Obama Admin. admits to surveillance methods: Beating a Dead Horse Pt. 74

[lumpenprol]

 

did he actually say "the shortcomings of Obamacare are a distraction from the true problem of Gitmo"? If so, then I apologize.

no, but when you have the attention of the whole world the expectation from him is to focus on something more significant than the well-being of a couple of hundreds of pow's. it's just a minor anthropological observation of mine, you can carry on with glorifying his fight for american constitutional values

 

it's quite simple Eugene, obamacare and any form of national health care in the US is an attempt to graft something new onto the constitution, which does not (yet) consider health care a right. The situations at Gitmo and, apparently, within the NSA and other organizations, is a clear and present threat to *existing* fundamental rights. Therefore it is natural to associate them. Again, it's not either/or (I happen to support both Snowden and universal health care), but I think that somehow insinuating Snowden is "missing the forest for the trees" is off-base. There is a natural connection between Gitmo and what Snowden is leaking.

 

edit: ah I see others already replied with something similar whilst I was masturbating, carry on

[SR4]

i was about to say, how is what Snowden has been doing not political activism?

[goDel]

*pukes gogurts out of every hole in the body*

 

Please tell me gogitus is covered under obamacare.

[eugene]

 

 

did he actually say "the shortcomings of Obamacare are a distraction from the true problem of Gitmo"? If so, then I apologize.

no, but when you have the attention of the whole world the expectation from him is to focus on something more significant than the well-being of a couple of hundreds of pow's. it's just a minor anthropological observation of mine, you can carry on with glorifying his fight for american constitutional values

 

it's quite simple Eugene, obamacare and any form of national health care in the US is an attempt to graft something new onto the constitution, which does not (yet) consider health care a right. The situations at Gitmo and, apparently, within the NSA and other organizations, is a clear and present threat to *existing* fundamental rights. Therefore it is natural to associate them. Again, it's not either/or (I happen to support both Snowden and universal health care), but I think that somehow insinuating Snowden is "missing the forest for the trees" is off-base. There is a natural connection between Gitmo and what Snowden is leaking.

 

edit: ah I see others already replied with something similar whilst I was masturbating, carry on

 

yeah, my exchange with derwaschbar make my point pretty clear: so if i asked some american on the street what's the worst thing about obama - i'd expect the healthcare issue, which i believe affects much more people in a very direct and acute way, to be one of the first thing to be mentioned, but if snowden simply tries to push his narrative in every interview he does and not criticize obama where it hurts most (although maybe in american discourse constitution abuses IS the most important thing), it's understandable that he would focus on constitution and such.

[goDel]

to state the obvious: health care is a major political issue in the us and was, for instance, one of the key topics of the recent presidential elections.

when was the last time you heard a politician mention guantanamo bay?

If you google "obama guantanomo bay"... How about april 30th?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22358351

 

Or, yesterday?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-names-clifford-sloan-to-lead-guantanamo-bay-closure/2013/06/16/a841100e-d6d3-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

 

Admittedly, every other politician and journalist/pundit in washington probably thinks obama is wasting time and energy on even trying.

[lumpenprol]

I happen to think the most noble legacy of the US is the constitution and specifically, the Bill of Rights. It makes me really proud to be an American. Though I'm an agnostic, it is the closest we have to a "sacred text" (well, some amazing speeches by Martin Luther King and others also deserving mention).

 

Guantanamo is disgusting. Sad thing is I've never heard any rational justification for why it's necessary. Why not try "enemy combatants" in a normal court of law? Because we're afraid our evidence isn't good enough and they'd be acquitted? Then so be it, that's the right outcome. I don't buy the "it would make them martyrs" argument, you could have closed proceedings. And I don't think it would harm our national security secrets. There's really no rational justification for it that I can think of...

[goDel]

Well, that's the point, isn't it? There is no (rational) justification, but it is there and it is close to impossible to get rid of it. If it was easy it would have been long gone by now.

[lumpenprol]

I certainly do acknowledge that - now that we've got it, it is hard to get rid of. I have heard that it is potentially hard or impossible to repatriate some/most of these folks now, and I don't doubt it. They opened a Costco sized can of worms on that one.

[lumpenprol]

You're right, that is kind of insensitive of me. It'd make much more sense just to mold it in the shape of a goat vagina.

 

 

 

lollll, racism!!!

[goDel]

Lol

 

Somehow I read the arabic would have been on the inside...some nice squiggly ribbed sacred texts for his pleasure

[Alcofribas]

 

to state the obvious: health care is a major political issue in the us and was, for instance, one of the key topics of the recent presidential elections.

when was the last time you heard a politician mention guantanamo bay?

If you google "obama guantanomo bay"... How about april 30th?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22358351

Or, yesterday?http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-names-clifford-sloan-to-lead-guantanamo-bay-closure/2013/06/16/a841100e-d6d3-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

Admittedly, every other politician and journalist/pundit in washington probably thinks obama is wasting time and energy on even trying.

health care is a major issue in american politics, it was one of the central topics in the recent presidential elections, the population is very familiar with the existing debate (whether properly informed or not), pretty much everyone knows the term "obamacare" and has some opinion on it, has direct experience with the issue etc etc.

 

gitmo, on the other hand, is an issue which many americans are basically unfamiliar. i'd be willing to bet for instance that most americans are not acquainted with the basic facts, do not know that there are 100+ prisoners still lingering there on obama’s orders despite being cleared for release, do not know of the basic illegality in play, could not even name one single person in there/why he's there/how long, etc.

 

you can post some links of obama saying the same bs he's always saying but that doesn't change the fact that gitmo is still a very long way from the major mainstream issue it ought to be and like health is.

 

your point that gitmo is "impossible" to close is strange. where did you learn how it's impossible? since when is it impossible to release prisoners who are free to go? impossible to charge people with crimes and give them a trial before locking them up? this is impossible to you? most strange!

 

furthermore, even if somehow it was impossible, your attitude about it is, imo, really sad. this whole "love it or hate it we're stuck with it" thing is pathetic. this should make you outraged, you should be condemning it at every opportunity, not making excuses for obama and apologizing for its existence (which you have done in this thread). i don't get it, can't you pretend one of your family members is there or something? like, the us invaded your country, scooped them up, flew them to a prison where they have no legal recourse to defend themselves, held them there for a decade without charging them, then finally said they were free to go but the president decided it's not like the greatest thing to release free people from jail, and now they continue to rot there while he sorts out his political strategy? would you honestly be sitting here with this same blasé attitude?

 

and as for eugene, you're once again making a completely useless "point" that you then claim is some "anthropological observation" once it becomes perfectly obvious the "point" was pretty useless. thanks to you we all know that snowden is a guy and has a political stance. thanks a lot!

[brian trageskin]

i was about to say, how is what Snowden has been doing not political activism?

 

well that would be a topic to debate. what's the difference between information and political activism? is there a difference? i personally think that political activism goes with conceptual speech, and i can't see any conceptual proposal from Snowden, unless i missed something.

[SR4]

 

i was about to say, how is what Snowden has been doing not political activism?

 

well that would be a topic to debate. what's the difference between information and political activism? is there a difference? i personally think that political activism goes with conceptual speech, and i can't see any conceptual proposal from Snowden, unless i missed something.

 

 

The exposure of such information is a political act, because said exposure results in political consequences.

[Alcofribas]

*exposes politic*

[goDel]

your point that gitmo is "impossible" to close is strange. where did you learn how it's impossible? since when is it impossible to release prisoners who are free to go? impossible to charge people with crimes and give them a trial before locking them up? this is impossible to you? most strange!

 

furthermore, even if somehow it was impossible, your attitude about it is, imo, really sad. this whole "love it or hate it we're stuck with it" thing is pathetic. this should make you outraged, you should be condemning it at every opportunity, not making excuses for obama and apologizing for its existence (which you have done in this thread). i don't get it, can't you pretend one of your family members is there or something? like, the us invaded your country, scooped them up, flew them to a prison where they have no legal recourse to defend themselves, held them there for a decade without charging them, then finally said they were free to go but the president decided it's not like the greatest thing to release free people from jail, and now they continue to rot there while he sorts out his political strategy? would you honestly be sitting here with this same blasé attitude?

 

 

My attitude may be sad, but if I can do 2 things, namely:

1. I could be furious about Gitmo as long as it exists, and keep on blaming the government regardless of what they do/try/say, or what the actual limitations are. (in other words: don't care about why things are the way they are...the only thing which matters is that it's wrong)

2. Try to understand why the US got into such a mess and why it's hard to get out of it. Trying to understand the political/judicial process, as it were.

 

I'd choose the 2nd.

 

IMO, trying to understand the politics behind it, is anything but sad. It seems to me that trying to find an explanation gets somehow confused into "approving" or even "supporting" around here. As if understanding and approving are one and the same. Nonsese. I completely agree on the moral aspect behind it. But that doesn't imply I have to ignore the political process.

 

Also, it's pretty f-ing odd to call me blase when I made that summary of that book I was reading about in the Gitmo thread. Putting in some effort to try to understand the problem, and to post it is blase? WTF? It doesn't feel blase, I can tell you that!

 

Is this because of taking a different point of view? Is there only 1 point of view, namely that of the people involved who are wrongfully at Gitmo? And if someone takes another perspective they're automatically sad and blase? What kind of fundamentalist fuckery is that?

 

So this projected lack of empathy follows from my will to understand. Welcome in the upside down world.

 

You, or JE have no idea about my attitude. You may have an opinion about it. But that's about it.

[delet...]

Guantanamo is disgusting. Sad thing is I've never heard any rational justification for why it's necessary.

 

Apparently the inmates are a necessary bargaining chip for the upcoming negotiations with the taliban post 2014 afghanistan handover. I personally don't think that it would be seen by the taliban as this, but who knows, surely in the media this may become something they talk about as they attempt to close the matter in afghanistan.

[goDel]

*gulps some gogurts*

[delet...]

 

 

i was about to say, how is what Snowden has been doing not political activism?

 

well that would be a topic to debate. what's the difference between information and political activism? is there a difference? i personally think that political activism goes with conceptual speech, and i can't see any conceptual proposal from Snowden, unless i missed something.

 

 

The exposure of such information is a political act, because said exposure results in political consequences.

 

 

Well mainly because it was motivated to engender political consequences, whether they arrive or not. To that end, It's interesting how obama annouced his ratcheting up of the conflict in syria, not long after the snowden issue broke. Perhaps they'll go full tilt into that war now. Something is stopping them though, and that's russia. Who moved some of their pacific fleet to the med, etc. So the US might be stuck between gears on this syria thing for a while yet. Especially if their mercenary commanders keep eating people's hearts on camera.

[brian trageskin]

 

 

i was about to say, how is what Snowden has been doing not political activism?

 

well that would be a topic to debate. what's the difference between information and political activism? is there a difference? i personally think that political activism goes with conceptual speech, and i can't see any conceptual proposal from Snowden, unless i missed something.

 

 

The exposure of such information is a political act, because said exposure results in political consequences.

 

 

in a way, yes. it all comes down to what meaning one gives to the word. i just don't see any political concept in Snowden's speech, therefore, not political activism in my book.

[goDel]

For the record: the leaked transcript of the Charlie Rose interview with Obama on the NSA-issue is completely . What a wanker. Yes, that's aimed @ O.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

 

your point that gitmo is "impossible" to close is strange. where did you learn how it's impossible? since when is it impossible to release prisoners who are free to go? impossible to charge people with crimes and give them a trial before locking them up? this is impossible to you? most strange!

furthermore, even if somehow it was impossible, your attitude about it is, imo, really sad. this whole "love it or hate it we're stuck with it" thing is pathetic. this should make you outraged, you should be condemning it at every opportunity, not making excuses for obama and apologizing for its existence (which you have done in this thread). i don't get it, can't you pretend one of your family members is there or something? like, the us invaded your country, scooped them up, flew them to a prison where they have no legal recourse to defend themselves, held them there for a decade without charging them, then finally said they were free to go but the president decided it's not like the greatest thing to release free people from jail, and now they continue to rot there while he sorts out his political strategy? would you honestly be sitting here with this same blasé attitude?

My attitude may be sad, but if I can do 2 things, namely:

1. I could be furious about Gitmo as long as it exists, and keep on blaming the government regardless of what they do/try/say, or what the actual limitations are. (in other words: don't care about why things are the way they are...the only thing which matters is that it's wrong)

2. Try to understand why the US got into such a mess and why it's hard to get out of it. Trying to understand the political/judicial process, as it were.

 

I'd choose the 2nd.

 

IMO, trying to understand the politics behind it, is anything but sad. It seems to me that trying to find an explanation gets somehow confused into "approving" or even "supporting" around here. As if understanding and approving are one and the same. Nonsese. I completely agree on the moral aspect behind it. But that doesn't imply I have to ignore the political process.

 

Also, it's pretty f-ing odd to call me blase when I made that summary of that book I was reading about in the Gitmo thread. Putting in some effort to try to understand the problem, and to post it is blase? WTF? It doesn't feel blase, I can tell you that!

 

Is this because of taking a different point of view? Is there only 1 point of view, namely that of the people involved who are wrongfully at Gitmo? And if someone takes another perspective they're automatically sad and blase? What kind of fundamentalist fuckery is that?

 

So this projected lack of empathy follows from my will to understand. Welcome in the upside down world.

 

You, or JE have no idea about my attitude. You may have an opinion about it. But that's about it.

i think the lesson of gitmo has been made and is directly connected to the nsa leaks, viz. the us can use the war on terror as an excuse to completely disregard the law. in the case of gitmo i don't think there's a lot to discuss; the prisoner's have not been charged and are cleared for release. let them go. we can surely analyze the reasons behind it after they're free, yes?

 

imo some things do not warrant a cool, neutral tone of "let's calmly figure out the political economy of this act" or whatever. when the world's largest super power just rounds up innocent people, puts them in prison for years and years with no recourse to legal proceedings of any kind and when the president forces them to remain there after they're free to go -- this is something you need to take a stand against. you can try to "understand the politics" while taking a stand on what's right. they don't cancel each other out.

[Guest theSun]

lost my post..... here goes another

 

the reason the US keeps people at gitmo is sad and simple. if these people go back home they are very likely to justifiably oppose the US and spread word of just how shitty the US is. it is much easier (in the JCS opinion) to kill these people and then you don't have to worry about any retaliation. imprisoning them forever is the same thing.

 

the worst thing for the US would be if these people were kept for 5, 10, 20, 30+ years and then are released with no compensation. it's a PR battle

 

i have plenty of moral issues with US policy and this is an obvious shitstain. it's further illuminated by the al-muslimi guy's testimony about how drone strikes create al qaeda members. not only is this a disgusting policy, but it also doesn't work. this is probably the saddest part of all. we are funding these atrocities and fighting a "war" in an explicit way, and that way is ineffective.

 

dammit this post will get lost at the bottom of the page like all my other posts...

[delet...]

It's not ineffective if the point of your policy is to justify a security state and provide a distraction whilst you rape and pillage the tax payer, rig the stock exchange and the commodities markets, etc.All the while giving you an excuse to invade or destabalise any country that looks like it's interests are aligning too closely with those of it's people.

[Guest theSun]

well at that point you have a difference of opinion on the goals of the nation between those running it and those paying for it. that disconnect is probably the worst problem with US politics today, and one of the reasons obama laughably campaigned on transparency.

[goDel]

@Alcof.:

 

I can agree that in real life some things do not "warrant a cool, neutral tone". But this is the internet. If people want to blow off steam, that's fine. But if I want to take a neutral approach, I don't see any objections to it. As long as I don't step directly on people's personal feelings/lives, that is. So, if there are family members of/or former Gitmo detainees here: my sincere apologies. Otherwise, wtf are you getting so riled up about!?.

 

This is not a direct aftermath of, say, the Boston Bombings. This is an issue which has been going for years. So I really don't see how this doesn't warrant a cool, neutral tone.

 

IMO, the only effect of being riled up about it, is that it achieves some kind of validation over some shared emotional state. Like we're such good friends because we share the same emotions over the same political issues. If you really want to understand issues like these (or the israeli-palestina conflict, to take another emotional subject, for instance) though, this neutral and cool approach is a necessity. A sane approach would be a better word, imo.

 

Ironically, when it comes to Israel and having empathy with the people living there, there is an awful lot empathy missing when it comes to dealing with a certain member on this board who just happens to live there. So this 'empathic' approach which people presume to take, is a rather empty and hypocritical one, if you ask me. In the end, it is more about showing people whose side your on, regardless of taking peoples different perspectives into account. Apparently, standing up for some moral position is more important than actually respecting other people.

 

Apparently I'm not that good at fitting into the herd. But sometimes that's actually more empathetic than assumed, imo. Whether the herd agrees or not.