanks for posting here.

  •  Thank you, valtin. (18+ / 0-)

    I have been regretting that I didn't have time to actually write this up in a way which would get the attention of the community.  You managed to do it, and along the way to take a much more comprehensive approach than I would have been able to.

    Important diary.  I felt your outrage was perfectly tempered.

    Don't believe everything you think.

    by geomoo on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:56:10 AM PDT

  •  great diary Valtin (9+ / 0-)

    Thank you for your continued coverage of the U.S. and its human rights issues. Keep up the great work.

  •  Valtin, what a thorough job, as usual! (10+ / 0-)

    I'm sure geomoo is very happy for your efforts, as well.

    For interest sake, here is a whole paper dealing with non-refoulement.  

    ABSTRACT

    [1] This paper examines in detail the principle of non-refoulement, which protects refugees . . . .

    I have very quickly scanned through some of the comments and denoted the tenor.

    Query:  In e-mailing the Algerian Embassy and the UN re Algeria, in making a demand to know the whereabouts of Aziz known -- make this knowledge known to the CCR (I assume)?  

    I just had another thought, too.  Are you familiar with the BRussels Tribunal? Note the menu to the left (also, the lawsuits, etc.).  There is a ton of information at this tribunal, comprised of people from all nations.  Perhaps, if the CCR were to get this information and known to them and enlist their help, as well as indicate our wrong-doing yet again!

    Thanks, again, Valtin, and thanks for nice words, too!

    "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by tahoebasha2 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:09:10 AM PDT

    •  Thanks tahoebasha (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tahoebasha2

      I didn't know about the Brussels Tribunal. I'll look more into it. Hard to believe CCR wouldn't be aware, but I'll forward it to them.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:25:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I think CCR probably is aware of it, (0+ / 0-)

        but thought I'd make mention, since CCR might utilize this source to get this information "down on record" and, maybe, even get some help.  

        In re e-mails to Algerian Embassy, etc.????

        "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by tahoebasha2 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:23:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  When President Obama first came to Canada (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian, soothsayer99

    (his first visit to any foreign nation) I read that on his agenda was a request for Canada to accept 7 detainees from the Guantanamo concentration camp. Canada declined.

    Canada's position is in contrast to other countries eager to curry favour with the U.S. administration by helping Obama's apparent Sisyphean task to close Gitmo. Various foreign governments have stated that accepting detainees is "the right thing to do" after years of criticism about the offshore prison.

    But Prime Minister Stephen Harper's press secretary told the Star that Canada's position under both the Bush and Obama administrations had been consistent.

    "We're not interested in bringing detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Canada

    http://www.thestar.com/...

    How many other countries were asked by the new President and refused? I would like to know. It might mitigate the present day harsh decisions regarding Gitmo's detainees.

    I am so sorry about my country's nasty right-wing minority government's refusal on "the right thing to do."

    This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

    by Agathena on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:31:21 AM PDT

    •  Canada did not create this situation. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, eglantine

      Why is it their responsibility to clean it up? The US arrested these people, tortured them, and held them for years without a trial. The US owes them justice.

      If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

      by SadieB on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:34:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did Obama create this situation? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soothsayer99

        And he IS trying to clean it up, but clearly, as you have suggested, cleaning up this current mess requires the cooperation and action on the part of more than just one person.  And there were PLENTY culprits (including the complicit NYT)who helped to actually create this situation.

      •  Canada refused to accept even a Canadian (0+ / 0-)

        citizen, Omar Khadr. He was arrested as a child. His crime: he comes from a family of extremists.

        As I see it, President Obama began the attempt to place many of the detainees when he first came into office, on all his foreign visits. It stands to reason that many of the detainees would not have an easy time rehabilitating in the USA. The new administration perhaps fearing retribution from the detainees who had been treated so badly for 8 years under Bush, wanted them placed in other countries.

        Now it seems the administration has given up on that plan and is deporting detainees to their own countries no matter what the consequences to that person.

        I see Canada accepting these detainees as the right thing to do.

        This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

        by Agathena on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:47:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  valtin, thank you for writing this diary (12+ / 0-)

    i've just read through the comments, and as seems to become the norm here these days, the process of derailment by obamoutrage was in full gear.  i am beginning to wonder why people who are trying to make a difference bother to post at dk anymore.  perhaps it is time to stop reading the comments and focus on diaries by trusted writers or diaries recommended by those i trust.  on the one hand, i can't help but express outrage when i see your work, and the work of others who are trying to make a difference, attacked by thread jackers or apologist arguments, but it is such a waste of time.  if i no longer comment in your diaries, please know that i am reading and taking action - although chances are i will not be reading at dk.

    •  When the comments start to drift, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      conchita, Agathena

      so do I. It's not that the sniping offends me; it bores me, and I've got better things to do with my time. So I scroll merrily past, perhaps at the same time omitting to read something of value, but that's the way it goes. You'd think that the commenters would have better things to do with their time. It's too bad, really, because there remains a great deal of value in our little corner of the internet.

      Better than McCain/Palin is not a ringing endorsement.

      by psnyder on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:56:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One lesson of the diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonWren

    and of the Obama administration's action is how hard it is (apparently) to change abusive policies and their consequences once they've been set in motion. It appears that Newton's first law of motion applies to more than physics: "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." We need an "unbalanced force" in order to change course.

    Better than McCain/Palin is not a ringing endorsement.

    by psnyder on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:02:54 AM PDT

    •  Especially since Obama spoke so vociferously (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Valtin, Chaoslillith

      against the Bush administration's policy toward Gitmo detainees and promised to right the ship, as it were.  All Obama has to do is say 'no' to those policies and act humanely.  But, he is a man who is consumed with appeasing the right at every turn.

      Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

      by CanyonWren on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:24:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama Administration (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, Valtin, Situational Lefty

    continues the policies of Bush.
     Isn't it long past time that DKos denounces these policies en mass?

    "The people have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want & the courage to take." - Emma Goldman

    by gjohnsit on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:28:57 AM PDT

  •  BO continues to stink on human & civil rights. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, eglantine

    And is DOJ is also awful.

    Sorry, no vote for him from me this time.

    He'll have to work hard in the next 2 years to get my vote back.

    •  He is not (0+ / 0-)

      running this time.

      Arizona is the meth lab of democracy

      by Iberian on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:30:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not about to help a Repub (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Valtin

      win back the WH, but this is yet another stink bomb from Obama administration that stands in stark contrast to his progressivey-sounding campaign rhetoric.

      And no, this doesn't have anything to do with ponies or checks, kiddies.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:45:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Valtin, aliasalias

      Asshole: Someone who votes for a Bush or McCain and feels good about it.

      Child: Someone who votes for an Obama and looks the other way when he screws up.

      Adult: Someone who votes for an Obama but calls out his screw-ups.

      Among other things, being an adult means having a conscience and being able to process contradictions without one's brain blowing up.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:51:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think diarist could have made the plea for (0+ / 0-)

    support of detainees in legal limbo without attacking the administration.  Many of us here would really like to see the problem solved once and for all.

    Is there a plan the Gitmo lawyers have presented that would find a place for these detainees somewhere other than prison, that we could promote?

    This is one of the very worst catch-22 knots left to us by the Cheney/Bush cabal.

    I would like to hear how we can actually solve the problem.

    "Bigger change will come with bigger Democratic majorities. Diminishing Democratic accomplishments is a losing strategy." sja May Peace Prevail

    by revgerry on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 11:53:36 AM PDT

    •  The solution has long been clear (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett, Valtin, Knucklehead, aliasalias

      Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the ACLU, and the Center for Constitutional Rights have articulated the actions that the US government should take as a matter of law, morality, and basic decency.  All Guantanamo prisoners should be released unless they are charged with a recognizable crime.  If charged, they should be given a fair and speedy trial in a civilian court.  

      Those who are not charged but cannot return safely to their own countries should be given asylum in a third country.  Ideally, they should be granted asylum in the United States, but unfortunately Congress has blocked this in a vote that I believe was unconstitutional.  Obama was not much help.  Early on, he blocked a plan drawn up by former White House Counsel Greg Craig under which the Uighur prisoners (whom even the Bush administration had cleared of terrorist charges) would have been relocated in Virginia.

      In any event, the wise, humane, and legal solution to the GTMO problem has long been clear.  The Obama administration can and should implement this solution.

      •  Well put (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Knucklehead, eglantine

        and succinctly. The confusion that reigns among some is mostly due to having to twist up oneself like a pretzel to find some way of condoning the unacceptable, when it is done by your favorite candidate and political party.

        "The Obama administration can and should implement this solution." - I totally agree.

        War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

        by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:20:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  'Should be given asylum in a third country' (0+ / 0-)

        is not a 'clear solution', it is wishful thinking.
        The US cannot force another country to grant asylum to a Gitmo detainee.

        •  In that case (0+ / 0-)

          The U.S. should provide asylum itself.

          •  But as you said Congress voted against it... (0+ / 0-)
            •  Yes, good point (0+ / 0-)

              Congress blocked part of what I call the "clear" solution.  For the record, Obama wasn't much help.  Before the vote was held, White House Counsel Greg Craig came up with a plan to relocate the Uighur prisoners (who had been cleared of terrorism charges under the Bush administration) in northern Virginia.  Obama blocked the plan by personal fiat, before Congress blocked it by statute.  I infer from this that Obama wasn't too opposed to the congressional action.  

              Since release of GTMO prisoners into the US is now statutorily blocked, even for those who cannot safely return to their home countries, the other option is to seek asylum in third countries.  Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has sought third-party country asylum for several (but not all) GTMO prisoners who fall in this category.  Some countries have agreed to take individual prisoners.  You're right that the refusal of the US to take any prisoners itself makes it harder to persuade other countries to do so.

              But to return to the original question, the clear solution has not been followed, and there are many people who share the blame for that, including Obama.  But to repeat, several third-party countries have admitted GTMO prisoners and continue to do so.  Their willingness to do so puts the US to shame.

              •  My understanding is (0+ / 0-)

                that the US has made considerable diplomatic efforts to convince third-party countries to admit GITMO prisoners. So I don't think their willingness should put the US administration to shame.
                I guess the political cost of admitting a GITMO prisoner is much less for the government of a country whose public opinion doesn't really feel concerned. It really looks like the US opinion (or media, or political body) - not the US administration don't want any former GITMO detainees on their soil.

                But I entirely agree with you that, in an ideal world, the right thing to do would be for the US to offer political asylum to former GITMO detainees who have been cleared and don't want to return to their country of origin.  

                •  I think we're largely in agreement (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  French Imp

                  My view (and perhaps this is where you disagree, though perhaps not) is that the US, having brutalized and stigmatized these individuals, most of whom are guiltless, has a powerful moral obligation to provide restitution.  Offering asylum is the very least it should do.  Congress should be ashamed.  Obama (who, by blocking the relocation of the Uighurs to Virginia, appears to have signaled agreement with Congress, and who never spoke out against the Congressional action) should be ashamed.  And the American "public," to the extent it has supported and pushed the policy, should be ashamed.

                  You suggest that public opinion in other countries may not feel concerned.  That may not be entirely true.  There has been some backlash, with Bermuda being the most dramatic example.  But this is an issue where leadership counts.  There has been an absence of responsible leadership on this issue in the US.  As a friend of mine wisely said, when leaders push opinion in one direction, public opinion will move in that direction.

                  Isn't it fun to be conversing on a long abandoned diary in cyber-space?

                  •  Yes... long abandoned in terms of cyber-time (0+ / 0-)

                    at least!
                    In fact, I agree on your first point. There is a moral obligation to right the wrong the US have done, and this moral obligation is not being fulfilled.
                    And one should feel ashamed not to fulfill one's obligations (fulfil or fulfill?). Better: one should fulfill them!

                    Perhaps if we disagree, its' on what comes next...
                    When states fulfil their moral obligations, it's most of the times not for moral reasons. It's always a compromise between what's right and what's expedient.
                    I know that from Obama many expect better than that. My feeling is that Obama knows what's right and what's wrong - he tried to transfer Gitmo prisoners to a prison in Illinois. He also was for a civil trial for Gitmo detainees. But there was a strong backlash. I guess there are many things to improve, there's a certain amount of political capital and you try to apply this where it's most likely to work that is, where you will have support. Nations don't like to acknowledge that they have been the bad guys. It takes a very long time, a matter of several decades - it's been the same thing with France and the Algeria war.

                    The US have other - to me, equally shocking - moral shortcomings: the way inmates are treated in US prisons (not unrelated to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan), death penalty, the right to carry weapons, police using tasers... Surely Obama should do something about these too. But clearly it's not expedient to broach these subjects right now (in fact I think Obama's position on these is different from mine). But since the media are not interested in them, it doesn't seem scandalous that the WH doesn't deal with them.

                    •  Hi there! (0+ / 0-)

                      Thanks for your very thoughtful message.  Sorry I didn't reply sooner.  I'm INSANELY overworked at the moment.  Plus I'm tired, so this won't be coherent.  I agree so passionately with much of what you say.  But recording agreement is boring, so I'll proceed to discuss where we disagree.

                      But no: I my first record my passionate agreement about the death penalty, ill-treatment of prisoners, and tasering.  (I need to think more about the gun issue.)  These policies are a travesty.

                      Where we disagree and will continue to disagree is on Obama.  I suspect the disagreement is partly factual and partly theoretical.  I'll state the differences, without doing much to defend my view.  The theoretical issue: I think it's appropriate to be angry with Obama for upholding or allowing or not changing unjust policies even when the political context or public mood makes it difficult to change course.  It's an anger, I suppose, primarily at the political context and public mood, but I see Obama in a sense as an expression of that.  He is what he is, and what he is is largely a reflection of where we are as a country.  If I saw clear evidence that he WANTED to change course on these particular issues but was constrained from doing so, I might change my attitude, but I haven't seen that evidence yet.

                      The factual disagreement is about GTMO.  I've followed the issue fairly closely, and I really don't think he's been constrained to do the unjust things as much as people around here tend to assume.  He or his administration has made a lot of specific calls on specific issues with devastating consequences for particular individuals that were not in my view politically constrained, because at that level of decision-making not many people are paying attention.  But I know this is a large question.  I would need a lot of time to summon the evidence, and you might have objections, and so forth.

                      Finally, a brief comment on our cruel criminal justice system.  One thing that angered me was how Obama responded in the electronic town hall to the most frequently raised question: Will you decriminalize marijuana?  His response: mocking laughter.  This from a man who has admitted to consuming not only marijuana but also cocaine.  What gives him the right to ruin the the lives of thousands of his fellow citizens for dong EXACTLY the same thing that he did?  It was an opportunity for reflection on our insane drug war and incarceration fever, but Obama wasn't interested.

                      There are SO MANY things Obama could do if he cared about justice.  He could begin by pardoning Clarence Aaron.  What a difference that would make.  (And what a message that would send.  I actually believe that the country is ready to hear that message.)  But instead -- nothing.

                      There: I've talked myself into being angry again.  But I don't want to end on that note.  Thanks again for your conversation and wise comments and good humor.  (I KNOW you'll disagree with much of what I said, which I didn't even try to defend.)

                      •  Thank you for time you took... (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm often overworked and I know how it feels! Right now I'm almost on vacation but I feel for you!

                        There's a big difference between us which probably accounts for much of the difference in perception: you live in the US (I assume), and I don't. If I were to discuss Nicolas Sarkozy's merits and demerits with a US Citizen living in the states, and informed only through blogs and the media, I guess I would feel at a loss to explain why I'm so ashamed to have such a guy as my head of state! Or at least, it would take so much demoralizing explanation that I would give up before I even tried.

                        On the other hand, we would probably agree that Obama isn't Sarkozy. At any rate, the hope raised by the Obama candidacy abroad were probably different from that raised at home. On 09/11 I was at the beach with my 3 year old son, when a Swiss tourist who was listening to the radio next to us on the beach told me that something unbelievable had just happened. I remember that our first reaction when we had come to our senses was 'Now the Americans are going to do crazy things' and we were both afraid for our kids. With Obama in charge, I'm not so afraid. I may be wrong, but I feel somewhat safer. Even if the war is going on in Afghanistan, etc... it's a gut-level thing. I'm confident that the Obama administration will not shoot first.

                        There's another aspect which you might not suspect. The much admired (and sometimes idealized)
                        French social system is threatened. The right would like to privatize it. There's considerable pressure from Europe to 'liberalize the market' etc. The notion of 'service public' which is a pillar of the French society is being threatened from several parts. The fact that in the US the administration is acting in favour of more regulation and acknowledges the fact that the market, left on its own, doesn't regulate itself for the common good, has an impact. These days you no longer have public figures advocating a privatization of health insurance (although they continue to act behind the scene). There's a change in perspective at an ideological level. If you say 'let's privatize and everything will work better and cheaper' you're no longer credible.

                        That may explain why my initial enthusiasm about the Obama candidacy, and presidency, is still present if somewhat blunted - I could never have sustained such a level of enthusiasm for long in any case!

                        During the campaign I kept remembering Francois Mitterrand's election in 1981 - I was very enthusiastic too, but over time came the disappointment. Francois Mitterrand abolished the death penalty - but he also weakened  considerably the public sector, trade unions and the Parti Communiste (hence a shift to the right of the political spectum). He yielded the economic an monetary decisional power to non-democratic international institutions. So much is clear now, about 30 years after the 'alternance' of 81. I sometimes think that Valery Giscard d'Estaing - the evil center-of-right President evicted in 81 - was in fact the last left-wing President of France...

                        So, in 2008 I couldn't help think that most Obama supporters would be very disappointed. And that I should not expect too much.
                        In fact, what I expect of an Obama Presidency is a change (for the better) in the mindset of Americans - which often leads to a change in the mindset of others. I really think Obama is trying to do that, and I think he has the qualities required. I don't know if he'll succeed but even if he does it will take time. And of course the risk is that he should forget about his 'mission'. But, unlike Mitterand, who was a cynic (as I now realize), I think Obama was sincere during the campaign, and is still sincere.

                        Sorry for the long rant, I just threw in reflections without any logical order. I was trying to clarify my views for my benefit as much as yours, I guess. In fact my being an Obama supporter is a bit mysterious - might it include a dose of personality cult? ;)

                        •  Don't feel obliged to respond (0+ / 0-)

                          as you're very busy and basically I think we have expressed our viewpoints and we agree to agree and disagree! On the other hand I would certainly enjoy carrying on.

                          •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                            for these compelling reflections, which I find very interesting indeed.  You point out a lot that I did not know, and help me see things differently.  I agree that we should probably conclude things here, since a public forum isn't the best place for this kind of colloquy (though I started it!).  I really appreciate your insights.  Many thanks.

  •  I'm confused. (0+ / 0-)

    You say

    a 5-3 decision by the Supreme Court late last week paved the way for the administration's criminal action.

    If the SCOTUS said it was legal, then it's not criminal, is it?

    I have no idea why Naji was sent to Algeria, but this clearly is not a criminal action.

    When it comes to Democrats, criticize, don't demonize.

    by Dragon5616 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:07:02 PM PDT

    •  Geneva Convention applies along with (0+ / 0-)
      a list of international statutes, in treaties to which we are signatories.

      SCOTUS ain't the whole world.

      Career criminals + Angry White Males + KKK wannabes + Personality Disorder delusionals + Pro-Life Christians =EQ= The GOPer Base

      by vets74 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:35:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  SCOTUS determines what is criminal (0+ / 0-)

        in the US. I am sure the losing side of the decision must have raised those treaties. Obviously, the SCOTUS still felt it was legal.

        "The whole world" has no legal jurisdiction here or anywhere.

        When it comes to Democrats, criticize, don't demonize.

        by Dragon5616 on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:21:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not exactly. (0+ / 0-)

          International warrants can be served in the U.S. where there is no crime under our system of law.

          Same for seizing assets under an Order from a Court overseas. That one takes a little doing, but it happens up by the Canadian border regularly.

          In any case, don't think that Cheney is off completely free of prosecution. He'll get careless.

          Career criminals + Angry White Males + KKK wannabes + Personality Disorder delusionals + Pro-Life Christians =EQ= The GOPer Base

          by vets74 on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:55:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  What a hypocritical bunch! (0+ / 0-)

    The administration is darned if they do and darned if they don't.
    What I find baffling though is the large number of "progressives" who harp all day, every day about closing Gitmo and then are the first to slam the administration for doing their job.
    Make up your minds - you can't have it both ways!

    I love me peektures and that is that! Cheerleaders till 2016

    by matrix on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:29:23 PM PDT

  •  But we'll always have Lily Ledbetter (0+ / 0-)

    And they apologized to Sherrod, so it's all good, right? I mean, it's not like the Obama administration has a neocon fetish, seeing as they're true blue Dems, right?

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:43:21 PM PDT

  •  Does anyone have a direct link to (0+ / 0-)

    today's (Sunday) Washington Post op ed involving Gitmo? I will appreciate it very much.

  •  Does anyone have a direct link to the (0+ / 0-)

    today's Washington Post op ed involving Gitmo? I will appreciate it very much

  •  emailed the Algerian UN mission (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Valtin, tahoebasha2

    Will call White House. Grateful for the post.
    The comments, not so much.

  •  I posted as a reponse (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Valtin, eglantine, aliasalias, PhilJD

    but I will make it more general.  If anyone is defending this, just put in your screen name.

    A prominent commenter on the weblog the Daily Kos, XXX, was imprisoned for 8 years by the Algerian Government which eventually found that XXX was innocent.  XXX's lawyer reported that XXX had be subject to brutal torture.  The Algerian government is set to release XXX to Syria.  But the lawyer said that XXX is desperate not the be released to Syria because of fears of torture.   Switzerland offered to take XXX, but the Algerian Government is insisting that XXX be release to Syrian authorities.

    A spokesman for the Algerian government dismissed the allegations by saying "There are much more important issues to be discussed than the possible foul up of the release one detainee who was found to be innocent.  This just gives fodder to our political opponents.  We recently passed the Basheera Leadbetter act in our parliament..."

    Before you support war, look into the hollow eyes of the men, women and children who know it.

    by Indiana Bob on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:46:28 PM PDT

  •  Another tidbit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eglantine

    An interesting article from the July 22 Times of India:

    UN experts warn against sending detainees at torture-risk

    UNITED NATIONS: Two UN experts have warned the United States against forcibly sending Guantanamo Bay detainees to countries where they face the threat of torture or other forms of abuse.

    The warnings came from UN special rapporteurs on torture, Manfred Nowak, and on human rights and counter-terrorism, Martin Scheinin, after the case of an Algerian detainee came to light....

    The US department of defense said, "United States coordinated with the governments of Algeria and Cape Verde to ensure the transfers took place under appropriate security measures".

    Both experts, however, noted that diplomatic assurances were not enough to base a decision for transferring a prisoner back to the country where he would be at risk....

    "We have often seen diplomatic assurances used by Governments to circumvent the absolute prohibition of torture as established in article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment," they said.

    War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

    by Valtin on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:44:48 PM PDT

  •  Great follow-on to Geomoo's diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eglantine

    Thanks for this.
    And good on the NYT.

    This health care system is a moral atrocity. Dr. Ralphdog

    by AllisonInSeattle on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:51:27 PM PDT

  •  "Every life (or soul) is a whole world." (0+ / 0-)
    Of course.

    What else ?

    BTW: this happened because of one simple problem for the White House: Eric Holder is a coward.

    Again and again Holder allows GOPer-shit moles to implement bad policy.

    Wonder if anybody asked DoJ for an opinion on the Sherrod situation ???

    Career criminals + Angry White Males + KKK wannabes + Personality Disorder delusionals + Pro-Life Christians =EQ= The GOPer Base

    by vets74 on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:31:11 PM PDT

  •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eglantine

    Thank you for this enlightening diary.  The decision baffles me and suggests some unspoken reason, and probably not a good reason.

Paolo, C S McCrum, Superskepticalman, Angie in WA State, cslewis, Garrett, tmo, tgs1952, LeislerNYC, Phoenix Woman, itsbenj, decembersue, copymark, deben, laurak, Timaeus, roonie, El Zmuenga, AaronInSanDiego, Detlef, abarefootboy, GreenSooner, msl, mimi, mattman, janinsanfran, Emerson, karlpk, tommurphy, Shockwave, wu ming, LuvSet, lysias, LEP, KateG, darrelplant, philinmaine, mslat27, eeff, Pompatus, xynz, gecko, sobermom, gjohnsit, expatjourno, hubcap, Creosote, Heart of the Rockies, Gustogirl, opinionated, EvieCZ, cfm, TheMomCat, Boston Boomer, conchita, medaka, Agathena, CoolOnion, peace voter, Pithy Cherub, chuckvw, cosmic debris, redux, Fe, Nate Roberts, Wamsutta, Braindead, psnyder, danthrax, Dallasdoc, Winnie, DeadB0y, Quentin, businessdem, brainwave, gmb, grannyhelen, JimWilson, churchylafemme, HeyMikey, MmeVoltaire, Catte Nappe, AbsurdEyes, RebeccaG, lcrp, alizard, Pohjola, cevad, AllisonInSeattle, WisVoter, Deward Hastings, fran1, Mosquito Pilot, SadieB, lyvwyr101, valadon, rmx2630, Armand451, bay of arizona, greeseyparrot, dvx, tami33, Big Tex, nailbender, joanneleon, Recovering Southern Baptist, historys mysteries, marina, NoMoreLies, jrooth, CTPatriot, disrael, Roadbed Guy, arnott, mgris, corvo, grimjc, panicbean, Simplify, truong son traveler, karpinsky, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, ratzo, Chaoslillith, jimstaro, where4art, LABobsterofAnaheim, Burned, SJerseyIndy, skrekk, FunkyEntropy, WisePiper, coolbreeze, LodinLepp, Cory Bantic, bookwoman, peacestpete, Ekaterin, SocioSam, Indiana Bob, dancewater, big spoiled baby, jay23, vilegrrl, reddbierd, SoulCatcher, martini, meghna, kovie, Knucklehead, Showman, K S LaVida, esquimaux, redcedar, gwilson, BalanceSeeker, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, vigilant meerkat, whitewidow, ActivistGuy, Yellow Canary, victoria2dc, koNko, KenBee, sailmaker, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, eglantine, peony, StrayCat, erratic, philipmerrill, gpoutney, Glorfindel, thegood thebad thedumb, Sagebrush Bob, Preston S, el cid, ER Doc, Cenobyte, Cassiodorus, Dreaming of Better Days, kurt, lynneinfla, newtonusr, shaharazade, airmarc, PhilW, PoxOnYou, bstotts, Little, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, Joelarama, BentLiberal, tegrat, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, dov12348, lightfoot, SpecialKinFlag, possum, devis1, vets74, terryhallinan, FishOutofWater, Cofcos, Jimdotz, DWG, joyful, tahoebasha2, aliasalias, gatorbot, artisan, jayden, Uberbah, CT Hank, uciguy30, JML9999, keikekaze, cloudbustingkid, willb48, oxon, JDWolverton, gundyj, damascusdem, condorcet, kingneil, cruz, Robert Naiman, zerone, elwior, Wes Opinion, lineatus, alliedoc, Cassandra Waites, geomoo, icebergslim, rubine, mofembot, temptxan, S C B, moneysmith, petulans, o the umanity, Support Civil Liberty, DixieDishrag, Zulia, allie123, Robobagpiper, watercarrier4diogenes, shortgirl, papicek, CIndyCasella, ZhenRen, LaFeminista, FudgeFighter, cameoanne, Rhysling, smellybeast, DontTaseMeBro, greengemini, divineorder, CanyonWren, Partisan Progressive, h bridges, JesseCW, DefendOurConstitution, dRefractor, asym, sfarkash, tote, edtastic, ohmyheck, Petrocelli, cassandraX, Alec82, rb137, marabout40, marsanges, jethrock, trixied13, 2questions, shenderson, pixxer, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, Benintn, Mike in Denmark, ClearBuzz, Earth Ling, jazzbuff, plays in dirt, sluggahjells, 4kedtongue, SunsetMagnolia, Otteray Scribe, Floande, llee, HylasBrook, pepsicoke, heart of a quince, Gracian, nicethugbert, wildlife advocate, sixthestate, freesia, poorbuster, BlueJessamine, the national gadfly, Situational Lefty, The Narrative, miscanthus, marleycat, gman123, Grandma Susie, Vtdblue, shekissesfrogs, Faroutman, PhilJD, cailloux, lincoln deschain, daveusf, M W LeesGrossmann, skeptiq, Sunspots, Kelly Canfield, BlueDragon, FireBird1, damfino, Alanhawaii, dance you monster, mojada, Ultranaut, Winter Soldier, banach tarski paradox, drnononono, SFUSA17, NCIndy, Th0rn, Crikes a Crocus

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site