CLARK was just on Faux "News" and he has the answer for Gitmo.

[Auntie Bush]

He was asked by Bill what's his face what we should do with the Gitmo prisoners. He said they weren't captured on the battlefield killing Americans...so we shouldn't be responsible for them and taking a beating in world opinion because of how we treat them. CLARK recommended that they should be tried by a collective of world states and maybe the Hague.
Then we would no longer have to take the blame. They are a threat to the whole world and they should take their fair share of the responsibility. He said we have to work with world leaders more! Ain't that a fact! A President Clark would have done a much better job of this whole War on Terror and other nations would have been much more cooperative. What a loss! I hope people get smart!

[peacetalksforall]

1. I'm left a little unsatisfied with the answer if you want to know. He is

assuming some guilt. I believe they were rounded up without discretion for a number of purposes:

>get strong, healthy males off the streets
>phish fish
>hope they get lucky

but most of all to reduce the male population of that country.

Clark assumes guilt. I just don't agree.

Did he have an explanation for the reasoning of the WH-military dictatorship when the released all the different groups of prisoners without charging?

I hope some leader mentions that and explains it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm somewhat open to Clark, however, what you reported is not going down well with me.

Trials are OK, but assumption of guilt really get me going - especially in light of all our lies and atrocities. Perhaps I interpreted the tone of what he is saying wrong, but I kinda doubt it.

Why do all these candidates get a person excited on one day and crash the next?

In the end, I may have to support the person who crashed the least. Who would have thought it would be a matter of arithmetic.

[patdem]

4. Let's not forget that 'little' matter of BOUNTY

Greed exists (see Congress) and people were turned in for MONEY! You hate your next door neighbor and would like to possess his home and wife?....TURN HIM IN FOR MONEY! Viola...you get cash AND his home and wife! :grr:

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. The point is that Clark argues for getting them out from under Bush

and bringing the world in to make sure these detainees get justice, whatever justice means. Can anyone think of a better alternative? It's just not going to happen that Bush is going to just open up the gates and let everyone go completely free tomorrow, nor should he, because I don't doubt that there are guilty and dangerous as well as innocent non violent detainees at Gitmo, so who do you trust will do the best job to sort them out in a way that minimizes the chance that innocents will continue to be punished? U.S. Military Courts or the International Community?

Clark is brilliant in how he frames this argument for FOX viewers to help them buy into it: Why should we be left holding the bag, it's the world's problem? Hmmm, that makes sense, turn them over to the Dutch, French and Germans to deal with then.

I love it, Clark is selling the course of action that makes it most likely that the least injustice will continue to occur, while still dealing realistically but humanely with the minority of detainees who really are determined to kill civilians.

[jenmito]

23. I agreed with all that he said...

I just wish he would've mentioned that they are not all guilty nor dangerous as O'Reilly has repeatedly said, and that they ARE considered innocent until proven guilty, which is why they should be tried instead of being held indefinitely.

[Donna Zen]

11. But of course!

Are you assuming that if we could get these people out from under the corrupted bush administration, where the trials would be secret, and into an international court, that the truth would stay hidden? And are you assuming that General Clark is unaware of the deposition of the facts in the case. No. No. Not at all. But if you want to win then presenting a weakness is not a winner. If the conversation becomes one of how, when, and under what circumstances the people were arrested, then the argument will stay within those non-productive perimeter's. The fight needs to be about closing Gitmo, and giving the people now held there at least the chance at fair trial. That will not happen as long as the Pentagon and bush justice (sic) system is in control. Make that case, and the rest will follow.


BTW, the General has advocated this postion for a long time now, and I've heard him say that it is important to separate those who do not belong there, and the need to free them. At the current time, if I had to guess, he now sees us close to ending Gitmo, and he is making his move.

You may be disappointed that he is avoiding getting dragged into "their" argument. Personally, I'm very glad.

[gulliver]

6. Don't forget politics.

They did it for all the reasons you cited, but the most important one was to give the appearance of doing something. By surrounding the site with secrecy and preventing normal judicial inquiry, the Bushies continue to hide from the world something that is likely very damning. Namely, they have practically no one of any worth in Gitmo. It's there for show.

On edit: Clark was right to take a balanced approach, by the way. He has been told there are, per Bush, "cold-blooded killers" in there. The only responsible thing to do is what Clark did. Press for due process. IMO, that will let us all see what the Bushies are hiding.

[CJCRANE]

17. I agree - it's there for show.

It was set up to impress the base. It made it look as if they were getting "the terrorists" and punishing them. In reality most of these guys were simply dragged off the streets while the real al-Qaeda leaders got away at Tora Bora.

[jenmito]

7. I have to agree...

I saw him on with O'Reilly 2 nights ago (I think). He gave a great answer regarding how to handle the detainees except that he never reminded O'Reilly that they are presumed innocent and some if not many MAY be innocent since they were just swept up for little or no valid reason in some cases.

[Donna Zen]

12. Who is assuming guilt?

Clark wants trials sans bush. Are you assuming that there is no such thing as "fair" trial? Or are you assuming that everyone one of the prisoners is guilty.

Close Gitmo.

[jenmito]

13. Yes, but...

Clark said something about these being dangerous people to the world, not just the U.S. He could've said something about the possibility that some may NOT be dangerous people at ALL but innocents who were swept up in raids or whatever. O'Reilly has said before that they are ALL dangerous killers.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. We can nuance ourselves to death and lose every debate

Context matters. Perhaps if this was the Jim Lehrer News Hour and not O'Reilly, and if Clark was given a five or ten minute slot where he could count on raising the issues that he wanted to speak about and then being able to finish making his points after he raised them without getting cut off or having the conversation hijacked, then Clark could have covered all of the politically correct bases adequately.

I have no doubt that Clark could have forced the discussion with O'Reilly into a fuller look at the percentage of innocent people who are now detained at Gitmo, and they could have had a heated argument over how many dangerous terrorists are likely really down there right now. That way O'Reilly could have had the discussion that he wanted to have all along, one that led him grand stand on how dangerous terrorists were being kept out of American cities thanks to Bush aggressively rounding them up and sending them to Gitmo. Instead Clark blind sided O'Reilly by accepting that, sure, there were dangerous men at Gitmo, WITHOUT saying that all or even most of them were dangerous. Having side stepped that trap Clark pushed O'Reilly into accepting the role of International law in determining which of the detainees were guilty and which were innocent, and pressed him to see the logic of letting other nations take custody of the detainees, nations much less likely to adhere to the Gonzales school of prisoner treatment.

Clark clearly emphasized the need for all the detainees to receive fair trials, ones that the world community would accept were fair trial, not Bush Junta "show trials". By emphasizing the need for the detainees to receive fair trials that required actual evidence for convictions, Clark implicitly stated that the detainees could not all be presumed to be guilty and detained outside the boundaries of internationally accepted justice. This was the point of the Supreme Court Ruling after all. The relevant debate was not about the methodology the Bush Administration uses to sweep up possible suspects who subsequently get detained during military operations, and whether some of those detained might be innocent. It is universally accepted that some percentage of those initially detained by authorities for suspicion of committing crimes are ultimately proved to be innocent of all charges. That wasn't an argument that Clark needed to waste his precious few air seconds on.

[peacetalksforall]

39. Exactly. It's the phrasing and you have defined it accurately. He is

saying what they say - these are dangerous men. The word 'some' is missing.

[Donna Zen]

40. Okay

The next time he can argue with them about evidence that no one has seen which is of course a loosing argument. Instead he made the case that Gitmo needs to be closed and the prisoners given a trial by world standards of evidence.

BTW, the Democratic senators, according to this evenings news, are about to jump on bush's military tribunal bandwagon so I guess we'll never know about the evidence.

[coalition_unwilling]

14. There is an urgent need for a robust habeas process to occur

for every detainee at Gitmo and the other, "secret" prisons world-wide.

It's time for the government to "put up or shut up." Charge 'em or let 'em go. (They don't want to charge them, because the evidence in 99% of the cases is so ludicrous that it will make the U.S. even more of a worldwide laughingstock than it already is. I mean, really, Osama's DRIVER? What are they going to charge him with, DWP? (Driving while terrorist.)

[jenmito]

21. I agree. n/t

[Boo Boo]

33. He's not assuming guilt. Under his plan an international body would

determine guilt or innocence, and one presumes that those being held in gitmo right now would get something that they have been denied for years: justice. If there is no evidence to support charges against any particular individual(s) then, obviously, they would be freed.

Clearly, establishing an international legal process to deal with the gitmo prisoners, and take them out of the custody of the U.S., would be a huge step, and probably a huge public embarrassment for the admin as the entire story of gitmo sees the light of day.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Donna Zen]

34. Your right: breath out.

I'm watching the news.... think military tribunals.

[Gloria]

2. A much fuller discussion was on yesterday...if you go to

securingamerica.com look down the page for the 6/29 "Big Story with John Gibson" interview and even the 6/28 encounter with O'Reilly.

Clark says that if they're going to have trials, then they need to have rules of evidence established, etc. etc. He is extremely pissed about Gitmo and has been for a long time.

He points out that there's nothing stopping the US from detaining people, but it has to be done under the Geneva Convention, which, of course, Bushco prefers to ignore.

The main thrust of these discussions has been about not letting the really bad guys get away and the damage Gitmo has done to the US in terms of how people see us. Clark doesn't control the questions, so you'll never get a discussion that is as full in scope as we would like on FOX or any of the TV "news" for that matter.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. I admire your iron-lined stomach!

That you're able to watch FAUX without having to hurl (a physical reaction I get whenever I try!) is a testament to your excellent constitution!

Anyway, there's NO DOUBT General Clark (the man with the gorgeous eyes!)is right. He knows what he's talking about because he knows how to handle foreign affairs; how important the world community, and our allies are to the United States---and damn it! He's right!

Too bad this arrogant, pompous elitist, and equally arrogant, pompous cronies can't see beyond their own overblown egos and pride for self-importance, and listen to someone who knows how America can save face using our smarts, instead of our military might.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Most of us wait and watch later at Clark's site. Here is a non FOX link

to watch Clark shutting down O'Reilly:

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7266

[BlueCaliDem]

42. My eyes, ears AND stomach thank you for the link, Rinaldo.

I've linked to, and bookmarked the site to enjoy later without having to give FAUX any of my time.

I truly detest O'Reilly, and adore General Clark, and just love to see General Clark "checkmate" that FAUX News blowhard with facts.

Always a treat, so thanks again! :bounce:

[bowens43]

8. Bullshit answer.

If they don't have enough evidence to try them for actual crimes they should be released and compensated for the time that they were illegally detained.

Danger to the whole world? More bullshit.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Let the world community determine if there is or is not evidence.....

on whether these folks are a "danger to the world or not"....Which is the whole point of Clark's argument. There has to be a determination made one way or the other to IF there is any guilt or No, and Clark is stating that it shouldn't be the U.S. alone making that determination.

PS. Personally, If I had to choose who I would want determining whether I was guilty of a crime or not, I'd rather have the world International community looking at whatever evidence the U.S. government "claims" to have as opposed to leaving it up to Bush and Them to rule whether I am guilty enough to stand trial or not.

Of course, let it not escape those reading that Yours is the bullshit answer, as you don't agree with Clark on anything that he has to say, e.g., if Clark said that the sky is blue....or whatever color it might be when he described it, you would disagree and call him a name or two for his daring to say what color the sky was! :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Bullshit answer

Clark agrees that if they don't have enough evidence to try them for actual crimes they should be released - I don't know his position regarding compensation. The Supreme Court didn't say they all should be released now, or that there wasn't enough evidence to try them for actual crimes, they just ruled that Bush's plan for virtually indefinite detention followed by "hearings" was bullshit.

Bottom line, it's put up or shut up regarding the Gitmo "detainees". Where do you read Clark disagreeing with that? I hear him saying that international courts are a more appropriate venue for determining if and where there is sufficient evidence to put detainees on trial than are U.S. Military Courts. Do you disagree with that? Do you honestly believe that German Dutch and French jurists would stand for the type of prolonged detentions without trial that Americans have? Do you think that the conditions that the "detainees" are held in while awaiting trial (or release) would be worse or better in Europe than those they receive under American supervision? That last question is a tough one, huh?

[Disturbed]

16. Taliban vs al Q Detainees.

If it can be proven that Detainees were either then why are Taliban fighters being held? Didn't the Taliban have a right to defend their Nation that was invaded by the US and other forces?

If certain detainees are actually members of al Q. on what basis can they be held forever without specific charges of crimes?

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. On no legal basis can someone be held forever with no charges

That is what a great deal of this fight is about, to prevent the Bush Administration from doing just that, which is one reason why Bush fought against this ruling. The push now is on to make sure that all of those detained at Gitmo get fair trials, to question is how to make that happen. As to your Taliban question, that is more complex law. The simple answer is that sometimes soldiers are organized to do more than just defend their nation. Such was the case with the German Nazis. The Allies had "legal rights", such as the term exists, to invade Germany and capture and try soldiers defending Germany from that invasion. I am sure that the argument you raise will be used by ex Taliban soldiers now detained at Gitmo when they finally are given trials, and perhaps they will win their cases on that basis, perhaps not.

[Donna Zen]

18. The choice?

Reading the court's decision the court very clearly was not commenting on the legality or the illegality of the detention. The court argued that the congress had a say in all of this. bush and his minions are busy preparing legislation that would change the law of military justice, and thus, meet the courts demands by legislating Gitmo.

The choice is clear, and the time is short. Get these people out from under bush. Or argue without access to evidence in advance of a trial for their innocence, thus allowing bush to once again circumvent the law.

Personally, I'd like to see these people get a chance. I will not work to advance bush's agenda. Stewing in Clark hatred will not make people free, but it will waste precious time.

[Donna Zen]

27. How many people firmly believe

...that bush will release his prisoners at Gitmo....raise your hand!

Okay, try this: how many people think that the prisoners from Gitmo would be treated more fairly by an international court...raise your hand!

Hmmmm? thought so.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Tried by the ICC at The Hague, what a novel concept?

Who does Clark think he is, some kind of war hero that believes in the rules of law?

Way to go, Wes!

[FrenchieCat]

22. The thing is that most Democratic politicians have been cowed into

never mentioning "International law" as a workable concept.

Due to repeated conservative attacks against Democrats for "wanting to let the French tell us what to do", Democrats have become very shy in referring to what should be mentioned all of the time, which helps the GOP basically sell their message that "America has to deal with this problem unilaterally in order to be strong" bullcrap.

Good for Wes Clark in being bold and brave enough not to give a shit on how they will "paint him" and how Internationalism has been vilified.

But then again, that's the beauty of Clark....he can say "Let's bring in international law and judges into this", and not even Faux assholes will call it a bad idea that "cedes" our governing to outside sources.

NOW, watch what congress actually proposes to deal with this SCOTUS ruling, and we'll most like NOT SEE or HEAR any Elected Democrats dare to mention what Clark has suggested. I'm sure all will come up with some other "Unilateral-American only proposal.

And IF by a miracle International Courts end up as part of the solution (which they should be) for Gizmo....watch it be a Republican proposal and not a Democratic one.

[Donna Zen]

24. O'Lielly tried to scoff about French judges

Clark told him that French judges are very tough on terrorist. O'L shut his festering gob.

I'm telling you Frenchie, I've been reading and listening. The bushes are moving very quickly to keep their secret trials secret by changing the law of military justice. The court said that without an emergency they couldn't create a new court. So not only will fuckers make an end-run around the court, but they will do it at the expense of the military. The only other way is to nullify the Geneva Conventions sec 3. Jack Balkin doubts that they will try to do that, but the rest is up for grabs. BTW, Armando said last night that Balkin has the most complete take on this. (scroll down to JB posts although the others are good.)

General Clark is suppose to be on vacation, instead he has been on faux 4 days in a row. He is pounding one clear message: internationalize this and shut Gitmo down. What is his reward? Well, people who pile on (we know who you are) to bitch and moan: "omg, Clark didn't say that some where taxi drivers." And since many of them don't listen to Wes and I do, I know that he has discussed the possible innocence of some detainees. But how can anyone be proven innocent in bush's secret court? Clark has been advocating this for a long time.

I think bush is about to get away again. Really, things are about to get worse.

[NativeTexan]

26. Seems like a very.........

.......logical and well thought out answer to me. A President Clark would have kept his eye on the ball and fought the actual War on Terrorism, instead of inciting another one!

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Every time the U.S. goes to war you can kiss a half generations worth...

... of Social Programs goodbye, the money needed literally gets blown up instead, along with a hell of a lot of people. Electing a President who will keep Americans feeling secure without launching one dangerous military misadventure after another is the only way we will ever have health care for all. Enough Republican Chicken Hawks, and beware of "moderate" Democrats who want to prove to voters that they can be tough too. We need a President who isn't ashamed to say that the United States needs more friends in the world and less enemies. Clark can and does say it all of the time, and Republicans can't claim it's because Clark doesn't understand the need for a strong military.

[w4rma]

30. I think this time it should be the ultrawealthy tax cuts that get blown up

instead.

[NativeTexan]

43. I am right there with you Tom.....

....it just seemed to be an OK way to put it. Don't necessarily agree with all of it. I AM a "moderate" Democrat that believes that we need to be out NOW! We shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. Having said that, the actual "mission" of "regime change", since there were no WMD's, and "freeing" Iraqi's has been done. Even on BUSH'S original basis, it is time to bring 'em home.

For a party that supposedly wants "smaller government", the Reagan and BushII regimes, sure have grown it to the biggest ever! Biggest problem with that is that they have grown it for business, oil and religious extremists..not for the average Joe, who needs the healthcare. ALL of our Dem pols need to start standing up for Dem principles and not GOPSHIT!

[Disturbed]

29. The Bush Regime will do an end run on this issue.

They will sponsor a Bill that gets them what they want and most Dems, as usual, will sign on.

[NativeTexan]

44. Here's praying that you are wrong, but realizing that you are right!

[blm]

31. I think he's right - send them to Hague or to a regional country.

.

[Dr Fate]

32. If Kerry had picked Wes, we woulda won- I know it....

...nothing against Edwards, who is also great- but I think Wes shoulda been the one.

I hope Wes runs in the '08 primaries too.

[Donna Zen]

35. Update: the prisoners loose.

The story goes like this: the Democrats are giddy with the prospect of planning and voting military tribunals. Levin is "on board" with this.

We all loose. Rather than internationalize what is an on-going international problem, our senators and house will put that monkey on our back.

[Eugene]

36. Watch the conservatives yell "traitor!"

Neocons don't believe collective security and they especially
don't believe in the rule of law. Gitmo with its torture and
kangaroo courts is exactly the way they think things should be.

Conservatives will rip savagely at anyone who even suggests
submitting terror suspects to international justice.
They want to hang 'em high. Don't be surprised if members
of the lunatic right try to swiftboat the general for this.

[Texas_Kat]

37. Watch Clark not be afraid of what the "lunatic right" might say

He's never shown one iota of backing down from a position he feels is right. And LOOK! He's framed the issue in terms the American public can understand. "Bring in the world.... it's as much the world's problem as it is ours. They should do their fair share."

Clark doesn't pander right or left. What he believes, he stands up for.

We complain all the time about politicians who 'triangulate'. Most of them don't just triangulate, they tie themselves in knots trying to stand on every side of an issue (or at least pick a position that won't hurt their personal political ambitions).

Standing up for what you believe in is second nature to Wes Clark.

Clark was almost shot to death in Vietnam (yes his wounds were that serious)..... 'sticks and stones' from right wingers are to be expected, but nothing they can say will ever make him keep silent.

[Donna Zen]

38. Now what was it Wes once said?

It's a matter of how much pain you take. Your right TK. Wes will not back down from what he sees as the right thing to do.

[Dinger]

41. Damn, That's My Man!

Just imagine how different things could be . . .

[kaleagal]

45. I just wrote to my congressman.

I would like to suggest to anyone who agrees with the General about the International Court idea, please, write to Congress about it.
There is also a petition you can sign, and add comments about the International Court, to call for shutting down Guantanamo.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/602890897?z00m=91611