The Political Thread

[JOE SOAP]

Obama hasn't shut down Guantanamo because he can't - he doesn't have the power.

The President is the only one with the executive power to close it and he did exercise that power, officially:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base


But in the end he bottled it.


"Congress bears a great deal of blame for the failure to close Guantánamo, but there are several reasons why the president is also heavily responsible. First, he had the full authority to transfer detainees to the United States for prosecution for almost the first two years of his presidency. But rather than expediting its closure, his 2009 executive order contained a one year timeline; the delay allowed opponents to derail the plan.

Second, when the first complete ban on detainee transfers was enacted in January 2011, it applied only to Department of Defense funds. At that time, President Obama still had the option to transfer detainees to the US using Department of Justice funds, but he did not exercise that authority. He also could have vetoed the transfer provisions, but did not.

Third, he did not stand behind the attorney general's decision, in November 2009, to prosecute the 9/11 suspects in federal criminal courts. Allowing local and national elected officials to undermine the authority of the attorney general to prosecute was a stunning capitulation in the perennial turf war between the executive and legislative branches. In short, Obama succumbed to political pressure and refused to fight crucial battles."




http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/why-hasnt-obama-closed-guantanamo

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

I got the impression Obama backtracked when he realised that closing the camp would mean letting a number of America's implacable enemies go free, and that if one of them did manage to attack the US he'd be blamed for it. It wasn't his finest hour.

[JOE SOAP]

I got the impression Obama backtracked when he realised that closing the camp would mean letting a number of America's implacable enemies go free, and that if one of them did manage to attack the US he'd be blamed for it. It wasn't his finest hour.

It wouldn't be the first time a politician reneges on their promise out of political self-preservation; but then the question is why bother?

[ZenArcade]

Jimmy, again there is merit in the point that a lot of thoroughly nasty people were and indeed still are held there. The difficulty is the open ended detention without trial. I don't need to lecture you or anyone else here on the fundemental basis of western jurisprudence in that people are entitled to a fair hearing before the law within a reasonable period of time. This simply has not happened in this instance. If they have committed a crime they must answer for it, and it is down to the state to bring a case against them. If the state has insufficient evidence upon which to base a case then they must be released. I agree this is a bitter pill to swallow but what else is to be done. We cannot as a society which rightly extols the virtues of enlightened civilised behaviour, cast our hard won rights away as soon as we are faced with threats real or imagined. We either win this acting within the ideological compass set out by better minds than mine or we win by becoming just like the monsters who day and night seek to undermine and destroy that which we hold dear. I know what way I want to win. Z

[COMMANDO FORCES]

I would've replied to Jim earlier but alas I was busy drving a van about and helping to set up a forum and facebook page all to do with people dressing up as Judges and having fun. Seeing as the thread has been warned due to personal attacks, I won't reply but instead I'll say a BIG welcome to Jim Campbell for joining that very forum, for people who dress up in Judges uniforms.

Cheers

John

[Frank]

Ahem. Back on topic:  Russian separatists in Ukraine say they're carrying out summary executions to "prevent chaos", while Hamas declares it will keep on pointlessly firing rockets that will never reach their target until they " meet their objectives" and Netanyahu responds that Palestine will "pay an intolerable price" for the said pointless firing of effectively harmless rockets. The world is divided into people who are such dicks they're prepared to murder others just to get their own way, and everyone else.

[ZenArcade]

Hasn't it always  been that way, the murderers are in the ascendant at the moment. The annoying thing is the way we are being failed by the very people we elect to address  these very things.
Men and women of straw bought and paid for.
CF is getting plenty of forum members around this neck of the woods. Z

[JayzusB.Christ]

It's something I've been thinking about a lot of late, sauchie, and a topic I know we've discussed here before.  It seems to me that for somebody to want to be the leader of a militarily aggressive (or at least active) country must take a certain amount of callousness that the average person just doesn't have.

Put it this way:  Imagine you were Tony Blair.  Whether or not the wars Britain under his rule was involved in served any 'greater good' purpose, the unalterable fact is that a decision he made caused an enormous number of deaths and a huge amount of suffering.  I believe that the majority of people, had they made the  decisions he made, would feel at the very least an incredible burden of guilt no matter what it ends they  seemed to justify.  But not him, and not Bush either for that matter.  They appear to sleep soundly at night despite being personally responsible for shedding the blood of innocent people in their thousands.

So perhaps that's why, as the current global political situation stands, it is imperative that nations are ruled by borderline sociopaths, or at least people lacking in normal feelings of human empathy.  Wars and indeed commerce can't be carried out effectively by those with the emotions of compassion and philanthropy that I believe that the average person has at least a sufficient degree of not to wish death on children and torture on potentially innocent suspects (or even guilty ones).

I don't follow Russell Brand's idea of opting out of democracy (such as it is) entirely - it's better to choose the least malevolent group than the worst one.  But the point I'm making, I suppose, is that to be involved in an electoral process, or to agree to the idea of national government, is to have to accept that whoever gets in is a far less compassionate or empathetic human being than most. 

[ZenArcade]

It wouldn't be so bad if these people were effective. They are not,  we're essentially going to hell in a collective handcart because it is evident the likes of Blair/Cameron /Obama/Bush simply don't have the emotional intelligence from which balanced judgement stems.
Brand is of course wrong but something must be done to address the issue of why we are saddled with a pseudo-democratic process wherein fools are elected funded by interests which are in essence anti-democratic. Z

[The Legendary Shark]

The reason why we are saddled with a pseudo-democratic process wherein fools are elected funded by interests which are in essence anti-democratic is simple.
.
Because we allow it.

[Professor Bear]

The most profitable rail company in the UK is also the only one still in public hands, after the last private owner ran it so badly into the ground that it had to be renationalised in 2009.  After running costs, it's returned over half a billion pounds of profit to British taxpayers, so naturally the Tories are selling it at a knockdown price to their mates, complete with subsidies so that it will actually cost the taxpayer money: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/04/east-coast-mainline-fury-reprivatisation-plan

They seem to be rushing it through before the next election, too.  Can't imagine what their hurry is.

[Jim_Campbell]

They seem to be rushing it through before the next election, too.  Can't imagine what their hurry is.

As I said when I mentioned this latest piece of idiocy on Facebook: "when will a mainstream political party break ranks and challenge this idiotic orthodoxy that private enterprise and the free market can solve the ills of the public sector?"

The railways are a prime example of the myth of private sector efficiency, and the lunacy of dogmatically pursuing the privatisation policy in the face of simple common sense. Whilst I wouldn't hold up the nationalised railways as a model of lean, efficient business, the plain fact is that we spend more money subsidising the railways now than we did when they were nationalised, and yet every single (privately owned) train operator runs at a profit.

Better yet, the French and German national rail operators have significant share holdings in the UK train operators meaning that a chunk of this profits goes into the coffers of the French and German nationalised railways and are used to help subsidise their own rail fares.

It's absolute madness.

Cheers

Jim

[JamesC]

Something I'm becoming more interested in as I get older the idea of how trust and respect works between the general public and authority figures.
From a young age we're taught that we should respect people in certain positions of authority. From your headmaster to your local bobby. But why? I can respect the scientific opinion of a professor working in his field, or the medical opinion of my local GP because they're working by methods which are empirically proven. Politicians, the local police and people who generally tell you how to run your life don't have this. Why should I respect a local politician any more than someone on Jobseeker's allowance?
I'm really trying my best to take people as I find them from now on, and to give respect where I think it's earned. I work in events and the amount of people, paid for by the public, who expect VIP treatment (by this I  mean to be segregated from the general public and given extra attention etc) really sticks in my craw. 

[The Legendary Shark]

"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism' because it is the merging of state and business power." - Mussolini
.
We are taught respect for these 'authority figures' at school - and, who runs the schools, trains and hires the teachers, sets the curriculum? Those self same 'authority figures'. This will continue so long as our schools teach students what to think and not how to think - and so long as the media continues reinforcing the current scholastic paradigm.
.
"Question everything" should be carved in stone over every school entrance.

[JamesC]

Has anyone noticed that there are a hell of a lot of, what I call, 'We know best' programmes on lately?
There are things like Fake Britain, The Health Inspectors, Here Come the Sheriffs and various Police versions of, what seem to me, propaganda to show us how great various authorities are.
I wouldn't mind so much if the programmes were objective but they never show anyone making mistakes or arresting people wrongly and they don't even give the people on the other end of the disputes a platform to get their side of the story across.