The Cellar - Indefinite Detention

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Indefinite Detention (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20370)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 569157)

No none of that. I was just curious since people as of late have gotten their panties all in a wad if the source of a link comes from some place other than the Congressional Record. I for one was just curious and I have never heard of TPM.

Ah, sorry.

TPM is a liberal blog, and if I found something through them, I'd try to link to their sources rather than their editorials, if possible. If I couldn't find corroboration, I'd either drop it or put in a strong caveat. If their sources are scans of primary documents on their site, I have no reason to distrust those.

So TPM isn't a source of congressional documents, but I'd say that whatever is in their archive of primary source documents is legit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 569149)

Feingold was the source.

I hadn't seen that Feingold letter till your link -- he was spot-on. :thumb: Thanks for the link!

TPM is a liberal blog

I divide the blogs by liberal vs. conservative, but more by well-reasoned vs. self-congratulatory attention-whoring yap dogs. TPM is on the well-reasoned side. Plus they do real reporting, and you have to respect that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 569187)

self-congratulatory attention-whoring yap dogs

Okay, that need to be someone's user title.... And no, I'm not volunteering. :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 569187)

I do. Which can be a bit of an issue when they actually have a scoop, and there are no corroborating links yet, but I'd still prefer not to use a blog as backup for an argument.

But yes, TPM's Josh Marshall is a journalist, as well as a blogger, and he does do real reporting.

The Gitmo no one talks about

Interesting article and I must admit that I am very surprised where I read it.

Quote:

Not only has Obama not closed Guantanamo, he has also vastly expanded a similar prison in Afghanistan

President Obama has presided over a threefold increase in the number of detainees being held at the controversial military detention center at Bagram Air Base, the Afghan cousin of the notorious prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. It's the latest piece of news that almost certainly would be getting more attention -- especially from Democrats -- if George W. Bush were still president.

There are currently more than 1,700 detainees at Bagram, up from over 600 at the end of the Bush administration.

The situation at Bagram, especially the legal process that determines whether detainees are released, is the subject of a new report by Human Rights First. It finds that the current system of hearings for detainees "falls short of the requirements of international law" because they are not given "an adequate opportunity to defend themselves against charges that they are collaborating with insurgents and present a threat to U.S. forces." Human Rights First also argues that cases of unjustified imprisonment are damaging the broader war effort by undermining Afghans' trust in the military

more here

I'm against indefinite detention, but I'm not sure what the limit should be, so they should be detained until I decide what the finite length should be.:dunce:

Here we go again. But this time we have shiny new name aren't you :)

Amazing how he condemns in the one and yet does EXACTLY the same thing.

Wow.

You know what kind of worries me a little, we are setting the bar for other countries and non nation players to treat us if captured.

Clip is from May 2009 and HM linked to it in post #26

Well, it's an indefinite video.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 778967)

Clip is from May 2009...

I thought it again apropos as the Senate voted Tuesday to keep the provision.

Quote:

"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home.
And when people take up arms against the United States and captured within the United States,
why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question
that person as to what they know about enemy activity?"
"They should not be read their Miranda Rights.
They should not be given a lawyer," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R)said.
"They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."

WTF.

Here is how the vote broke down.
Link

Quote:

...captured within the United States,
"They should not be read their Miranda Rights.
They should not be given a lawyer," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R)said.

Are you OK with this Lamp?

I really think it is just a battle between Congress trying to maintain control over the disposition of terrorists, where ever they are captured, and the Executive branch wanting to have exclusive rights to what happens to them. The old military vs. law enforcement argument. Just a guess. Anyway it still has to go to Committee to be reconciled.