Did Obama swap 'black' detention sites for ships?

[dkf]

Associated Press= WASHINGTON (AP) — Instead of sending suspected terrorists to Guantanamo Bay or secret CIA "black" sites for interrogation, the Obama administration is questioning terrorists for as long as it takes aboard U.S. naval vessels.

And it's doing it in a way that preserves the government's ability to ultimately prosecute the suspects in civilian courts.

That's the pattern emerging with the recent capture of Abu Anas al-Libi, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, long-sought for his alleged role in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. He was captured in a raid Saturday and is being held aboard the USS San Antonio, an amphibious warship mainly used to transport troops.

Questioning suspected terrorists aboard U.S. warships in international waters is President Barack Obama's answer to the Bush administration detention policies that candidate Obama promised to end. The strategy also makes good on Obama's pledge to prosecute terrorists in U.S. civilian courts, which many Republicans have argued against. But it also raises questions about using "law of war" powers to circumvent the safeguards of the U.S. criminal justice system.

By holding people in secret prisons, known as black sites, the CIA was able to question them over long periods, using the harshest interrogation tactics, without giving them access to lawyers. Obama came to office without a ready replacement for those secret prisons. The concern was that if a terrorist was sent directly to court, the government might never know what intelligence he had. With the black sites closed and Obama refusing to send more people to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it wasn't obvious where the U.S. would hold people for interrogation.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/11009272

[trumad]

1. DKF---I gotta say

out of the thousands of members here at DU---you are by far---not even close--- the most anti-Obama posting member on this forum.

Your survival here is to be admired.

[Xipe Totec]

3. I was considering posting that article myself

I did not condone this behavior during the Bush administration, and the Obama administration doesn't get a pass with me just because it is Democratic.

It is a deeply troubling development.

I am particularly appalled by the notion that 5 years in military detention does not violate a suspect's right to a speedy trial as some federal judges have ruled.

As a progressive, I cannot turn a blind eye to this no matter who is president.

[trumad]

5. Still does not diminish my point.

[Xipe Totec]

10. You do know, then, that you are skirting with calling a fellow DUer a troll, right?

That you are attacking the messenger and not the message?

In doing so are going off topic and derailing the discussion.

You are a long time poster here, and I have enjoyed many of your OPs for a long time now. I would very much like to read more about your opinions on the topics of the day. Not so much about your opinion of other DUers.

[trumad]

12. My topic of the day is...

that I'm sick and tired of seeing the same old Obama attack themes by the same DU members over and over and over.

There are errrr members on this forum that consistently--- about 100 percent of the time, bash this Democratic President on a daily basis.

Hey---you know what--- it's within the DU rules---apparently--- but I will call them on this every fucking time.

SKIRTING--- who's skirting?

[flamingdem]

22. +1

[obnoxiousdrunk]

33. +100.

[leveymg]

34. Is the OP really anti-Obama or anti-human rights abuses? Can you show us an instance

where dkf has clearly been motivated by animus against this President rather than being appalled by ongoing abuses of power?

This certainly doesn't fit the former category.

If you're going to make serious accusations against a fellow member, you need serious evidence to back it up. Put up, or shut up, trumad.

[trumad]

89. really?

LOL

[msanthrope]

38. "We need Rand Paul." Straight from a Duer......Guess who before you click!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3587463

[leveymg]

42. Reference was to the Syria bombing vote and that most of the Dems were going to vote for it.

Context is important.

[msanthrope]

45. The Syria bombing vote that never actually happened? Look, is there anything we actually need Rand

Paul for? I'd like a list.

[leveymg]

47. Take a closer look at that post. It was about polling on that upcoming vote. Almost happened,

except a majority in the House wasn't going to vote for it, so the Administration's strategy changed.

[msanthrope]

49. And Rand Paul was needed for precisely, what? nt

[leveymg]

53. I didn't post that. And, we will no doubt disagree on our interpretations of that, as well.

But, if I were to guess what was meant by that by the OP is that on that particular vote, Rand Paul got it right and Feinstein was wrong.

[msanthrope]

55. But there was no vote. So, I'm still waiting for someone to explain "We need Rand Paul." nt

[leveymg]

57. Feinstein and the Commitee majority voted for US bombing. That's the reference, I believe.

The article link is about polling for a possible vote in the House.

You don't have a clear instance here. Try something else.

[msanthrope]

59. What? What does a committe vote in the Senate have to do with the House? What would Democrats

need Senator Rand Paul for in the House???

[leveymg]

64. Here's the article that the OP responded to in the other thread.

It was written after the Senate Committee vote at a time that a vote in the House was expected. I believe dkf was in large part responding in the thread that followed to the part highlighted below. I take the OP's response to be exasperation at the fact that the Dems, beginning with Feinstein's Senate Commitree, were leading this charge toward US war in Syria:

ThinkProgress ?@thinkprogress 30m
SYRIA WHIP COUNT No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63 http://thkpr.gs/15RgyxN


As members of Congress consider President Obama’s request to authorize military force in Syria, following evidence that President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons killed over 1,400 people, a ThinkProgress analysis of the public statements of 223 Representatives found that 124 lawmakers have either decisively ruled out supporting the measure or say they are unlikely to back it.

Just 35 of the 223 members of the House of Representatives said they will definitely or likely vote in favor or the resolution. Sixty-three are undecided.

Republicans were far more likely to oppose military action in Syria, while Democrats were more likely to support it. The numbers are a contrast to 2002, when Democrats in the House provided “the bulk of the opposition” to President George W. Bush’s Iraq war resolution — though a majority of Democrats (61 percent) still backed war. Only six House Republicans voted against the Iraq war in 2002.

[sabrina 1]

62. Thank you for correcting that comment. Votes, we are told, are important no matter where they

come from. Except when it's convenient to claim we don't need a particular vote.

The linked comment was clearly about getting as many votes as possible to stop military action in Syria.

Once it became clear that we would have few allies for that venture, the vote wasn't needed, plus there was not going to be support for it in Congress, as you pointed out.

It's always best to check for distortions of other people's comments which is more common than it should be here on a Democratic forum.

[CatWoman]

88. come here and give me a kiss

[dionysus]

44. if the shoe fits... i mean by this point it's obvious to just about everybody.

[leveymg]

51. A troll is more than someone you disagree with, Mr. D.

Sorry, but a critic doesn't equate to a troll.

[sibelian]

87. Good thing too.

If your point was any less pointy it would have to be reclassified as a "rounded, slightly raised lump".

[Mojorabbit]

91. Thank you. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

9. You're counting a news item from a legitimate source as an "anti-Obama" post?

Is this how things have become?

[trumad]

13. Oh it's a legitimate source no doubt.

but once---just fucking once would I love to see a post from this member that isn't negative to Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Perhaps the President should fight for the 99%

instead of bankers, the TPP, and the rest. Rising incomes for the middle class, rather than falling incomes, would make us all a lot less cranky.

While I'm damned glad that the President is finally doing the right thing in standing up to the crazies, It's interesting that this only happened when they threatened the law that is his legacy.

[trumad]

23. are you 3rd waying?

Otherwise if you don't think he's done things to help the 99 percent...you're not as smart as I thought you were.

[DireStrike]

24. Do you feel the same about posters who post 100% pro-Obama?

[trumad]

27. huh?

[DireStrike]

29. I for one am shocked that some posters seem to never see anything Obama does as wrong.

Or at least, never post about them. It's very unsettling and I feel that they are paid propagandists for the Administration.

Why should anyone bother to post positive things about Obama when there is a brigade running around (with loads of free time, might I add) doing so? It's the negative stories that are in need of attention.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

32. That is pretty warped thinking

And as if DU posters have a problem posting on ANY topic that has already been posted 10 times. I laugh.

[DireStrike]

41. It's half joking.

But only half, because there are some posters who behave that way (Obama can do no wrong.)

[treestar]

83. It is a Democratic site

So that's more forgivable than its opposite.

[DireStrike]

85. I guess it was a poor example.

Point being that there are tons of posters who do each.

And both are perfectly acceptable modes of communication. If I largely agree with you, you generally won't hear from me until you do something I don't like.

[LanternWaste]

54. I think you're arguing source rather than trend.

I think you're arguing source rather than trend... which is what I believe was actually being implied.

Is intentionally conflating two separate concepts how things have become?
(Insert rationalization here)

[DevonRex]

74. News item it's not. It's a bad opinion piece,

When The Guardian publishes so much of that swill it becomes less and less legitimate.
For example, calling ships a replacement for the black sites is laughable. Bush's black sites were explicitly used in secret (thus the name Black Sites) and were used explicitly to torture prisoners who were taken there in secret who were never going to be tried for anything.

Tell me, what exactly about a Black Site compares to naval ships? Prisoners on naval ships are not held in secret. They are not tortured. Hopefully the U.S. can make a case and prosecute them. The prisoners have not been whisked away to a country like Syria that allows torture until death.

Interesting that the article is unsourced regarding what has occurred on the ship. Makes me go hmmm.

[treestar]

81. +1

Nothing is like the way Bush did it, yet posters like OP keep trying to assert that things are the same and posting articles that say that.

[DevonRex]

86. Not to mention that the guy was captured by SEALs who came in by the SEA

from a SHIP and therefore the prisoner would be taken TO A SHIP.

Where did they think he'd go? A resort in Arizona via Air Force One?

[msanthrope]

15. You Better Believe It! nt

[treestar]

82. :)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

31. Yes, indeed. Take a very positive news story and go negative

Gotta love the not-so-well disguised constant slamming of Obama and complete dearth of positive Obama posts.

Do you miss your sister-in-arms, Safety Kitten?

[Kingofalldems]

46. It's amazing for sure.

[frylock]

72. what's amazing is that toture gets a pass because our guy is doing it..

would you be as amazed if this article were to be posted during bush's reign?

[treestar]

84. What torture?

You're simply concluding that because you want to conclude it. The article contains no proof of such.

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. So posting an article from a major news source without comment is provocation?

Maybe you should address the article and its contents, not the person posting it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

52. It has been addressed. Please to be reading them

[trumad]

60. snarf

[Rex]

63. For every prosense there is a dkf?

I like seeing both of them here and posting like madmen or madwomen. Got a lot of articles that are good reads imo.

[trumad]

68. So we need an anti-Obama member posting on Democratic Underground?

Ok---got you.

[Rex]

69. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that he is.

Echo chamber much?

[trumad]

70. Snarf

[frylock]

71. so we can put you in the pro-torture group..

got it.

[trumad]

75. boy...thats what you got out of this...

Youuuuure deep.

[frylock]

78. deeper than whaaaaa you're mean to Obama?

really?

[Recursion]

2. Why do you have to make it about the black ships? (nt)

[B Calm]

4. Was the seal team that captured the terrorist deployed from this ship?

[Kelvin Mace]

6. And Obama's moral decline

is pretty much complete.

Let us not play legal games here. If you are putting prisoners on Navy ships and sailing them to international waters to "question" them you are going to be torturing them.

[Shivering Jemmy]

7. Nah

[MannyGoldstein]

8. But America doesn't torture.

Of course, the definition of "torture" needs to be kept secret, because... Terra!

[telclaven]

11. I'm curious about what happens on Diego Garcia

If I was going to have an ultra secret repository of prisoners, I'd do it someplace that is totally isolated and completely under the control of the military with no civilians loitering around.

[whttevrr]

18. Like an Island in the middle of the Indian Ocean?

[telclaven]

20. We reach

You are not Herbert

[whttevrr]

30. Who is Herbert?

[telclaven]

37. Obscure Star Trek reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_to_Eden

One of my favorite episodes

[Solly Mack]

16. K&R

[KoKo]

17. This is disturbing. We had hoped this kind of thing would change.

From Gitmo (which is still open and "detainees" being force fed) now to the use of our Navy ships for interrogation and possibly information extraction. Who is overseeing this from the human rights activist community?

[msanthrope]

40. Please be precise in your concerns. What malfeasance do you suspect is going on? nt

[FarCenter]

19. Ships have been used to hold high-value prisoners before

[ProSense]

21. Clearly, people are

By holding people in secret prisons, known as black sites, the CIA was able to question them over long periods, using the harshest interrogation tactics, without giving them access to lawyers. Obama came to office without a ready replacement for those secret prisons. The concern was that if a terrorist was sent directly to court, the government might never know what intelligence he had. With the black sites closed and Obama refusing to send more people to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it wasn't obvious where the U.S. would hold people for interrogation.

<...>

The Obama administration has said it can hold high-value detainees on a ship for as long as it needs to. During his confirmation hearing in June 2011 to be the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, Adm. William McRaven said the U.S. could keep a detainee on a ship for as long as it takes to determine whether the U.S. could prosecute the suspect in civilian court or whether the U.S. could return the suspect to another country.

...desperate to implicat the Obama administration by innuendo and speculation. How on earth is a program that's out in the open the same as "black" detention sites?

ENDING TORTURE = Three Torches

• Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
  flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
  government wide.
  
• Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
  
• Says that “waterboarding is torture” and “contrary to America’s traditions… contrary to our ideals.”
  
• No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
  
• Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
  alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf

ACLU Comment on Appointment of Envoy to Close Guantánamo

WASHINGTON – President Obama today appointed lawyer Clifford Sloan as the State Department's special envoy in charge of closing the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"The appointment of a new envoy at the State Department for closing Guantánamo puts in place one of the last pieces of the puzzle for getting the prison closed," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The president now has ordered the restart of transfers out of Guantánamo, lifted the moratorium on transfers to Yemen, and appointed top officials at the White House and State Department to get it done. Once President Obama makes the necessary appointment at the Pentagon to begin transferring detainees out of Guantánamo, he should immediately begin doing so. With more than half of the detainees already cleared for transfer or release, and dozens more being held without ever being charged or tried, it's time to start sending these men home."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-appointment-envoy-close-guantanamo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023036083

[trumad]

25. Thanks Pro

Good post

[SidDithers]

26. The ODS is strong in this thread...nt

Sid

[trumad]

28. its certainly fly paper for the usual suspects.

[leveymg]

39. All sorts of bugs got attracted to this lit bulb.

Right?

[MannyGoldstein]

77. Your Sig picture is strange and disturbing

I'm probably not the only one who's uncomfortable with it and would appreciate if you changed it.

My own town needs no enema, it's quite nice.

If you're referring to DU as needing an enema, then... gee, is there anyone on DU who keeps alerting about the posting of Meta matters?

[SidDithers]

79. I'll give your request all the consideration it deserves...nt

Sid

[BluegrassStateBlues]

35. He's on his way back to New York, where he will face trial.

I'm sure he's being asked a few questions on the way here.

[ConcernedCanuk]

36. My snips and comments from my post - I duped dfk's in error.

.
.
.

Did Obama Swap 'Black' Detention Sites for Ships?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-interrogators-question-al-qaida-suspect-20497378?singlePage=true

WASHINGTON October 7, 2013 (AP)
By EILEEN SULLIVAN Associated Press
Associated Press

Instead of sending suspected terrorists to Guantanamo Bay or secret CIA "black" sites for interrogation, the Obama administration is questioning terrorists for as long as it takes aboard U.S. naval vessels.

/snip/

Questioning suspected terrorists aboard U.S. warships in international waters is President Barack Obama's answer to the Bush administration detention policies that candidate Obama promised to end. The strategy also makes good on Obama's pledge to prosecute terrorists in U.S. civilian courts, which many Republicans have argued against. But it also raises questions about using "law of war" powers to circumvent the safeguards of the U.S. criminal justice system.

/snip/

As of Monday, al-Libi had not been read his Miranda rights, which include the rights to remain silent and speak with an attorney. And it was unclear when al-Libi would be brought to the U.S. to face charges.

"It appears to be an attempt to use assertion of law of war powers to avoid constraint and safeguards in the criminal justice system," said Hina Shamsi, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union and the director of the civil rights organization's national security project. "I am very troubled if this is the pattern that the administration is setting for itself."

MUCH more at link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-interrogators-question-al-qaida-suspect-20497378?singlePage=true
__________________________________________________________________________________________

"I am very troubled if this is the pattern that the administration is setting for itself."

yeah - me also.

It is well known the USA has convicted its own citizens wrongly, even executed some in the recent past.

AND THAT'S WITH the "protection" of Miranda and so on . . .

Torture, "enhanced interrogations", whatever you want to call it - are not well known for extracting the truth on a regular basis, but what the interrogators WANT or EXPECT to hear.

No one - NO ONE is going to turn themselves in and/or co-operate with USA's self-proclaimed war on terror when they see USA's treatment of captives, and/or suspects.

And they ARE just suspects at this point.

Aren't they??

CC

[msanthrope]

43. Please be precise. What do you specifically allege has happened? nt

[ConcernedCanuk]

67. YOU be precise, please - are you referring to my dupe post made in error?

.
.
.

What happened THERE was that I did not discover this article had already been posted until a responder to my post pointed it out to me.

My post was not overly lengthy, but it did address more than one issue.

If you wish a detailed response, please ask a specific question.

"nt" doesn't do it for me . . .

CC

[bigtree]

48. read Ari Fleicher making the exact same charges yesterday

. . . trying to equate his torture buddies' 'extraordinary' renditions to these detentions.

[hughee99]

56. Many DUers don't like guns, but love to shoot the messenger. n/t

[Sunlei]

58. The brig on our military ship and then to usa for a fair trial. where do you suggest...

we hold these definite terrorists? We said we will go after them and bring to justice?

[Hydra]

61. I think I need to go puke now

This isn't about what's right or wrong in the minds of this administration- it's about doing what the Bush Admin did smarter, more secretly and more efficiently.

Screw human rights- we're at war with Eurasia!

[sabrina 1]

65. Be careful. You could be accused of being anti-Obama personally if you dare to repeat

your longtime opposition to human rights abuses here these days. We were so free to express those opinions during the Bush years. Now you can be accused of all kinds of things for simply remaining consistent in your support for Constitutional protections and Civil and Human Rights.

But I agree with you btw.

[Hydra]

66. Lol, won't be the first or last time

During the Bush admin, I had posted deleted for calling the Admin out for torture...cuz it wasn't proven or something.

I'll keep talking if you will

[ecstatic]

73. Did I miss something?The article seems to be saying that Obama's admin

came up with a way to avoid Guantanamo *and* the CIA's tactics by using Naval warships. *That should be a good thing!* I'm not happy with that development, but for a different reason--I think if combatants, etc. know they'll go on a naval ship when detained, it might encourage actual terrorists to purposely get caught for the purpose of spying/ potentially learning key info about the ships.

[trumad]

76. The article implies secrecy...LoL

Being hearing it on the news for the last two days.

[JonLP24]

80. This is old news

but this area is where I have my biggest problem with Obama whether it's Bagram or ships.

[struggle4progress]

90. Some differences between this and the Bush black ops: (1) Al-Libi has been indicted

by a NY court; (2) the Administration is not concealing his capture or whereabouts; and (3) the Administration says he will be brought to NY for trial

The GOP, of course, is meanwhile screaming that Al-Libi should be sent to Guantanamo --- which isn't the Administration's plan