The CIA is closing its “black op” prison sites, so that’s good. But the Obama Administration is trying to keep the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.
There are some things the Administration is doing with which I disagree, but nevertheless I sorta kinda see why they’re doing what they’re doing. But this I don’t understand.
11 Comments 
Obama Administration
I sorta kinda see why they’re doing what they’re doing
Please explain why. I am totally pissed at POTUS & AG for not supporting the constitution.
Chief — re-read what I wrote. I am saying there are SOME THINGS they’re doing that with which I disagree, but for which I see their rationale. But on THIS ISSUE I do not understand at all why they are doing what they are doing.
Note title of post.
I kinda remember the Obama pledge to communicate with us. Something like we might not agree, but he would explain why he was doing what he was doing so at least we could understand where he was coming from.
Maybe it’s a case of how ya gonna keep’em down on the farm after they’ve seen pa-ree’
I agree, maha. What I am keeping in mind is that O was handed a huge multi-faceted mess most of which only he and his advisors know the details; therefore, because we don’t and can’t know what he’s faced with, what seems to us to be unexplainable moves on his part are such because we don’t know what he’s moving against.
My guess is, amongst the various people we have illegally imprisoned, at least some of them are in fact actual terrorists, who would definitely for sure go back to terroristing if we just let em go.
Because of the way we captured them and what we’ve done to them since then, tho, any actual legal proceeding would end up with us not just letting them go but having to pay them a huge chunk of reparation change as well.
Obama’s trying to find some way to close gitmo and all the various black prisons that won’t involve getting almost immediately kicked in the ass by the doing.
Myself, I value rule of law above all. If there’s no legal way to hold somebody, I say we gots to let them go, even if we know for certain they’ll be right back with a dynamite belt. It’ll help to convince future politicians to do it all nice and legal.
But, my wife disagrees with me on this one, so I can see that reasonable people would be able to disagree 
Plus, I’ve seen others outside of Greenwald (who, much as I love the guy, is definitely a bit … strident at times) describe what’s going on not as the prez trying to keep the power, but the admin trying to play for more time, in order to straighten out the mess before eventually having to let everybody go. Hard to say what’s right.
-me
Sorry, Maha. I’m just too dense. I still do not understand.
Ian, you may be right, but if so, it would be helpful if the administration came out and said the “no judicial oversight” applies only to people already in custody and until we can sort them out, or something.
I kinda remember the Obama pledge to communicate with us.
I’m glad you mentioned this, Swami, because I was beginning to wonder if I’d imagined it.
Don’t worry, Chief. I still love you.
You’re sweet, Babs. Guess I just need someone to draw me a picture.
I believe we need a definition of what no judicial oversight means. Does that mean they have no rights, as in no human rights, which has been the situation at Gitmo and elsewhere with torture of suspects, some of whom are indeed actual terrorists? That some of them are actual terrorists does not excuse inhumane treatment. Inhumane treatment probably deters their cooperation rather than inducing them to give information. The model is wrong.
They also need to be understood as members of cults and need de-programming.
Or does it mean that they still have human rights, but are not going to be brought to trial but simply held forever without trial?
I understand why the administration believes, just like the last administration apparently, that it might be better to not bring these people to trial but keep them hostage to eventually acquire as much information from them as they can.
To bring them to trial causes media to fight for access, and it gets closer and closer to some uncomfortable truths coming out about what I call “underground Islam.” That’s the term I use to refer to the network of mostly immigrant terrorists who are within the United States and other Western nations. They are free to move about the country as is anyone, blend in, westernize, obtain jobs in airport security (before 911 they could), and operate money-bilking schemes to support their network and overseas operations as well.
Oh, the public is going to panic or something when they find out some (many?) of the terrorists and suspects were arrested within the United States? Not panic, but paranoia and Muslims here may face severe repurcussions of suspicion and discrimination. But maybe it needs to happen because these creeps need to be rooted out of the American Muslim communities. Oh yes, it’s a big mess for Muslims here in U.S.
How many mosques have they taken over leadership, pretending to be friendly quiet peace-loving people, even imams? An Imam at Sunni mosque in my town was investigated by the federal anti-terrorism unit and arrested for bilking people, mostly other Muslims, out of money in real estate and investment schemes. The Sunni Muslim woman who lived in apartment above me had job at airport at security checkpoint too! Oh my. Why would anti-terrorism unit be investigating financial crimes and why they never say where the money went? Did the woman who lived above me let men with guns through for 9/11 to happen? They hijacked planes with box cutters, the government says. Yeah, right, and there is no underground Islam network of terrorists here in the U.S.
I still become Muslim anyway, but I rebuke the twisted corruption of the religion in favor of promoting a restoration of true Qur’an-based Islam lost so long ago to corrupted beliefs, practices, and ideologies. It’s in Islam’s history.
Apr 12, 2009 
