Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo

[Sea Demon]

http://dailyme.com/story/2009013000007502/

And so do I. This is a shameful act and is purely political. Somebody in Washington needs to tell Mr. Obama that this didn't play too well with the American people. Nor does this spending "stimulus" bill for that matter.......


MIAMI _ The former commander of the USS Cole, the American war ship that was struck by a suicide boat in Yemeni waters more than eight years ago, on Thursday slammed President Barack Obama's orders to close the Guantanamo detention center and reassess the prisoners being held there. "We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups," retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kurt Lippold said in a telephone interview. "We should consider what is best for the American people, which is not to jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror _ or even more adversely impact the families who have already suffered losses as a result of the war."



Lippold was responding to the decision by a U.S. military judge in Guantanamo to reject a request by Pentagon lawyers to delay next week's scheduled arraignment of Abd el-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian who is charged with helping orchestrate the October 2000 suicide bombing of the Cole. The bombing killed 17 U.S. sailors.
In his ruling, the judge, Army Col. James Pohl, said a delay in Nashiri's arraignment would deny the public's interest in a speedy trial. He also said nothing that took place at the arraignment would prevent the Obama administration from deciding to deal with Nashiri in a forum other than the military commission now set to hear his case.
Soon after becoming president, Obama ordered the Pentagon to request delays in all trials pending at Guantanamo for 120 days so that his administration could study the cases against each of the 250 or so men held as suspected terrorists and decide how to proceed in each case. Obama and his appointee to be the Pentagon's top legal officer have said they favor trials in civilian courts for terrorism suspects, if possible.
Other military judges granted the delay, including in the case of five men charged with plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Family members of the 9/11 victims who were in Guantanamo to witness proceedings in that case expressed outrage at the decision.
On Thursday, Lippold called Pohl's decision "a victory for the 17 families of the sailors who lost their lives on the USS Cole over eight years ago."
The decision, however, stunned officials at the Department of Defense and White House, which had just begun to grapple with Obama's order to freeze the war court and empty the detention center within a year.
"The Department of Defense is currently reviewing Judge Pohl's ruling," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon. "We will be in compliance with the president's orders regarding Guantanamo."
Nashiri's Pentagon-appointed defense lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen Reyes, said the prosecutor could still dismiss the charges against his client to comply with the president's request for a freeze. The charges could later be reinstated.
"The only way they can give effect to the president's order is by dismissing the charges," Reyes said. But Lippold also denounced suggestions that the Pentagon official who oversees the Guantanamo legal cases, Susan J. Crawford, could withdraw the charges, without prejudice, which would allow them to be reinstituted later, should the administration want.

[Overboard]

3 Words,..."Yep Sucks Don't it".. Ok maby 4 words, (Stupid is as stupid dose) :down:

[Enigma]

to favor due process = a political maneuver/supporting terrorists rights. :doh::nope:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm

"terrorists' rights" Bush speak for Bush followers to justify torture, surveillance and detention and to demonize anyone who opposes those policies as being "soft on Terrorism" or even "pro-Terrorist." It's pure garbage. Meanwhile, hundreds of detainees have been released from Gitmo after 3-6 years of detention and charged with nothing. But don;t let that get in your way.....I know how inconvenient facts can be. :arrgh!:

[Aramike]

to favor due process = a political maneuver/supporting terrorists rights. :doh::nope:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_detainees.htm

"terrorists' rights" Bush speak for Bush followers to justify torture, surveillance and detention and to demonize anyone who opposes those policies as being "soft on Terrorism" or even "pro-Terrorist." It's pure garbage. Meanwhile, hundreds of detainees have been released from Gitmo after 3-6 years of detention and charged with nothing. But don;t let that get in your way.....I know how inconvenient facts can be. :arrgh!:Are you capable of making an argument without using the word "Bush"?

Suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome), perhaps?

[Enigma]

You want to have a discussion about Gitmo without mentioning Bush? :haha: Wouldn't that be convenient.

[Aramike]

You want to have a discussion about Gitmo without mentioning Bush? :haha: Wouldn't that be convenient.Umm, not about being convenient. It's about sticking to the substance of the discussion and not the characters surrounding it.

Funny that I'd have to explain this to you. I'd bet I could have a substantive discussion the merits of policies pertaining to Gitmo and not mention, Bush, Obama, Santa Claus, Papa Smurf, Michael Vick, Abe Lincoln, the Greenbay Packers, or anyone else.

Heh, what's even funnier is that your original post didn't even mention Bush in relation to Gitmo - rather, it was in relation to "Bush Speak" and "Bush followers".

Oh, wait, I'm sorry - didn't mean to interject here with original thoughts...

[rubenandthejets]

Beware when fighting monsters you don't become one yourself.

[Tchocky]

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights

Yeah, that's too difficult.

[August]

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights
Yeah, that's too difficult.

I think the author meant human rights groups and legal advocacy groups.

[Tchocky]

That's what I get for skim-reading *klonk*

Still disagree with him on Gitmo, keeping it the way it was made things more dangerous for US citizens and soldiers.

[Kapt Z]

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights
Yeah, that's too difficult.

I think the author meant human rights groups and legal advocacy groups.

I thought America was a human rights and legal advocacy group? Then again, maybe Ms Crabtree was brainwashing our 4th grade class after all!:hmmm:

[August]

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights
Yeah, that's too difficult.
I think the author meant human rights groups and legal advocacy groups.
I thought America was a human rights and legal advocacy group? Then again, maybe Ms Crabtree was brainwashing our 4th grade class after all!:hmmm:

Well props to the beautiful Miss Crabtree but there's a big difference between a nation and a small group of self appointed watchdogs.

After all if I were to form a group and call it, say, the Democratic Party Advocacy Group (DPAG) would that mean the Democrats ought to do what I demand?

If so my first orders to them are to:

A. Stop sucking
B. Kick out all the commies, socialists and tree huggers
C. Start working for the betterment of the entire country instead of just themselves

[Kapt Z]

We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights
Yeah, that's too difficult.
I think the author meant human rights groups and legal advocacy groups.
I thought America was a human rights and legal advocacy group? Then again, maybe Ms Crabtree was brainwashing our 4th grade class after all!:hmmm:

Well props to the beautiful Miss Crabtree but there's a big difference between a nation and a small group of self appointed watchdogs.



Actually you are right. America already has a self appointed watchdog.

The Supreme Court.

And she needs all the help she can get.:salute:

[SteamWake]

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

[Kapt Z]

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.

[SteamWake]

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.

Fear is irrelevant unless it is being used as a tool :hmmm:

No by far the bigest motivator is votes and apeasment to constituants.

[Aramike]

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.This is an odd mischaraterization used quite frequently by politicians in order to advocate themselves as "hopeful" and "optimistic".

Almost ALL policy decisions are based upon fear.

Why change something if you're not afraid of what will happen if you don't?

Heh, this entire stimulous package is being passed based upon the premise of the fear of what would happen if we don't do anything...

[Sea Demon]

[
Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is basing this on political considerations. And the former commander of the USS Cole has called him on it. He's right, and it will not ensure the security of the American people. The people in Gitmo weren't picked up at Disneyland. Most of them were holding AK's in the back-areas of Afghanistan hanging out with Taliban. Gitmo is where they belong for the duration of the conflict.

Gitmo as a policy was not made out of fear, it was a policy made on the common sense handling of enemy combatants.

[Kapt Z]

"We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,"

While true unfortunatly that is exactly how policy is being determined.

Well, I suppose it IS better than making policy decision based on fear.This is an odd mischaraterization used quite frequently by politicians in order to advocate themselves as "hopeful" and "optimistic".

Almost ALL policy decisions are based upon fear.

Why change something if you're not afraid of what will happen if you don't?

Heh, this entire stimulous package is being passed based upon the premise of the fear of what would happen if we don't do anything...

Fear is a natural response to perceived threats, that's true. But there is fear and then there is FEAR.

fear makes you put on a seatbelt, hold your kid's hand in traffic, know how to swim, spend $$$$ in an attempt to fix your economy.....

FEAR makes you willing give away your rights(and your neighbor's), imprison people for life with no evidence, use torture, betray the very ideals your country supposedly stood for, do things your great, great, great, grandchildren will be puzzeled and horrified by....

If as Americans, by being Americans, it means we have to fight the war on terror with one arm and both legs tied behind our backs, so be it. Better that, than to do things that make people think we forgot who we are.

Gitmo is one of those things....

[OneToughHerring]

What does the US even need the Guantanamo for, they can just send the (mostly innocent) people they captured to whatever foreign country that does their torturing for them. Outsourcing, word of the day.

[Aramike]

Fear is a natural response to perceived threats, that's true. But there is fear and then there is FEAR.

fear makes you put on a seatbelt, hold your kid's hand in traffic, know how to swim, spend $$$$ in an attempt to fix your economy.....Putting a word in bold italics doesn't change its premise. Sure, there are different levels of fear. But even terrorism without Gitmo doesn't leave me here, shaken, anymore than an economic collapse does. In fact, the economy directly impacts far more people than terrorism.

Gitmo isn't any more fear-driven than anything else we do.FEAR makes you willing give away your rights(and your neighbor's), This is another liberal mischaracterization. What rights have been given away (please cite specifics)?

I'm no more limited in what I do than I was in 1999. Are you and, if so, how?imprison people for life with no evidenceYet another blanket, broad, and completely incorrect statement liberals design to muddy the issue.

No one has been imprisoned for life, for one thing. In fact, far too many have been released.

Secondly, just because there isn't transparency (meaning, YOU can't see the evidence), doesn't mean that said proof does not exist.

It's odd how people how so much faith in our over-crowded, ideological judiciary but have no faith whatsoever in our comparatively efficient military. use tortureWhy does it bother people that we'd torture someone for information useful in stopping their overall goal of destroying us?

This isn't fear (or fear) ... this is pragmatic. Torture a few guys who hate us to potentially save 1000s of our own people.

How are our rights in any way compromised by this? Furthermore, doesn't the Constitution SPECIFICALLY allow for the providing "for the common defense"? In fact, Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution (the document that gives us these rights) provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus for public safety.betray the very ideals your country supposedly stood for, do things your great, great, great, grandchildren will be puzzeled and horrified by....Again, this is a typical grand statement low on substance.

There's a document explaining what your country stands for - it's called the Constitution and applies to citizens of the United States. I'd be interested in hearing some actual cases of US citizens losing any rights...If as Americans, by being Americans, it means we have to fight the war on terror with one arm and both legs tied behind our backs, so be it.The hell with that. That's silly. Even if we HAVE to slightly ammend our way of life (which we don't), why not just do that instead of risking its out-and-out destruction?

In any case, this is a typical case of liberals picking one liberty over the next. Every American has a RIGHT to be safe from external enemies. You're choosing a non-existant right to comfort for our external enemies over what is actually in the Constitution.Better that, than to do things that make people think we forgot who we are.

Gitmo is one of those things....Sorry if you've forgotten who we are. I haven't.

We have a clear document describing who we are. It's the Constitution. If you've forgotten what defines us, I recommend reading it carefully.

[Aramike]

What does the US even need the Guantanamo for, they can just send the (mostly innocent) people they captured to whatever foreign country that does their torturing for them. Outsourcing, word of the day.This is a broad, unsubstantiated generalization made clearly in support of your ideology.

[baggygreen]

If as Americans, by being Americans, it means we have to fight the war on terror with one arm and both legs tied behind our backs, so be it. Better that, than to do things that make people think we forgot who we are.

very well said. But how does the old phrase go... rules are made to be broken :O:

In all seriousness, as a hypothetical, would you be willing to continue fighting with one hand behind your back if the man in your custody knew the location of an NBC weapon in say, NYC? Would, (or could) you stick to your rules knowing that giving this man time and standard applications of the geneva convention would result in the weapon killing millions in NYC?

I have little doubt that similar things have been narrowly averted. Not necessarily NBC, but attacks in some form or other. It wouldn't surprise me if some form of torture was used (I understand truth serums are counted as torture as well). It makes for a tough decision to be made, doesnt it.

[StarFox]

Just send them all to the secret CIA prisons that don't exist. The last administration was very good at that

[rubenandthejets]

What does the US even need the Guantanamo for, they can just send the (mostly innocent) people they captured to whatever foreign country that does their torturing for them. Outsourcing, word of the day.This is a broad, unsubstantiated generalization made clearly in support of your ideology.

EVERYTHING in this thread is a broad unsubstantiated generalisation made cleary in support of the poster's ideology....

[Tchocky]

The one thing we can be sure of is that torture will produce good intelligence.

Yes sirree.

[AntEater]

A captain who had his ship blown up in port surely is a very competent speaker on national security.
What is it with the american right and military duds?
First Oliver North now this guy?

[August]

A captain who had his ship blown up in port surely is a very competent speaker on national security.
What is it with the american right and military duds?
First Oliver North now this guy?

And the attack was the Captains fault how exactly AntEater?

[AntEater]

As the commanding officer, it is his fault.

Oh, I forgot, when a military screwup happens during a democratic administration, it is the administration's fault, if it happens during a republican administration, it is the fault of a misguided individual.
Lebanon 82 was somehow not pinned on Reagan despite ugly micromanagement from the white house down to target selection and flight altitudes, while the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco was Clinton's fault despite the fact that he left the military details totally up to the professionals.

:P

[SteamWake]

As the commanding officer, it is his fault.

Oh, I forgot, when a military screwup happens during a democratic administration, it is the administration's fault, if it happens during a republican administration, it is the fault of a misguided individual.
Lebanon 82 was somehow not pinned on Reagan despite ugly micromanagement from the white house down to target selection and flight altitudes, while the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco was Clinton's fault despite the fact that he left the military details totally up to the professionals.

:P

Lets not forget that the sailors on the Cole were under strict orders to NOT fire upon possible aggressors.

Now... where did that order come down from?

[Kapt Z]

Fear is a natural response to perceived threats, that's true. But there is fear and then there is FEAR.

fear makes you put on a seatbelt, hold your kid's hand in traffic, know how to swim, spend $$$$ in an attempt to fix your economy.....Putting a word in bold italics doesn't change its premise. Sure, there are different levels of fear. But even terrorism without Gitmo doesn't leave me here, shaken, anymore than an economic collapse does. In fact, the economy directly impacts far more people than terrorism.

Gitmo isn't any more fear-driven than anything else we do.FEAR makes you willing give away your rights(and your neighbor's), This is another liberal mischaracterization. What rights have been given away (please cite specifics)?

I'm no more limited in what I do than I was in 1999. Are you and, if so, how?imprison people for life with no evidenceYet another blanket, broad, and completely incorrect statement liberals design to muddy the issue.

No one has been imprisoned for life, for one thing. In fact, far too many have been released.

Secondly, just because there isn't transparency (meaning, YOU can't see the evidence), doesn't mean that said proof does not exist.

It's odd how people how so much faith in our over-crowded, ideological judiciary but have no faith whatsoever in our comparatively efficient military. use tortureWhy does it bother people that we'd torture someone for information useful in stopping their overall goal of destroying us?

This isn't fear (or fear) ... this is pragmatic. Torture a few guys who hate us to potentially save 1000s of our own people.

How are our rights in any way compromised by this? Furthermore, doesn't the Constitution SPECIFICALLY allow for the providing "for the common defense"? In fact, Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution (the document that gives us these rights) provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus for public safety.betray the very ideals your country supposedly stood for, do things your great, great, great, grandchildren will be puzzeled and horrified by....Again, this is a typical grand statement low on substance.

There's a document explaining what your country stands for - it's called the Constitution and applies to citizens of the United States. I'd be interested in hearing some actual cases of US citizens losing any rights...If as Americans, by being Americans, it means we have to fight the war on terror with one arm and both legs tied behind our backs, so be it.The hell with that. That's silly. Even if we HAVE to slightly ammend our way of life (which we don't), why not just do that instead of risking its out-and-out destruction?

In any case, this is a typical case of liberals picking one liberty over the next. Every American has a RIGHT to be safe from external enemies. You're choosing a non-existant right to comfort for our external enemies over what is actually in the Constitution.Better that, than to do things that make people think we forgot who we are.

Gitmo is one of those things....Sorry if you've forgotten who we are. I haven't.

We have a clear document describing who we are. It's the Constitution. If you've forgotten what defines us, I recommend reading it carefully.

Well, I guess we just disagree on what we're willing to do about Gitmo. I get it now.:yeah:

[August]

As the commanding officer, it is his fault.

Oh, I forgot, when a military screwup happens during a democratic administration, it is the administration's fault, if it happens during a republican administration, it is the fault of a misguided individual.
Lebanon 82 was somehow not pinned on Reagan despite ugly micromanagement from the white house down to target selection and flight altitudes, while the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco was Clinton's fault despite the fact that he left the military details totally up to the professionals.

:P

Nice bit of propaganda you got there AntEater, except that in reality the JAG investigation positively cleared Captain Lippold of any fault, wrongdoing or negligence so tell me again why you figure he's a "military dud" and that he should be compared to a deliberate wrong doer like Oliver North?

[AntEater]

Propaganda?
Nope, just wondering about double standards.
Why should I make propaganda, I'm an outside observer of the whole US political mudslinging contest.
I still wonder wether Capt. Lippold is related to the most disastrous date I ever had... ;)

[August]

Propaganda?
Nope, just wondering about double standards.
Why should I make propaganda, I'm an outside observer of the whole US political mudslinging contest.
I still wonder wether Capt. Lippold is related to the most disastrous date I ever had... ;)

If you are really interested in finding out the truth instead of besmirching a good mans name look up the rules of engagement the administration imposed on the USS Cole.

[AntEater]

I believe that they had restrictive rules of engagement, but I doubt they were restricted by the Clinton administration.
Usually, a warship in a foreign port is a diplomatic guest. The 21 gun salute comes from emptying your guns before entering the port of call.
That means, traditionally you are not to shoot up anyone in a friendly port.
Security for foreign vessels is up to the host nation.
Security measures of the ship itself are limited to onboard security.
Yemen failed to provide that security, obviously.
That these ancient rules of friendly port visits are not up to the modern threat of terrorism is another thing, but they're no invention of the Clinton administration.
I suppose those rules actually haven't been changed at all, only modified so that seperate agreements are done with risky ports, or that US navy warships do not call at such ports at all, if necessary, or stay at anchor on the roadstead, where they can shoot up what they want.

[August]

I believe that they had restrictive rules of engagement, but I doubt they were restricted by the Clinton administration.

You doubt wrong then because rules of engagement are indeed set by the Administration, but my main objection was that you called the captain of the Cole a "military dud" and attempted to put him in the same class as a North who deliberately broke the law just because he has an opinion that you didn't like. Don't you think that was unjustified?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I read:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg54740.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6840692.html:
Even if the sentries had recognized the threat from a small boat approaching the guided missile destroyer in a Yemeni harbor on Oct. 12, their "rules of engagement" would have prevented them from firing without first obtaining permission from the Cole's captain or another officer, the crew members said.
And also:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg54740.html
The rules of engagement aboard a U.S. warship are set by its captain following Navy guidelines.
In other words, the final arbiter of all this is the Captain. He set a RoE that actually allowed for shooting, but with an officer's permission, which would hardly have been unreasonably restrictive, even in a full blown war situation. But ... where was the officer?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/61061.html
Lippold's own pronouncements in the case are ironic. A Navy inquiry questioned whether Lippold had taken appropriate measures to prevent an attack on the vessel. No one was in the ship's command center when the suicide boat rammed into the Cole's side, there were no lookouts on deck, and no planning had been undertaken for such an eventuality. Lippold, however, was not disciplined and was allowed to keep his command.
According to this, can you really honestly say he is innocent? That he did do everything possible to avoid it all?
And don't whine about the bureaucracies or Clinton. The aversion in Navies the world over to Captains who get their ships damaged in anything other than (perhaps) war is infamous. There are few actions that will harm your career more than letting your ship get hurt while it is in your charge. Look at Rogers and Vincennes. One whole airliner later he still gets a medal. Regardless of your views on the morality of all this, it is NOT difficult to see which side the Navy says you should err on.
Besides, if he's really such a moral person, he won't be saying what amounts to "F*ck human rights".

[Larry U-136]

MOSTLY INNOCENT? Are you kidding me?

[August]

Lippold, however, was not disciplined and was allowed to keep his command.

That says it all really. If he was half as guilty as your links claim he is that would not have been the case.

Besides, if he's really such a moral person, he won't be saying what amounts to "F*ck human rights".

That's not what he said at all.

[Aramike]

The rules of engagement aboard a U.S. warship are set by its captain following Navy guidelines. This is double-speak. Why not just say the RoE are set by Navy guidelines? I'm guessing that an agenda is involved...