When President Barack Obama took office last year, he promised to “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great.” Toward that end, the president issued an executive order declaring that the extra-constitutional prison camp at Guantánamo Naval Base “shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” Obama has failed to fulfill his promise. Some prisoners there are being charged with crimes, others released, but the date for closing the camp seems to recede steadily into the future. Furthermore, new evidence now emerging may entangle Obama’s young administration with crimes that occurred during the George W. Bush presidency, evidence that suggests the current administration failed to investigate seriously—and may even have continued—a cover-up of the possible homicides of three prisoners at Guantánamo in 2006. --Scott Horton
"Camp No," Guantanamo
Sullivan:
But of course, if you weren't a jihadist before you arrived in Gitmo, you sure as hell would be by the time they let you out. I would be.And especially if you knew that American soldiers in Iraq are using - right now, in 2010 - government-issued rifles with Bible verses engraved on the sights.
5 comments:
It is a tangled mess. Bush and company should be tried for war crimes and anything else that applies for what they have done to this country. It would be a nice start, maybe even clear out some republicans senators as a bonus.
I agree that Bush and his criminal crew should be tried. But it's occurred to me that it would really need to be done by an international tribunal - not merely by the Democrats in this country, which would be bitterly divisive and ultimately counter-productive.
I well recall that more than half the country didn't think Nixon needed to be tried for Watergate crimes . . . which was small potatoes compared to BushCheneyRumsfeldRove's crimes against humanity.
And now, there's a tea-bagger in the Senate in Teddy's old seat. Things are not looking good for change that we were supposed to be able to believe in.
Huh, change? What's that?
Why---???Did he just not rally his party and get it done, rather than effectively ask permission of his adversaries, who want nothing more than to see him fail. That's the "bipartisanship" I have spoken against on many pages....and now we see what that really means.
Betrayed.....
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest---again.
Post a Comment