5 ms·

Screw the judicial system, in one act of exercising his power as commander and chief he could order all these military personel to release those prisoners and g

Screw the judicial system, in one act of exercising his power as commander and chief he could order all these military personel to release those prisoners and go home. This is what any sane man who actually cared about human rights would do. This will of course never been done. Not by this president, nor by any future ones. I'd love to be proven wrong.

hugh3 16y ago
This is what any sane man who actually cared about human rights would do. That's what any sane man would do about, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  If the police search your house in violation of your rights, it doesn't matter if they find the bong you made of Elvis's skull that you stole, and use to smoke the hundreds of pot plants you are growing. They can't fucking use it. This detainment is illegal, it doesn't matter what the hell they did. Release them, and try again legally this time.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Yep, which is a major difference between civilian law and the law surrounding unlawful combatants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant The law of unlawful combatants is, however, pretty poorly developed. It needs to be the subject of serious thought rather than political football.
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws. Just because you can convince congress to pass anything you wish by allowing them to throw their pet projects into the mix, doesn't mean human rights are not being violated.
      - dantheman 16y ago
        The president doesn't have to disregard the laws, he can just pardon everyone, and that is exactly what he should do.
        burgerbrain 16y ago
        I suppose that is another way he could end this horrorshow right now in one day, though you end up with the absurd situation where you are pardoning people who haven't been charged with anything. ;)
      - anigbrowl 16y ago
        What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws. ...virtually guaranteeing impeachment, and/or setting a precedent for a successor to disregard, say, human rights laws. Think of it like legacy code; it may be badly written, obsolete, and a waste of resources to remain compatible with it, but you may not have have any other choice. Historical figures often appear to have acted more boldly and decisively than those in politics today, because historical review necessarily involves simplification and a focus on outcomes. When you dig deeper, though, the process of change was often equally messy and haphazard.
        burgerbrain 16y ago
        If a president can order armed troops into a warzone without a declaration of war by congress, he sure as shit can order troops out of an illegal prison in Cuba.
- earl 16y ago
  Well, we could have not tortured him. Failing that, we could live up to our so-called standards and laws and live with the consequences of torturing him, ie that all evidence tainted by torture is now inadmissible.
jbooth 16y ago
He has sent a bunch of them home. The number is down significantly from when he took office, and most of the remaining prisoners have no country willing to offer them asylum. I have a big problem with gitmo but the Obama admin did try to push on it for quite a while before apparently concluding they'd dumped enough time and capital into it.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  > ...they'd dumped enough time and capital into it. Then I fundamentally disagree with what constitutes "enough time and capital" when it comes to ending endable human rights abuses.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Ok, well, I hear you but there's actually more to the job of President than this one issue.. his justice dept got way out in front on it, gave it an honest shot, fought in court, got hammered in public and got no support and he's got a country to run at the end of the day. Unemployment, 3 wars, etc. Organize some protests and get some visibility if you feel that strongly about it.. being sanctimonious about human rights on a blog impresses nobody.
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      I wanted to take some time to give a more carefully thought-out reply to this, because your accusation (implied in "being sanctimonious") is totally fair, and one that I level at others sometimes. I don't think it's wrong to express strong disapproval of political issues even if I'm not currently politically involved, because the fact is, I spent most of my twenties thinking about how to effect (big) change in the world, and the answer I came up with was that, first, I had to become wealthy. I concluded that the political process itself was badly broken, that there were serious social issues stretching back many decades, and that while working as a teacher or a politician might have some impact, it would ultimately almost certainly be less effective than accumulating a huge amount of resources and then putting those resources into play in ways that I think would be beneficial to the world. That doesn't mean that I don't spend any time at all on other endeavors -- one of the first things I hope to do after opening up a local shop is host mechatronics classes for kids, because I think it's important for technologists and others to teach their craft to the young. However, politics in general -- whether at the local, state, or national level -- requires disproportionate amounts of attention, with few benefits. It is a huge distraction from my primary goals, so I'm not inclined to get involved with it. Not completely disinclined though: I did apply and interview for a local planning commission position, I have attended city council meetings in two local towns, I have been the tech guy for a California wanna-be governor's campaign a couple of years ago. But in the end, spending much effort on organizing rallies or protesting with signs, for me, is self-defeating ... at least to some extent. I also don't think that the President is above reproach just because the job is difficult. I have a tremendous amount of respect for just how difficult the job is; it's obvious to anyone that watches how quickly various Presidents age while in office. It is a physically debilitating position to have. That said, the President is (supposed to be) elected to deal with issues like this. I do not think that "they gave it an honest shot" is a reasonable way to accept failure on certain issues. I also think that, as a candidate who ran on platform issues like transparency in government and workers' rights, the President has disenchanted many of his most ardent supporters, which is really a rather big problem because many of these people became politically active for the first time in nearly a decade in order to get him into office. His supporters did not want to elect a "lesser evil", they wanted to elect change. To what degree any change has occurred is a matter of perspective, but I think it's hard to argue that it has fallen far short of expectations and promises. So, yes, I speak out on political issues that I think are important. I hold the President of the United States -- whoever he is -- to a very high standard, because I believe that it is necessary for the health of our country to do so. However, I don't do any of that to impress anyone, because impressing people won't help change anything. I do it because people having more conversations like this one is, I think, the first step towards fixing some of the social and political problems in our country.

hugh3 16y ago

This is what any sane man who actually cared about human rights would do. That's what any sane man would do about, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

burgerbrain 16y ago
If the police search your house in violation of your rights, it doesn't matter if they find the bong you made of Elvis's skull that you stole, and use to smoke the hundreds of pot plants you are growing. They can't fucking use it. This detainment is illegal, it doesn't matter what the hell they did. Release them, and try again legally this time.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Yep, which is a major difference between civilian law and the law surrounding unlawful combatants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant The law of unlawful combatants is, however, pretty poorly developed. It needs to be the subject of serious thought rather than political football.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws. Just because you can convince congress to pass anything you wish by allowing them to throw their pet projects into the mix, doesn't mean human rights are not being violated.
    - dantheman 16y ago
      The president doesn't have to disregard the laws, he can just pardon everyone, and that is exactly what he should do.
      - burgerbrain 16y ago
        I suppose that is another way he could end this horrorshow right now in one day, though you end up with the absurd situation where you are pardoning people who haven't been charged with anything. ;)
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws. ...virtually guaranteeing impeachment, and/or setting a precedent for a successor to disregard, say, human rights laws. Think of it like legacy code; it may be badly written, obsolete, and a waste of resources to remain compatible with it, but you may not have have any other choice. Historical figures often appear to have acted more boldly and decisively than those in politics today, because historical review necessarily involves simplification and a focus on outcomes. When you dig deeper, though, the process of change was often equally messy and haphazard.
      - burgerbrain 16y ago
        If a president can order armed troops into a warzone without a declaration of war by congress, he sure as shit can order troops out of an illegal prison in Cuba.
earl 16y ago
Well, we could have not tortured him. Failing that, we could live up to our so-called standards and laws and live with the consequences of torturing him, ie that all evidence tainted by torture is now inadmissible.

jbooth 16y ago

He has sent a bunch of them home. The number is down significantly from when he took office, and most of the remaining prisoners have no country willing to offer them asylum. I have a big problem with gitmo but the Obama admin did try to push on it for quite a while before apparently concluding they'd dumped enough time and capital into it.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
> ...they'd dumped enough time and capital into it. Then I fundamentally disagree with what constitutes "enough time and capital" when it comes to ending endable human rights abuses.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Ok, well, I hear you but there's actually more to the job of President than this one issue.. his justice dept got way out in front on it, gave it an honest shot, fought in court, got hammered in public and got no support and he's got a country to run at the end of the day. Unemployment, 3 wars, etc. Organize some protests and get some visibility if you feel that strongly about it.. being sanctimonious about human rights on a blog impresses nobody.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    I wanted to take some time to give a more carefully thought-out reply to this, because your accusation (implied in "being sanctimonious") is totally fair, and one that I level at others sometimes. I don't think it's wrong to express strong disapproval of political issues even if I'm not currently politically involved, because the fact is, I spent most of my twenties thinking about how to effect (big) change in the world, and the answer I came up with was that, first, I had to become wealthy. I concluded that the political process itself was badly broken, that there were serious social issues stretching back many decades, and that while working as a teacher or a politician might have some impact, it would ultimately almost certainly be less effective than accumulating a huge amount of resources and then putting those resources into play in ways that I think would be beneficial to the world. That doesn't mean that I don't spend any time at all on other endeavors -- one of the first things I hope to do after opening up a local shop is host mechatronics classes for kids, because I think it's important for technologists and others to teach their craft to the young. However, politics in general -- whether at the local, state, or national level -- requires disproportionate amounts of attention, with few benefits. It is a huge distraction from my primary goals, so I'm not inclined to get involved with it. Not completely disinclined though: I did apply and interview for a local planning commission position, I have attended city council meetings in two local towns, I have been the tech guy for a California wanna-be governor's campaign a couple of years ago. But in the end, spending much effort on organizing rallies or protesting with signs, for me, is self-defeating ... at least to some extent. I also don't think that the President is above reproach just because the job is difficult. I have a tremendous amount of respect for just how difficult the job is; it's obvious to anyone that watches how quickly various Presidents age while in office. It is a physically debilitating position to have. That said, the President is (supposed to be) elected to deal with issues like this. I do not think that "they gave it an honest shot" is a reasonable way to accept failure on certain issues. I also think that, as a candidate who ran on platform issues like transparency in government and workers' rights, the President has disenchanted many of his most ardent supporters, which is really a rather big problem because many of these people became politically active for the first time in nearly a decade in order to get him into office. His supporters did not want to elect a "lesser evil", they wanted to elect change. To what degree any change has occurred is a matter of perspective, but I think it's hard to argue that it has fallen far short of expectations and promises. So, yes, I speak out on political issues that I think are important. I hold the President of the United States -- whoever he is -- to a very high standard, because I believe that it is necessary for the health of our country to do so. However, I don't do any of that to impress anyone, because impressing people won't help change anything. I do it because people having more conversations like this one is, I think, the first step towards fixing some of the social and political problems in our country.