Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on April 12, 2010, 06:03:14 am
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.
The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.
Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.
So...why exactly is Gitmo still open? And better yet, why haven't Bush and friends been arrested?
-
We knew this anyway.
I'm prettys ure theplace is being closed and the prisoners being located elsewhere.
as for why they havent been arrested: Because the world is a sad and stupid place :(
-
because they are either part of powerful political families or part of political circles with said clout
-
I'm prettys ure theplace is being closed and the prisoners being located elsewhere.
It was ordered to be closed by the end of last year, and the prisoners either released or relocated to a supermax in Illinois, but somebody's been taking their sweet time. :sigh:
**** it, it's about time we had another Nuremberg...
-
I assume they would find some way of getting out of it, especially if it was the US. a UN court might be able to charge them, if the UN wanted, however the speed they deal with other war criminals... might take a couple of hunndred years to acturally get around to sentanceing them
-
I have a more pertinent question: why did they get shipped to Gitmo in the first place if they were known to be innocent?
-
I have a more pertinent question: why did they get shipped to Gitmo in the first place if they were known to be innocent?
They were probably suspected of being terrorists, but once found to be innocent could not be released. Essentially they became political prisoners.
-
Which probably defeats the whole objective of arresting them.
Arrest someone for suspected terrorism -> find they're innocent -> don't release them -> They could possibly become either a terrorist or VERY anti this government.
I wish governments and their leaders would actually sometimes admit "Oh, sorry, we where wrong about <Insert whatever here>". It would make them seem far more normal, and I'd dislike them a lot less.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Arrest someone for suspected terrorism -> find they're innocent -> don't release them -> They could possibly become either a terrorist or VERY anti this government.
And if you do release them, they could still become a terrorist. If you don't release them, they could harbor terroristic leanings, but it's hard to suicide bomb your cell. In a lot of ways, setting up a place like Gitmo becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
They were probably suspected of being terrorists, but once found to be innocent could not be released. Essentially they became political prisoners.
This speaks to poor evaluation by or poor intelligence being available to, the people on the ground, which is a problem an order of magnitude more dangerous than sending innocents to Gitmo. That's why I want to know the answer.
-
So...why exactly is Gitmo still open? And better yet, why haven't Bush and friends been arrested?
Definitely the biggest problem I have with the Obama administration. If Guantanamo did not exist, President Bush could have signed an order to have it opened by the end of the year and by God it would have been done.
As far as I know there's been a lot of red tape regarding where the prisoners are going to go, especially where the innocent ones are going to be freed. But some things are more important than politics; this is one of them.
-
I see "according to a new document obtained by The Times" and i got excited for a moment, but then I see the document is just a written accusation from an aid to a cabinet member.
-
Bush is a ****up. But the politically impossible to release also makes sense. 9/11 and the crack down on terrorism would mean releasing innocents from gitmo to be heavily misunderstood. People just would not believe that gitmo was releasing innocents, they'd prefer to believe america was releasing full blown terrorists to shove them back in the conflict. Conspiracy theorists would go up the wall.
But, then one thing i like to understand about gitmo. JUST BECAUSE IT'S UNPOPULAR, DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO GET SHUT DOWN. The next thing comes to mind is where will they put all of the terrorists? I do know where. If gitmo gets shutdown, terrorists get new bunk mates in prisons on actual american soil :nod: If no one here gets that, that's the terrorists get shipped onto american soil and go to our prisons.
The american sheeple are idiots! The sheeple get sold on everything they like to hear. When they find something they don't like to hear...they shut it down without any thought process. Simply this will not do. Gitmo must stay open.
-
It's not that it's unpopular, it's that they were using its position outside of the US to deny detainees their basic human rights. That's a bad move, eroding our own moral high ground.
-
But, then one thing i like to understand about gitmo. JUST BECAUSE IT'S UNPOPULAR, DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO GET SHUT DOWN. The next thing comes to mind is where will they put all of the terrorists? I do know where. If gitmo gets shutdown, terrorists get new bunk mates in prisons on actual american soil :nod: If no one here gets that, that's the terrorists get shipped onto american soil and go to our prisons.
And what's wrong with that? The key to defeating terrorism is to treat it as a criminal act, not as an act of war. The British learned this during the Troubles with the IRA in the 80s and 90s, and through old fashioned police work and downplaying hysteria, they succeeded. Treating terrorists as members of a hostile military makes no sense because they're not acting on behalf of a sovereign power.
The american sheeple are idiots! The sheeple get sold on everything they like to hear. When they find something they don't like to hear...they shut it down without any thought process. Simply this will not do. Gitmo must stay open.
Oh, wait, you're an idiot. Sorry to have wasted your time articulating an answer.
-
And what's wrong with that? The key to defeating terrorism is to treat it as a criminal act, not as an act of war. The British learned this during the Troubles with the IRA in the 80s and 90s, and through old fashioned police work and downplaying hysteria, they succeeded. Treating terrorists as members of a hostile military makes no sense because they're not acting on behalf of a sovereign power.
This, a thousand times this.
Every time someone calls them 'soldiers' or 'warriors' or part of an 'army' in a 'clash of civilizations' it gives them the publicity and respect they need. Filthy criminals living in caves would be a more appropriate picture to paint.
-
Galemp's analysis is correct. It should also be noted the Brits learned that the hard way, because their inability to decide whether it should be handled via the SAS or the police actively lengthed the Troubles.
It's a weird and not entirely comfortable reversal, since it was long dogma in the US that terrorism is crime before 9/11 turned that on its head. Admittedly it is not entirely practical to fight them in their home turf with legal means in a world with groups like the Taliban, but a much clearer seperation of the campaign against those who support terrorism and the terrorists themselves is/was necessary.
-
I am the american shepherd though.
On the other hand i can bet you that the american populace isn't going to like the alternative for where the gitmo detainees go. Treating the issue as one of criminality sounds like something here, but sounds like yet again, something the american populace would vote down because they wouldn't be ready for terrorists being devalued to the level of normal criminal. It would make people think lazy, we don't want to put as much effort into it anymore. I see risk of moving gitmo terrorists to american prisons for more home grown terrorists (honestly i think ahmed not getting right the not dropping of the soap a little more likely).
Eroding our own moral high ground? Suuure :rolleyes: There really hasn't been anything or much moral with what america's been up to for the past decade, especially with bush in office. It's been more of moral reasons used as excuses for doing stuff. We're gonna get them wmd's/we just want more oil. We're gonna get them terrorists/expand empire/we just want more oil.
-
I am the american shepherd though.
If you keep talking like you're Glenn Beck or something I'm just going to move we ban you. It's a useless blanket statement that "I AM SO-AND-SO". Oh yeah? We Are The World! See, I can do them too, and even make them silly puns on '80s song titles.
On the other hand i can bet you that the american populace isn't going to like the alternative for where the gitmo detainees go.
True. But that's NIMBY. Maybe you do have a coherent point here...
Treating the issue as one of criminality sounds like something here, but sounds like yet again, something the american populace would vote down because they wouldn't be ready for terrorists being devalued to the level of normal criminal.
...false alarm!
First: it doesn't matter what it sounds like. We've presented evidence that it works. If you win, you win, and nothing the public can think or say or do can erase that.
Second: As I already pointed out and you apparently didn't read, the American populace has long experience with terrorists being devalued to criminals. That's why people want Gitmo closed in the first place and have since it opened.
It would make people think lazy, we don't want to put as much effort into it anymore.
Because we put so little effort into tracking down McVeigh, I'm sure. You know, those months of investigative work and showcasing pretty much everything about the FBI that is good didn't happen.
I see risk of moving gitmo terrorists to american prisons for more home grown terrorists (honestly i think ahmed not getting right the not dropping of the soap a little more likely).
Yes, because regular American Ordinary Decent Criminals are going to react so well to the terrorists and not shank the everloving hell out of them at the first available opportunity.
-
But, then one thing i like to understand about gitmo. JUST BECAUSE IT'S UNPOPULAR, DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO GET SHUT DOWN.
No, it needs to be shut down because it's a gross violation of human dignity. Not to mention it's a slap in the face to every American that's suffered or died (on our soil or others') for human rights and freedoms.
-
If you keep talking like you're Glenn Beck or something I'm just going to move we ban you. It's a useless blanket statement that "I AM SO-AND-SO". Oh yeah? We Are The World! See, I can do them too, and even make them silly puns on '80s song titles.
Can't handle the american shepherd joke? Then don't act like you're a moderator.
True. But that's NIMBY. Maybe you do have a BY ****ING GOLLY AWESOME point here...
No shlit
...false alarm!
First: it doesn't matter what it sounds like. We've presented evidence that it works. If you win, you win, and nothing the public can think or say or do can erase that.
Second: As I already pointed out and you apparently didn't read, the American populace has long experience with terrorists being devalued to criminals. That's why people want Gitmo closed in the first place and have since it opened.
It would make people think lazy, we don't want to put as much effort into it anymore.
Because we put so little effort into tracking down McVeigh, I'm sure. You know, those months of investigative work and showcasing pretty much everything about the FBI that is good didn't happen.
My interpretation is different, even if it totally isn't 100% correct. We're dealing with terrorists in other countries with the american military. Terrorists right now are military targets. Terrorists are as likened to criminals, but the current dealing with them makes them seem to not be. After that, there is a lot of people who have either forgotten or never knew that terrorists are as likened to criminals (thx to the age of censorship, propaganda, and misinformation from the government). Why not spread some propaganda? You'd have american citizens even more paranoid than before that their neighbor might be a terrorist (in which the crack down on terrorism in the home land via citizens would be enhanced). Through this is where the american populace might think lazy. You don't appreciate theory :(
Yes, because regular American Ordinary Decent Criminals are going to react so well to the terrorists and not shank the everloving hell out of them at the first available opportunity.
You missed my reference to ahmed learning to not drop the soap (of course prisoners are going to be screwing over the terrorists whether it be through crippling them, ****ing them, belittling them, or killing them). But, you're also a little short sighted since this isn't going to happen to all of the terrorists. And for the many terrorists this wouldn't happen to, or even the ones that were already sought after for revenge beatings. What's to stop the terrorists from trying to convert some american prisoners to islam and filling their heads with their ideals?
-
Can't handle the american shepherd joke? Then don't act like you're a moderator.
Oh, but I can. In fact, I did handle it. Rather roughly, right there. If you can't handle that... (recursive loops are fun)
No shlit
I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to be trying to bypass the word filter. If you've actually got it turned on, I don't know. Mine's off. If this is just a simple spelling problem and not a case of attempting to be clever, I direct your attention to the freaking spellcheck button that's next to the post preview and only one over from the post button.
My interpretation is different, even if it totally isn't 100% correct. We're dealing with terrorists in other countries with the american military. Terrorists right now are military targets. Terrorists are as likened to criminals, but the current dealing with them makes them seem to not be. After that, there is a lot of people who have either forgotten or never knew that terrorists are as likened to criminals (thx to the age of censorship, propaganda, and misinformation from the government). Why not spread some propaganda? You'd have american citizens even more paranoid than before that their neighbor might be a terrorist (in which the crack down on terrorism in the home land via citizens would be enhanced). Through this is where the american populace might think lazy.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, primarily because it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Are you saying that The Patriot Act and related revocations of civil liberties in the post-9/11 months did not occur or continue after it was decided terrorists were problems for the military?
Are you saying that treating terrorists as criminals will make people think their neighbors are criminals?
Are you saying that you have terrorists as neighbors?
Are you saying that treating terrorists as criminals requires some kind of enhanced powers to the police and therefore there were no enhanced police powers being granted after the the 9/11 attacks, instead restrictions on the rights of citizens and others were actually loosened after all those years where we did treat them as criminals?
Because these are all silly and most of them are demonstrably nonsense, except the one about your neighbors.
Maybe they are terrorists, I wouldn't know. :p
You don't appreciate theory :(
When it contradicts fact, damn straight I don't.
You missed my reference to ahmed learning to not drop the soap (of course prisoners are going to be screwing over the terrorists whether it be through crippling them, ****ing them, belittling them, or killing them). But, you're also a little short sighted since this isn't going to happen to all of the terrorists. And for the many terrorists this wouldn't happen to, or even the ones that were already sought after for revenge beatings.
I didn't miss it. I simply didn't find it amusing. And how is not going to happen to them all? The inmates get pretty much all the child molesters who don't get seperated out from General Population, they've got a good track record on delievering "street justice". A terrorist would in fact probably spend their whole prison life in solitary confinement just for their own protection, rendering your whole concept meaningless.
What's to stop the terrorists from trying to convert some american prisoners to islam and filling their heads with their ideals?
Since there are already a significant number of Islamic outreach prison ministries, this is possible. On the other hand, it's also stupid for the reasons I noted. Just because something has non-zero chance of happening does not make it likely.
-
If you are innocent then you should not be in jail, end of story, there is no political expediency that can override that in my opinion.
-
If you are innocent then you should not be in jail, end of story, there is no political expediency that can override that in my opinion.
Agreed.
And unless you're going to be an asshole and claim they don't deserve the same rights we have because they're war criminals / not U.S. citizens / whatever bull**** reason, they're also innocent until proven guilty.
Note: The above comment is not directed at Flipside
For some reason, apparently, anyone suspected of terrorism immediately loses all the rights our constitution gives them (if they're a U.S. citizen), and regardless of whether they're in the U.S. or not when we capture them, somehow makes every single bit of international law be not applicable. And that's not people who're guilty of terrorism, necessarily.
-
Well of course, it's because they're
witches terrorists. :nervous:
-
In 1942, many Japanese residing in Canada were interred illegally in my home province of Alberta on suspicion--not fact, simple suspicion--that they were acting in league with the Japanese military for the purposes of an eventual invasion of Canada. That claim was, naturally, unfounded. The Japanese are not known to have ever planned an invasion of Canada of any kind. It took some 46 years, but eventually the Canadian government apologized to surviving individuals interred there and made reparations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment#Redress)
Guantanamo is rapidly becoming a political liability for President Obama, who in spite of his supposed lighter, more liberal and progressive approach, has yet to shut that ****ing place down. It's like a boil on his career that will only grow larger, fester, and ooze more problems with time.
-
fun fact Barack 'change' Obama is half way done with his term and everything is exactly the same as when he came in.
-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Yet again
-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Yet again
Exacty. Obama's kept a fair number of his campaign promises, it's just that most of the benefits won't be immediately seen, like with HCR or funding the VA.
Everyone on the American left thinks Obama hasn't kept his promises because the ones that draw the most attention--Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, and wiretapping--just haven't been fully fleshed out.
-
fun fact Barack 'change' Obama is half way done with his term and everything is exactly the same as when he came in.
You must not pay very much attention.
-
fun fact Barack 'change' Obama is half way done with his term and everything is exactly the same as when he came in.
Wow, it's almost as if there were some... other political force... that wanted to stop him. Such a party would be able to score points if he couldn't meet his campaign promises, but who would sacrifice the good of the country for their own political ends??
-
fun fact Barack 'change' Obama is half way done with his term and everything is exactly the same as when he came in.
Wow, it's almost as if there were some... other political force... that wanted to stop him. Such a party would be able to score points if he couldn't meet his campaign promises, but who would sacrifice the good of the country for their own political ends??
Anyone in Washington, D.C. I suppose.
-
It's not that it's unpopular, it's that they were using its position outside of the US to deny detainees their basic human rights. That's a bad move, eroding our own moral high ground.
Yes I realize I'm quoting an old post. I just started reading this thread, but I thought this needed saying since Tura doesn't understand(again).
The detainees at Gitmo are not there to deny their rights. They get "3 hots and a cot" prepared to meet the standards required by their religion. They are allowed to meet all the other requirements as well, provided a copy of the Koran(probably didn't spell it right).
The reason they are there is because the vast majority of them are not American Nationals. Therefore they do not have a right to access American civil law proceedings. This is something you need to remember, these are not common criminals who killed a couple of people. These are enemies of the United States of America who were engaged in open hostilities with us. The reason they are there is because if they weren't there, they'd be in or going to Iraq to kill our men and women over there. Or planning another bombing. What if they were to detonate a large bomb in the Chunnel or crash a plane into Big Ben? Or the Eiffel Tower?
They're there because if they would be dead.
-
The reason they are there is because the vast majority of them are not American Nationals. Therefore they do not have a right to access American civil law proceedings. This is something you need to remember, these are not common criminals who killed a couple of people. These are enemies of the United States of America who were engaged in open hostilities with us. The reason they are there is because if they weren't there, they'd be in or going to Iraq to kill our men and women over there. Or planning another bombing. What if they were to detonate a large bomb in the Chunnel or crash a plane into Big Ben? Or the Eiffel Tower?
They're there because if they would be dead.
Actually the police in the London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings) and Madrid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings) bombings managed to handle things quite well without resorting to torture or causing an international human rights scandal.
-
The reason they are there is because the vast majority of them are not American Nationals. Therefore they do not have a right to access American civil law proceedings. This is something you need to remember, these are not common criminals who killed a couple of people.
Actually, all terrorists are common criminals who killed a couple of people.
These are enemies of the United States of America who were engaged in open hostilities with us.
Stop supporting the terrorist. PR and legitimacy are the biggest gifts you can give them.
The reason they are there is because if they weren't there, they'd be in or going to Iraq to kill our men and women over there. Or planning another bombing. What if they were to detonate a large bomb in the Chunnel or crash a plane into Big Ben? Or the Eiffel Tower?
No, actually, you can't prove that most of the detainees would be doing this because they haven't gone to trial to determine their guilt.
Seriously. Look at the word. TERRORISM.
Why are you terrified of them when their goal is clearly to terrify you? You're one of the most successful targets of terrorism I've ever seen.
-
PR and legitimacy are the biggest gifts you can give them.
No the biggest gift I can legally give them is a 5000lb bunker buster. Though I suppose a Fuel/Air Bomb would be adequate to express my feelings as well.
-
PR and legitimacy are the biggest gifts you can give them.
No the biggest gift I can legally give them is a 5000lb bunker buster. Though I suppose a Fuel/Air Bomb would be adequate to express my feelings as well.
And again, the US military has been cutting down on the use of such tactics because it does more harm than good. You know what does do some good? Good old police work.
Get it through your head. Terrorists are filthy, pathetic criminals, not villains out of Star Wars.
They don't deserve your respect or your fear.
I assume you'll just ignore the rest of my post, par for the course by now.
-
There have been quite a few cases where they have tried to send detainees back to Uzbekistan(horrible place to be sent if you're charged with terrorism by the Americans), Pakistan, whatever country they came from because they couldn't make the charges stick, but the governments would not accept them; security risk. Of course, if it's an innocent person it doesn't really matter - You've been to guantanamo, so you get to carry that label for a long long time. There is also another problem - A lot of the people who have been released have actually returned to jihad, not just against the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in Chechnya, fighting the Russians. So among the innocent people, there are genuine lying creeps who try to blend in with the majority, they were dubbed something along the lines of the "Tipton Three". Anyway, this was a case of three people from Britain who, after going to Gitmo after being taken in Afghanistan, manipulated the media for a long, long time, getting their lies published in documentaries, the press, etc. Later, by their own admission, they admitted to attending taliban training camps in Afghanistan, so they were in there with good reason. Of course, when they're not given the choice to be actually put before a judge and not be indefinitely detained, the argument about them returning to whatever activities becomes a bit moot... :blah:
Gitmo is bad, but like the two wars being waged, it's just not as easy as just shutting it down and going home, as good an idea as it is.
On topic, though - Kind of a drop in the bucket kind of thing here, this is however deliciously despicable. I think this might just justify the assertion that those two people are evil! :D
-
fun fact Barack 'change' Obama is half way done with his term and everything is exactly the same as when he came in.
Wow, it's almost as if there were some... other political force... that wanted to stop him. Such a party would be able to score points if he couldn't meet his campaign promises, but who would sacrifice the good of the country for their own political ends??
Waitwaitwait. It would probably sound really ignorant, but I am a dutch kid. That mysterious other political force actually didn't get enough votes and such to be an impeding factor? I thought the democrats still had the majority of the seats.
-
As far as I know there's been a lot of red tape regarding where the prisoners are going to go, especially where the innocent ones are going to be freed. But some things are more important than politics; this is one of them.
Everything is politics...
Doesn't mean it's good or bad... just that the continuum within which all governmental decisions are made is politics, no way around it, no way out of it and there is no good or bad in politics.
Good or bad is more of a question of the actual political decisions being made compared to a moral code. But if you say "something is more important than politics" what you are really saying is that you are dissatisfied with the current policies because they violate your moral code.
Sorry, pet peeve of mine.... happens when you study in the field :p But anyways, yeah, Gitmo is morally completely unacceptable.
-
fun fact Barack 'change' Obama is half way done with his term and everything is exactly the same as when he came in.
You mean other than the 3 trillion dollar deficit, jobless "recovery" and so much additional spending from congress than the next 3 generations of Americans will be paying for this generation to get their freebies?
And before you start, Bush ran deficits too. But the scale is the thing, the Obama deficit is 1/5 of the American economy when it's healthy. By comparison, Bush's 950 billion is almost respectable.
-
But the scale is the thing, the Obama deficit is 1/5 of the American economy when it's healthy. By comparison, Bush's 950 billion is almost respectable.
You can't just take government deficit as a fraction of "the economy"; the economy is statistics, the deficit is a specific number. And the only reason Bush's deficit wasn't in the trillions is because that's completely omitting all of the DEFENSE BUDGET.
Edit I:
fun fact Barack 'change' Obama is half way done with his term and everything is exactly the same as when he came in.
Wow, it's almost as if there were some... other political force... that wanted to stop him. Such a party would be able to score points if he couldn't meet his campaign promises, but who would sacrifice the good of the country for their own political ends??
:drevil:
Edit II: also, IIRC this was a discussion about Gitmo.
-
Waitwaitwait. It would probably sound really ignorant, but I am a dutch kid. That mysterious other political force actually didn't get enough votes and such to be an impeding factor? I thought the democrats still had the majority of the seats.
Yeah, but the mysterious other political force has Fox, and as a result Fox's general audience of morons. Plus, they tend to entertain just about any loony conspiracy theory these days, thus attracting all the other loons.
jobless "recovery"
Somebody didn't do his recession recovery homework.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/09/barack-obama/obama-says-job-growth-always-lags-behind-economic-/
Obama says job growth always lags behind economic growth
Some Republican critics have scoffed at President Barack Obama's pronouncements that the economy seems to be improving, pointing to the unemployment rate, which keeps going up.
But Obama has consistently tempered his hopeful words about positive economic indicators with warnings that unemployment rates are likely to continue to rise for a while, even as the economy improves.
"History tells us that job growth always lags behind economic growth," Obama said Nov. 6, 2009, in remarks in the White House Rose Garden.
"He's right about that," said William Beach, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's center for data analysis.
In the post-World War II era, there have been 10 recessions and after most of them, employment lagged a few months behind other improving economic indicators. But after the last two, in 1991 and 2001, unemployment rates continued to climb for more than a year.
Interestingly, Democrats criticized President George W. Bush regarding the 2001 "jobless recovery," much as some Republicans now criticize Obama for the current one.
The latest jobless recovery came as little surprise to economists who study such trends.
"Employers are hesitant to hire people back to the work force (after a recession) because they don't know if the economy is going to continue to grow, which is understandable," Beach said.
But more importantly, he said, the American economy has become increasingly reliant on service jobs, such as information and financial jobs. "Those jobs come back very slowly," Beach said.
The recession this time is even more severe, so Beach predicts this jobless recovery will last even longer than past recessions.
"I don't think we'll see jobs coming back for a long time," Beach said.
But even without government meddling, Beach believes employment was destined to lag.
The San Francisco Chronicle , relying on numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in August charted the lag between recessions' end and the peak of unemployment rates. In the eight recessions between 1949 and 1991, unemployment rates lagged by an average of about three months. After the last two, however, it took 15 months and 19 months, respectively, before unemployment rates peaked.
Bottom line, President Obama is right when he cautions that employment has lagged behind economic recovery in the past. And so we rate his statement True.
-
And before you start, Bush ran deficits too. But the scale is the thing, the Obama deficit is 1/5 of the American economy when it's healthy. By comparison, Bush's 950 billion is almost respectable.
Once the bailouts began - and let's not confuse the issue, it was the Bush Administration that fought hardest for them - the subsequent administration had no choice but to continue down the path already committed to. The United States is in the financial mess it's in because of Republican aversion to financial regulation and the short-sighted stupidity of George W. Bush.
Oddly enough, one of those reasons is also why you're in the current human rights mess over Gitmo too.
The hilarious part is watching "freedom-loving" Republicans embrace fascist policy and erosion of civil liberties in the name of "security." And let's be honest, the United States is no more secure from terrorist attack now than it was 10 years ago, you're just spending 10 times the amount of money on it to maintain the illusion.
The bizarre-o-meter of American politics has hit new levels over the last 10 years. It's pretty interesting to watch as an outside observer, and I'm even more interested to see where it goes from here.
-
Frankly, MP, I wasn't even talking about the bailouts, which were a "paltry" 750 Billion as I recall. I was referring to "The Abomination" called H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which has added(will add?) 1.5 trillion dollars to the federal deficit ongoing until it's repealed or the current government is chased from Washington with torches and pitchforks. Again, GW Bush was horrific from this point of view, but Obama has not made any moves to curb this spending and from everything he's saying will likely increase it, all while not having the money to pay for it. And the bastards want to lecture us about fiscal responsibility... :blah:
-
My understanding is that in the long run it'll actually save money and reduce the deficit.
Preventative care > palliative care.
-
Frankly, MP, I wasn't even talking about the bailouts, which were a "paltry" 750 Billion as I recall. I was referring to "The Abomination" called H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which has added(will add?) 1.5 trillion dollars to the federal deficit ongoing until it's repealed or the current government is chased from Washington with torches and pitchforks. Again, GW Bush was horrific from this point of view, but Obama has not made any moves to curb this spending and from everything he's saying will likely increase it, all while not having the money to pay for it. And the bastards want to lecture us about fiscal responsibility... :blah:
You do realize that the United States currently spends more per capita on health care than any other Western country, and has less to show for it, right? You realize that Canada, Britain, Norway, Sweden, etc all have universal health coverage and spend less on it with equal or better care than the United States spent prior to the implementation of the new bill? The new bill is a lot less than it needed to be, but it will reduce expenditures in the long run. Obama just saved you money, whether you realize it or not.
-
Christ can't we stop talking about healthcare for one damn political thread?
-
Unfortunately, it's become an obsession with the Republicans now, I'm not even certain most of them even really know why they are opposing it, only that it should be opposed because it was championed by Obama. That's why they can't leave it alone, it's kind of the opposite of a personality cult, where the issue isn't the issue, the person suggesting it is.
Notice how it is almost always referred to as 'Obama's healthcare scheme', despite the fact the entire thing went through an entire Democratic process, where the entire party voted it through, even with consultation and evaluations with Republicans, and most of the text was not written by Obama.
I'll say that for the UK elections, we may think that Brown looks like a rubber gargoyle in a washing machine, but we can (for the main part) tell the difference between him and the Labour Party.
Edit: And for clarification, when you go to anti-Labour rallies, there are boards that say things like 'down with Brown', but there's also an equal number of placards saying 'No more Labour', yet, at the tea-parties, the placards I've seen in both Fox and CBS news reports have been almost exclusively targetted Obama, not the Democrats, or even the entire governmental structure that voted the system through, this seems to me to not be about the actual law, it's more personal than that.
-
Edit: And for clarification, when you go to anti-Labour rallies, there are boards that say things like 'down with Brown', but there's also an equal number of placards saying 'No more Labour', yet, at the tea-parties, the placards I've seen in both Fox and CBS news reports have been almost exclusively targetted Obama, not the Democrats, or even the entire governmental structure that voted the system through, this seems to me to not be about the actual law, it's more personal than that.
Could simply be that they have little choice but to attack Obama directly at every turn simply because he is/was such a popular and liked political figure. (And in comparison, Brown really isn't and never was heh.)
I.e. If they opposed the Democrats on an issue there are propably less people paying attention than when they oppose Obama on the same issue.
Politics never really was about issues and facts or :cough: "doing the right thing" after all ... it's always about popularity and perception ... and the more mud you sling, the more mud will stick, eventually. Doesn't matter who is right or wrong really, only matters who can convince the most idiots of their version of the "truth".
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried from time to time." - Sir Winston Churchill
-
Exactly, it's not about policy, it's not about party, it's about attention grabbing by attacking an individual who looms large on the political stage, kind of like a political version of 'Look at meeee!'. Much of the coverage of the Healthcare Bill has been focussed on Obamas struggle to get backing, not only from Republicans, but from his own party, and in the end, it was they who put the Bill through, not Obama, he merely ratified it.
But attacking Democrats in general won't make the news, because that's what Republicans are supposed to do, just as Conservatives are supposed to attack Labour, so they have to make the attack personal purely to get screen-time, and that makes me wonder whether this is genuinely about concerns with the Bill, or whether it is simply about throwing the rattle out of the pram to get attention.
And I think that may be where the main difference between politics in the two countries differ, the UK resisted televised election debates for years, because of concerns that it would turn the political system into a kind of carnival show, where personalities were more important than policies, and I think the Tea-Party system is an excellent example of why it was resisted, the whole thing has turned into a lynch-mob for Obama, and it's spearheaded and organised by a News corporation... that is, to me, wrong on so many levels I cannot even count them.
-
Notice how it is almost always referred to as 'Obama's healthcare scheme', despite the fact the entire thing went through an entire Democratic process, where the entire party voted it through, even with consultation and evaluations with Republicans, and most of the text was not written by Obama.
The thing is, in our system of government, the current president becomes the de facto leader of their party, for better or worse. People understand that the Democrats in Congress were responsible for formulating and passing the healthcare bill, but Obama represents the Democratic Party as a whole, and because he himself pushed for the legislation, most of the credit/blame for it is levied at him. It's a similar concept to presidents historically taking far more credit/blame for economic shifts than their office would actually allow them.
-
I can understand that, it does happen here to a degree, Brown is Labours figurehead and therefore is representative of their policies as a whole, the concept of 'Gordon Brown' and 'Labour' are certainly interchangeable to a degree, but I don't see the level of pure venom here that I see at things like the Tea-Parties. I know the Republican party is not just the Tea-Party goers, and that they represent the strongest opinions, but people dislike Brown for what he represents, certainly, I don't think anyone is under the illusion that Brown is the source of the problems, merely that his policies may not be the best way of dealing with them.
-
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7117/visualaid.jpg)
-
and it's spearheaded and organised by a News corporation... that is, to me, wrong on so many levels I cannot even count them.
That's cause in the UK the ITC would come down on Fox News like a ton of ****ing bricks. They'd spend more time transmitting adjudications than they spent actually showing news. :p
-
Exactly, even satire programs, such as Have I Got News For You, or Mock The Week have to live up to certain requirements in the UK, though their subject matter does give them some leeway, and they constantly take the piss out of the requirement, but it's incidents like this that demonstrate to me why these programs are not allowed to push a political agenda.
-
Exactly, even satire programs, such as Have I Got News For You, or Mock The Week have to live up to certain requirements in the UK, though their subject matter does give them some leeway, and they constantly take the piss out of the requirement, but it's incidents like this that demonstrate to me why these programs are not allowed to push a political agenda.
i can remember watching a out takes addition of mock the week and dara was told to ask franky boyle and the guy that sits next to him if they could say something that could actualy be transmitted
-
Yup, I was in the studio for the recording of one episode, and, to be honest, there's a fair bit you don't see. Some of the non-broadcast Frankie Boyle jokes are hilarious, but would bring down the wrath of the Complaints Commission faster than you can say 'Mocking the Afflicted' ;)
-
The thing is, in our system of government, the current president becomes the de facto leader of their party, for better or worse.
Definitely for worse.
-
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7117/visualaid.jpg)
What nobody appears to get is that the economic crisis isn't about presidents' bad policies, it's about some idiots pretending they had money. and some other idiots believing them.
-
The thing is, in our system of government, the current president becomes the de facto leader of their party, for better or worse.
Definitely for worse.
I don't mind having Obama as the de facto leader of the Democrats...I just think he has a greater responsibility as the de jure leader of the country as a whole to deal with the petty squabbling between Congressional Democrats. That's what Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, and Hoyer are for. Much to their credit (even though I despise what they do) the Republicans got the right idea when it comes to their minority leaders taking control.