[QUOTE=Mathew Steine;256194]That is 2 years where the democrats had congress and the white house. What I understood from your last two posts, this is all that was needed in order to close Guantanamo. Instead it remains open. Which is why garo started this thread.[/QUOTE]And also why I quoted Shakespeare.

Paul

[QUOTE=cheesehead;256233]If you look at the numbers that Mathew Steine provided for the results of the 2008 elections, you see that Republicans retained 41 seats in the Senate.

But it's not that simple. A majority of 59 in the Senate is not nearly as powerful as a majority of 60 would have been.[/QUOTE]

Yet, despite not having had a filibuster-proof supermajority, Team Obama managed to pass the monster "Obamacare" healthcare-reform legislation, which did not become anathema to many Republicans only just recently. You think the Dems couldn't have gotten one single solitary human-rights-aware Republican to vote with them? It comes down to a matter of priorities...Obama felt significant political pushback and decided it simply wasn't something worth fighting for. Just like going after the Wall Street crooks who were the major players in the scammery which led to the 2008 global financial meltdown made for some great campaign soundbites, but was jettisoned almost immediately after Obama took office. (That's giving him the benefit of the doubt and presuming that he actually had some intentions of doing what he promised to do on that front prior to taking office).

[QUOTE=ewmayer;256265]Yet, despite not having had a filibuster-proof supermajority, Team Obama managed to pass the monster "Obamacare" healthcare-reform legislation,[/QUOTE]Did not you yourself report on some of the many compromises that were necessary to get that passed?

Note my "As long as the 41 Republican senators stayed together during 2009-2010". The key to getting legislation passed was sometimes to find a compromise which got a Republican senator to defect.

[quote]which did not become anathema to many Republicans only just recently.[/quote]You wouldn't be mistaking propaganda for ... Nahhh, you wouldn't.

[quote]You think the Dems couldn't have gotten one single solitary human-rights-aware Republican to vote with them?[/quote]Ahem. Framing. For the GOP, it's "national security".

[quote]It comes down to a matter of priorities...Obama felt significant political pushback and decided it simply wasn't something worth fighting for.[/quote]There [i]are[/i] limits. What compromises with the GOP did he pass up as unworthy?

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;256221]So you're not disagreeing with me, then.[/QUOTE]

Of course I am disagreeing with you. There is nothing disingenuous about comparing Guantanamo to a gulag. It is a justifiable comparison. In fact, most people who were sent to gulags were given a trial (sham or not) before they were sent there. Lots of people spent years and are still spending years in Guantanamo without ever appearing before any judicial officer.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;256252]
The difficulty lies in knowing when the government has legitimate reasons
for secrecy, and when they are using secrecy to cover up internal wrong-
doing. Secrecy begets tyranny. But it is sometimes a [B]necessary[/B]
evil.[/QUOTE]

But Bob there is very clear evidence that both this and the previous administration have misused the faith one normally places in a government. They have repeatedly used secrecy to cover up wrongdoing. Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, renditions - they fought disclosure at every step. One would think the government has lost the right to benefit of doubt. And holding people they know are innocent such [URL="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/08/boumediene"]Lakhdar Boumediene [/URL]and refusing to compensate people like [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar"]Maher Arar[/URL]. I am surprised that a normally objective person like you is ignoring such clear evidence.

[QUOTE=garo;256388]But Bob there is very clear evidence that both this and the previous administration have misused the faith one normally places in a government. They have repeatedly used secrecy to cover up wrongdoing. Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, renditions - they fought disclosure at every step. One would think the government has lost the right to benefit of doubt. And holding people they know are innocent such [URL="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/08/boumediene"]Lakhdar Boumediene [/URL]and refusing to compensate people like [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar"]Maher Arar[/URL]. I am surprised that a normally objective person like you is ignoring such clear evidence.[/QUOTE]

Before you accuse someone else of ignoring evidence, it is usually best
to ascertain that they actually KNEW about the evidence.

I knew nothing of the cases you quoted.

[QUOTE=garo;256388]One would think the government has lost the right to benefit of doubt.[/QUOTE]

I do wonder. Obama seemed to genuinely (as opposed to for political reasons) want to release the Guantanamo prisoners prior to taking office. When he did, he (apparently) decided against it. I wonder what he knows now that he did not on the campaign trail.