Comments on: A nationwide, government organized system of cruelty and injustice http://newsrackblog.com/2009/05/18/nationwide-government-organized-system-of-cruelty/ a citizen's journal by Thomas Nephew Fri, 18 May 2012 00:09:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Thomas Nephew http://newsrackblog.com/2009/05/18/nationwide-government-organized-system-of-cruelty/#comment-5357 Thomas Nephew Thu, 21 May 2009 21:10:42 +0000 http://newsrackblog.com/2009/05/18/2638/#comment-5357 Here's a link to the transcript at the "American Presidency Project" at UCSB -- <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85729" rel="nofollow">48 - Interview With Matt Lauer of NBC's "Today"</a>. So far, it's quite hard to find at MSNBC -- this "<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28967411/" rel="nofollow">complete transcript</a>" cuts out halfway through. The relevant part: <blockquote><em>Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Closure</em> <em>Mr. Lauer.</em> Let me go on quickly if I can to some other subjects. You signed an Executive order in your first week that says you'll close the military detention center at Guantanamo within a year. So the clock is ticking. And already you've heard the criticism that you don't know what you're going to do with the 245 prisoners being held there. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the decision to close Guantanamo by a year from now "places hope ahead of reality. It sets an objective without a plan to get there." <em>The President.</em> Let me say this. We had a long campaign between myself and John McCain. One thing we did not disagree on—in fact, something that John McCain was as adamant as I was, was that we needed to close Guantanamo. It's the right thing to do. Ultimately, it will make us safer. You've already seen in the reaction around the world a different sense of America by us taking this action. Now, is it going to be easy? <strong>No, because we've got a couple of hundred of hardcore militants that, unfortunately, because of some problems that we had previously in gathering evidence, we may not be able to try in ordinary courts, but we don't want to release.</strong> How we structure that is something that I'm going to do carefully. Our lawyers are reviewing it. I have absolute confidence that, ultimately, we're going to be able to find a mechanism, with the cooperation of the international community, with the cooperation of some very smart Republicans, like Lindsey Graham, a former JAG who knows this stuff well. I have confidence that we're going to be able to find a solution to this problem. <em>Guantanamo Bay Detainees</em> <em>Mr. Lauer.</em> Are you at all worried—and some of these people may be released, the ones that seem to be less of a threat. But if one of those people that's released goes back and takes part in the planning of or carrying out of an attack against U.S. interests, you're going to have a Willie Horton times 100 situation on your hands. How are you going to deal with that? <em>The President.</em> Of course I'm worried about it. Look, the—I have to make the very best judgments I can make in terms of what's going to keep the American people safe, and is what—what's going to uphold our Constitution and our traditions of due process. And what I'm convinced of is that we can balance those interests in a way that makes all of us proud, but also assures that we're not attacked. Now, can I guarantee—or can anybody guarantee, for that matter—that some of the people who have already been released—keep in mind, I mean, the Bush administration released a whole bunch of folks out of Guantanamo, some of them have rejoined some of these militant organizations—can we guarantee that they're not going to try to participate in another attack? No. But what I can guarantee is that if we don't uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe and that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like Al Qaida. That's what I've got to keep my eye on. </blockquote> Here’s a link to the transcript at the “American Presidency Project” at UCSB — 48 - Interview With Matt Lauer of NBC’s “Today”. So far, it’s quite hard to find at MSNBC — this “ Barack Obama, through his failure to lead on the detention issue and his refusal to speak the plain truth that more of the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo are innocent than not, is responsible for the sorry spectacle of this week.

Politicians for whom I still held a shred of respect — I’m glaring at you, Jim Webb –are competing with lying Saxby Chambliss and Jim Inhofe (R-Bizarro World) to see who can be more pants-wetting about the prospect of the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to U.S. prisons. The idea of accepting prisoners innocent of any threat to us, men who were cleared for release years ago by the Bush regime, is apparently inconceivable.

A comment of mine at Obsidian Wings from three months ago predicted this mess, and I haven’t changed my mind about who’s responsible:

:: Obama has not only expended no effort or political capital in getting out ahead of this kind of fear and ignorance, but has actively fed into it.

The interview with Matt Lauer just before the Super Bowl was his first sit-down on U.S. television since the inauguration; it had, intentionally, an enormous audience. There is no way, then, to paint this from Obama as anything but a deliberate effort to feed the paranoia that has made release of the Uighurs into the U.S. difficult. Remember as you read that there are only about 250 prisoners total at Guantanamo: “we’ve got a couple of hundred [!!} of hardcore militants [!!] that, unfortunately, because of some problems that we had [!!] previously in gathering evidence, we may not be able to try in ordinary courts –- but we don’t want to release [!!].”

He said something to one of the biggest TV audiences of the year that could have been said by Dick Cheney with a one-word change (’terrorist’ for ‘militant’). ::

He’s keeping us in the same degraded swamp as his predecessor, and I hope he rots in the same hell.

]]>