Obama recently ordered the release of 4000 insurgents from US military prisons in Iraq.
Since then violence has predictably escalated as these former prisoners return to their previous activities.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_terror0365_05_07.asp

Even Democrats are now starting to question his closing of Guantanamo Bay as they face pressure from their constituents against the prisoners being released into their backyards.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo-politics7-2009may07,0,3870315.story

Is Obama fit to be Commander-in-Chief?

'ere we go!, 'ere we go!, 'ere we go ohhhh!!

Dear KMB,

You ask, "Is Obama fit to be Commander-in-Chief?"

I suppose that depends on your point of view -
and what qualities you feel a Commander-in-Chief
should possess.

Obviously, President Barack Obama is very different
from the previous US President, George W. Bush.

President Obama believes that protecting Americans
is crucial but not at the expense of US values and ideals.
He seems to feel that somehow using threats, coercion,
physical abuse, waterboarding - in other words - torture
and cruel treatment - is not the "American Way," of doing
things. Therefore he's taken action by closing Guantanamo
Bay and other detention centres - as a move towards
restoring US moral authority and international standing.
As well as meeting key promises he made in his election
campaign.

It's a new era with this new US President - he's sent
George Mitchell to the Middle East to pursue a two-state
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It seems that this US President is interested in pursuing
diplomatic solutions to military ones. Personally, I
feel that this is a very commendable approach in today's
troubled world - where we live in the shadow of nuclear
warfare that would push our species into extinction.

While diplomacy does not always prevent war, it surely
helps make it less likely.

Foxy,
I believe that you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone is as well-intentioned and pacific as you are.
What if you're dealing with an enemy that uses a truce as an opportunity to gain military advantage?
What if you're dealing with an enemy that sees compromise as a sign of weakness?
Commander's-in-Chief must know their enemy if they are to fulfil the role of protecting their citizens.
Does releasing 4000 prisoners in Iraq only to have them re-engage in warfare sound like the actions of a Commander-in-Chief who knows his enemy?
Or did Obama imagine that his gesture would win their respect and establish US moral authority?
The enemy the US is dealing with accepts no authority but that of Allah.
<<While diplomacy does not always prevent war, it surely
helps make it less likely.>>
I'm sure that Chamberlain thought much the same way when he returned from establishing a "peace deal" with Hitler.
The spectre "of nuclear warfare that would push our species into extinction" is surely much closer since the Pakistani government struck a "peace deal" with the Taliban and handed over the Swat valley, emboldening the Taliban to move closer to the capital.
Diplomacy holds little hope when dealing with such an implacable enemy.
As for "torture", the US Navy Seals undergo waterboarding as part of their training.
Let's be honest, Foxy.
Would you rather be held prisoner at Guantanamo Bay under the Americans or would you choose to be held prisoner by an Islamist with a dagger at your throat as he prepares to fulfil Allah's command: “Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks" Quran, Sura 47:4
Obama doesn't know his enemy.
Obama doesn't even recognise that the US is at war.

Dear KMB,

I don't have all the answers, and you could well
be right. But I do have hope, and I do believe
in diplomatic solutions in preference to military
ones. Maybe that makes me naive - but that's the way
I am.

I feel that human society has survived thus far not
because we are fundamentality aggressive as a species,
but because we are a fundamentally sociable and
a cooperative one. The reason that I believe war occurs
is a result of a political decision - usually a decision
by older men that younger men should fight for what older
men believe to be worth fighting for. There can be no war
unless the leaders of at least two societies with
conflicting interests decide that they prefer war to any
alternative means of settling their differences.

Obama believes in alternative means of settling differences.
The people you speak of- are fundamentalists - they do not
make up the entire Islamic people. And if President Obama
can reach the moderates - through diplomatic means - then
peace does have a chance. The alternative is more of the same
of what we've had to date - or worse - and as the saying goes -
"You can't keep on doing what you've been doing, and expect
different results..." That's insane.

Obama is trying different tactics - because the ones his
predessor used - did not work.

Lets face it, the Pres' is the Chief for very good reasons, that's why the Yanks Founding Fathers made it that way, after all.
Bush(s) and Obama are poles apart in their respective approaches, but given the nature and scope of the problems confronting the world, I see it this way-
With the Bush militaristic approach, WWIII was assured, inevitable.
With the Obama approach, we all stand some sort of chance, albeit small, that we can avoid the worst of the turmoil ahead.
There's no guarantees in this universe, but at least one world leader, however naive, is trying, it's far better than the alternative at the moment.

KMB
Obama wins the battles whithouht guns, deaths, wounds and trillions of dollaras costs.
Obama has won the understanding and support from the international community, THIS TIME AMERICANS ARE NOT ALONE! with Obama the battle against AL QUEDA and Talibans is easier.
I like Obama because he use his brain, he is exactly the opposite from the Bush.
HE IS THE THE BEST COMMANDER IN CHIEF!
Eviva Obama!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I am truely glad I found your quote in another thread, Obama is the anti Christ.
Only after I saw that did this thread seem worth a look.
If Bush was fit Obama is very much over qualified.
Remember, think about it, just how unusual it was Obama won a free election with ease.
In America, he won, he still holds a good lead over those opposed to him.
I find Republicans and their seemingly devoted friends the Australian oppersition failing around unable to understand they lost.
Extreme views like yours come from the worst in America, Obama came from the best.

Politico falsely reported that 61 former Guantánamo detainees "have been found to have returned to terrorism"

http://mediamatters.org/research/200902060002?f=h_latest

Summary: The Politico falsely reported: "The Pentagon said earlier this month that 61 former Guantanamo inmates, out of the more than 700 who had been held at the facility, have been found to have returned to terrorism."

In fact, the Pentagon has acknowledged that its figure of 61 detainees includes 43 former prisoners who are only suspected of,..but have not been confirmed as having "returned to terrorism."

Moreover, even the Pentagon's claim that it has confirmed that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have "return[ed] to the fight" has been questioned by experts.

Moreover, even the Pentagon's claim that it has confirmed that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have "return[ed] to the fight" has been questioned by experts. CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen stated on the January 23 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that "returning to the fight, in Pentagon terms, could be engaging in anti-American propaganda, something that's not entirely surprising if you have been locked up in a prison camp for several years without charge."

Bergen further stated: "[W]hen you really boil it down, the actual number of people whose names we know are about eight out of the 520 that have been released [from Guantánamo],so a little above 1 percent,that we can actually say with certainty have engaged in anti-American terrorism or insurgence activities since they have been released. ...

If the Pentagon releases more information about specific people, I think it would be possible to -- to potentially agree with them. But, right now, that information isn't out there."

Additionally, as Media Matters has noted, Seton Hall University School of Law professor Mark Denbeaux -- who has written several reports about Guantánamo detainees, including some challenging the Pentagon's definition of "battlefield" capture and published detainee recidivism rates -- has disputed the Pentagon's figures,

asserting: "[The Defense Department's most recent] attempt to enumerate the number of detainees who have returned to the battlefield is false by the Department of Defense's own data and prior reports."

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/01/26/refuting-cheneys-lies-the-stories-of-six-prisoners-released-from-guantanamo/

I can only guess as to why this poster is so anti-Obama. The new President is a committed Christian so the Muslim references in this and other subjects is bewildering.

We had Reagan and Bush...and you ask if Obama is fit?

Unbelievable.

Foxy,

I posted this on another thread in reply to KMB.

STATEMENT BY ISRAELI REPRESENTATIVE AT 18TH SESSION OF UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
7 MAY 1997

“This prohibition on torture is absolute. As a result, and despite the current predicament of the State and the pressing need to fight terrorism, investigators are never, and never have been, authorized to use torture, even if its use might possibly prevent some terrible attacks and save human lives"

It makes the statements of KMB look like those of some deeply frightened man.

However much we dispise him does waterboarding an average of over 4 times a day for a month indicate Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is a brave individual?

One gets the sense that KMB might better reflect the words of former CIA officer John Kiriakou who claimed Abu Zubaydah told all after waterboarding for just 35 seconds. Instead he was tortured 83 times in a month.

It is hard to believe that water-boarding is condoned here. Navy SEALs may or may not experience it in training but they know they are not going to be killed, and who would suggest that the SEALs behaviour is a reasonable standard? Surely even the Conservative "doctors wives" now believe that stooping to torture relinquishes any claim to the moral high ground, and I would have thought it would be extremely hard to justify under Liberal principles.

The recent CIA revelations also suggest that continuing water-boarding is counter-productive, other than to provide the torturers with "intelligence", such as the existence of WMDs. Other proponents of water-boarding have changed their opinions when they tried it, albeit under "friendly" conditions.

Obama will be judged in time. As a basis for comparison at present, reading Bob Woodwards 4 books is an interesting starting point in assessing the actions of a Commander-in-Chief.

Obama in trying to look the nice guy to many terrorist will reap the fruit of his popularity contest. It is amazing how the press have been silent about the many civilians killed in Afghanistan by US troops. Bush was accused of a murderer with blood on his hands when these events happened. The sickening left wing press have little to nothing to say about OBama's leadership and the stuff ups (which are mounting quickly) under his administration. It will be interesting how long it takes Mr Obama to sell Israel sown the tube.

Dear csteele,

Thanks for that quote. I tend to agree with it
regarding torture - perhaps partially because
I'm biased. I've got a family history. My
uncle was tortured to death in a prison under
the Soviet Regime. He was a high school student
at the time.

As I wrote in another thread - if we don't start
to talk to each other and look for diplomatic
solutions and if more and more nuclear weapons are
built, and if more sophisticated means of delivering
them are devised, and if more and more nations get
control of these devices - then surely we risk our
own destruction.

Foxy,
You seem to be equating the waterboarding of terrorists with the torturing to death of your innocent uncle.
Is this rational?
How many people have been tortured to death by the Americans?

<<if we don't start to talk to each other and look for diplomatic
solutions>> sounds noble but I'm not convinced that even one of your special cuddles would stop people like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il or Al Qaeda or the Taliban from pursuing their agendas.
There have always been wars and there will always be wars.
The danger is in not being prepared to do what is necessary to minimise the damage.

It's interesting to note that the holier-than-thou Democrats knew all along about how information was being extracted from prisoners: http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34776

Dear KMB,

I don't know if I'm being rational or not.
I was simply explaining why I was against
torture in any shape or form against any
human being.

I agree with you - we have to be prepared
against terrorist attacks - but I really
feel that bombing the hell out of people
is not going to persuade them we're not
the enemy. Food and medical supplies might
do the trick though - especially for poor
people that have little resources.

The principal foreign enemy of the Islamic
fundamentalists is the United States. The
fundamentalists find it politically helpful
to have an alien enemy. The solidarity of
any community is enhanced if it perceives a
common outside threat. Obama is an intelligent
Leader - he knows this. And if he can change
the image of the US - to not being viewed
as an enemy by diplomatic means - he just may
reach the moderates. Also despite their antipathy
to the US the fundamentalists are concerned with
conditions mainly in their own countries. Most
Mulsims are desperately poor, for their nations'
oil wealth has often been unequally shared.

That's why using other means - might just be the
answer to reach them - apart from a military
solution - that's all I'm saying. Bombing the
heck out of them hasn't worked - other tactics
are needed - and the US President relaizes that.

KMB may I ask you a question?
What if Australian or American prisoners fell into terrorist hands?
Would water boarding and such upset you?
Can you be sure if America is not, every prisoner was a terrorist?
Have you any concerns some may not have been?
Torture is wrong, just as wrong no matter who does it or to whom.
I am pro America, very concerned about Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists in general.
But nothing justifies torture.
Hitler we know,trained people who killed without mercy and said we only followed orders.
We each must understand we make new terrorists by being so wrong those photos from that prison shamed America we must learn from our mistakes.

Obama has released details of enhanced interrogation techniques so that terrorists now know exactly how far the US will go to extract information.
He did this against the advice of his own appointee to the CIA Leon Panetta, as well as over the protestations of four former CIA directors on the grounds that it would compromise national security.
He refused an application from former vice-president Dick Cheney to release to the public the results of those interrogations and how they have helped to stop subsequent terrorist attacks.
He has alienated CIA operatives who now face the dilemma of potentially acting within the current law only to face possible future criminal charges should those laws be later changed.
He has made it harder to recruit moles amongst the enemy as they cannot be certain of their future situation with respect to the USA.
http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?cn=aei&c=10162&s=20271&e=10762&&espmt=2
Has the crack cocaine that he admits using in his youth permanently addled his capacity to make sound judgements?
Or is he deliberately trying to compromise US security?

kmb the torture photos reveal us solgers..[and iraqui solgers raping boys in front of their parents]..this is why the details/photos have not been released]..just knowing their subject matter is enough..[but media..[controled by your buddies hasnt seen fit to release that info either

you may know that one of the bilder-berger kingpins..[henry/kissenger is obamas closest adviser..[acting like dickkk/cheeney acted from mine-heer/GW,busche]..or maybe you dont..[you would know that all his advisers have been selected for him by the jdl..[and other israel/lobby groups]

kissenger has carfully set him up in this position..[they been planning scince the 90's when oibama was his,kissengers aid..

regardless your crack/crack..is made about a sitting president..[and is in particularilly bad taste]..considering israel/mossad/cia ultimate control of the crack..they carefully crafed into an epidemic..[for funding their black-ops

he has in now way/isolated the cia..[indeed made a specific visit to the cia 10 days ago..[his every move and speech is carefully crafted by the master..[kissing-er]

there is likewise/no need to lure moles amoung the enemy..[because the cia is the enemy..[lest you didnt know al-cia-rda is their beast..as is the tali-ban..[just as the two palistein parties are both the creation of the mossad]

as to the security of usa being compromised..the bankers and securities traitors,..and zion friendly media has done far more to subvert us power than obama ever could have..[this is not to say he wont take it to a higher level]

that being said obama is us president..[as busche proved the pres can do anything..[he just might realise it/and decide the old boy network has let the black dude in only as far..as he has got/to serve vile purpose..[for obama its this far and no further..[even if he is related to hrh]

anyhow as busche proved..the pres can simply say set the prisoners free..[i pardon them..[and case closed]now..give them an airticket home

so a little/respect..for the laST OMNIPOTANT MONARCH/of the freeworld..[who hapens to have the special-code that rains radioactive rain..

he just might say..make nice..or the whole cake goes sky-high..the peace-maker just might bring peace..[but who could tell him..of the power..he only so briefly holds