Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (552080)	2/25/2010 4:13:58 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572472

Why should I trust any entity that refuses to work together to resolve major issues? Graham's talks with White House on Gitmo frustrate House GOP By Susan Crabtree - 02/25/10 12:46 PM ET Talks between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and the White House on closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba are angering House Republicans who oppose any transfer of detainees to U.S. soil. Graham, who supports closing the prison as long as doing so does not compromise national security, earlier this week acknowledged that he has held a series of meetings and had phone calls with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel over the last several weeks over the issue. Graham wants to establish a new national security court where most of the remaining Guantanamo Bay detainees could be tried. In the talks with Emanuel, he also has expressed a willingness to extend some habeas corpus rights to prisoners detained on terrorism charges. He’s also discussed the need to write a “rule of law” statute that would ensure some logical process for detaining terrorism suspects that would also provide oversight and judicial recourse. The Graham-Emanuel talks have unnerved Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House intelligence committee. “I think it’s crazy to be negotiating with the White House on this,” said Hoekstra, a vocal critic of transferring detainees to U.S. soil. He and other House Republicans are worried that Graham will agree to throw his political support behind Obama’s plans to move detainees to a prison facility in Thomson, Ill., in return for forging a deal with the White House on a new national security court system. “Lindsey didn’t want the detainees in South Carolina when it was under consideration,” Hoekstra noted. “This is a state and local decision, and a decision about whether they should go to Illinois ought to be left to the people of Illinois.” Rep. Don Manzullo (R), who represents the district where the Thomson facility is located, was equally adamant. “If Lindsey Graham is involved in talks about moving detainees to Illinois, I hope he would talk to me first,” he said. As the chief architect of 2006 and 2009 legislation creating military commissions, Graham’s views could carry significant political weight. The senior senator from South Carolina generally supports prosecuting alleged terrorists in military rather than civilian courts. He also would like to see the Obama administration institute a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the country to hold terrorism suspects who pose a high-risk threat but cannot be tried. Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop stressed that his boss, along with other Republicans such as President Bush, has long favored closing Guantanamo Bay as long as it is done in a way that puts national security first and honors the rule of law. He did not comment on the criticism from Hoekstra and others. Graham will speak with Manzullo on Thursday afternoon, Bishop said. Graham began discussions with the White House about closing Guantanamo last year but complained that the talks stalled and broke off last fall when it became clear that the White House and the Justice Department wanted to try high-profile detainees such as Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorist suspects in New York federal court. He then pursued a bill that would effectively force the Sept. 11 suspects into military courts by barring civilian trials. The proposal failed on a 54-45 vote in November, but since the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the intense criticism over the decision to charge suspect Umar Abdulmutallab in civilian court, Graham has vowed to keep pushing a similar measure. That bill, which would prohibit any funds from being spent to try 9/11 suspects in federal courts, has picked up the support of Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and could attract other Democrats, such as Sen. Jim Webb (Va.), who opposes trying detainees in civilian court in his home state. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), a lead sponsor of a House version of the bill barring funds from being spent to try detainees in federal court, said he is wary of any effort to forge a compromise with the White House that would tie an agreement not to try detainees in federal court to support for shuttering Guantanamo Bay and moving the remaining inmates to U.S. soil. “I’d have to see the exact details of what he’s trying to do … but I don’t think I would agree with that,” Wolf said. “I’ve disagreed with this administration’s entire approach to Gitmo and how it has handled detainees. My issue is transparency. The administration has been too secretive about its plans.” In mid-December, Graham expressed deep concerns about the Obama administration’s decision to try some detainees in civilian courts and release dozens of others amid concerns about increased rates of recidivism. “… I fear the administration has lost its bearings in an effort to close Guantanamo as quickly as possible,” he said at the time. Graham continued to agree that closing Guantanamo Bay would help the country’s national image abroad and help prevent terrorists from using it as a recruiting tool, but at the time said he found himself increasingly at odds with the administration’s approach. “I hope the administration hits the pause button on closing Guantanamo and works with Congress to develop a comprehensive strategy to keep dangerous terrorists off the battlefield,” he said. The tide turned sharply against the administration’s detainee decisions in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt. Acknowledging the new atmosphere, Emanuel has warned administration officials that losing Graham, a respected voice on terrorism issues, would only harm future intelligence and national security negotiations with Capitol Hill. thehill.com

To: TimF who wrote (552080)	2/25/2010 4:15:47 PM
From: jlallen	4 Recommendations Respond to of 1572472

Typically ignorant lefty. J.

To: TimF who wrote (552080)	2/25/2010 4:24:45 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572472

Ted, you're the one demonstrating an ideological rigidity. Not at all. I want out of Afghanistan so badly, I can taste it. Yet, I begrudgingly understood the logic of finishing the job. I am a social liberal but I am also a fiscal conservative and I work very hard to balance out both preferences. For me, ideology is a touchstone, not a structure for life. For conservatives, its their life. I address arguments and points. You reject them not with sound reasoning and solid facts but with "a conservative said that". That's very true. I don't trust conservatives any more and pay their arguments little heed. That's after years of finding that most of what they have to say is based on myths rather than facts; on lies rather then truth. Conservatives have become slaves to the all mighty dollar and will do anything, including sacrificing the best interests of your country, for that dollar. If you all want to be taken seriously once again, you need to stick to the facts even if they don't agree with your ideology and to balance out conservative greed with altruism. You don't even "find facts annoying", if there presented from a conservative or libertarian source, you just pay them no notice, so they can't annoy you. Tim, when a 'fact' is presented by a conservative, its not uncommon to find that said fact has been so tortured and manipulated, its a bit of a stretch to still call it a fact. As far as I can tell, the conservative movement has gone so far off the track over the past 30 years, it will take some time for you all to get your house in order. That's assuming the conservative house was ever based on reality. And you know what, Tim, the only reason I am having this conversation with you is because you are one of the better conservatives. It wouldn't be so bad if most of them were like you.