Yemeni describes CIA secret jails Help me to understand the reasoning 30 days held?

[Reflex]

BTW, I always find it amusing when her campaign refers to Obama as a 'Junior Senator', after all, Hillary is also a Junior Senator.  Junior/Senior just depends on which senator has served the longest from their state(with two total per state, one is always a junior and one is always a senior), and a senior senator in one state may have put in less time than a junior senator from another state.

[VorLonUK]

One thing that does draw me to Hilary (and it’s not her beauty  ) is that she has said she will talk to countries such as Iran. To me that is a massive step forward even if ultimately some sort of military action is taken. I’m not against military action, but I believe it is the tool of very last resort.

Actually you have that backwards.  Obama said that at a debate and was instantly criticized by both Edwards and Hillary, Hillary specifically calling Obama 'niave'.

Adding the relevant article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/25/clinton.obama/index.html

The sparring began Monday at the CNN/YouTube debate, in which a viewer asked candidates if they would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea -- whom the United States has called rogue leaders.

Obama said he would, adding "it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them." He added: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Obama cited the diplomacy of late presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who engaged the Soviet Union even as he called it the "evil empire."

Obama said one of his first orders of diplomacy in the Middle East would be to "send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."

"They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point," he said. "But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."

Clinton, who on the campaign trail has blasted the Bush administration for not engaging Iran and Syria directly, responded to the question by promising "vigorous diplomacy," including using high level envoys.

But she said she would not meet with such leaders in her first year before knowing what their intentions would be. "We're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro [of Cuba] and Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be," Clinton said. "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes."

Both campaigns issued memorandums the next day highlighting talking points on the exchange and criticizing the other. That was followed by dueling interviews with Iowa's Quad-City Times.

"I thought that was very irresponsible and frankly naive to say you would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro or others within the first year," Clinton told the paper, adding that Obama regretted his answer at the debate.

Her comments reflected a strategy to paint herself, a two-term senator and former first lady, as the candidate with the most experience to be president and Obama, a junior senator, as too inexperienced to be commander in chief.

Obama struck back at Clinton in his interview with the Quad-City Times, accusing Clinton of a "fabricated controversy."

"I didn't say these guys were going to come for a cup of coffee some afternoon," Obama told the newspaper. Then, referring to Clinton's vote in Congress authorizing the war in Iraq, Obama said: "If there is anything irresponsible and naive it was to authorize George Bush to send 160,000 young American men and women into Iraq apparently without knowing how they were going to get out."

Must be mixed messages then Reflex, but then the media is good at that. Although I did see an interview with a Hilary adviser who did say about the Iran/Syria situation and the need for dialogue/diplomacy etc. So I can only assume that perhaps when it comes down to it, the Dems (Obama and Hilary) have a similiar International agenda even if for the purposes of one-up-manship they put the other down on such issues?

[Reflex]

I don't really see them similiar at all, Hillary is a hawk, both in language and in her voting record.  She has yet to oppose Bush on any of his moves, even his most recent one authorizing force against Iran(ie: permission to go to war again). She in fact championed the Iraq war when many other Dems were dubious.  Obama is a thinker and a negotiator, he has consistantly stood against war and been proven right over time.  Re-read Hillary's statements about negotiating with rogue states, namely, she is couching her terms very carefullly to be certain that she is not committing to unconditional talks, instead she wants to do it on her terms in her own time her own way.  Thats no different than Bush.

[VorLonUK]

I don't really see them similiar at all, Hillary is a hawk, both in language and in her voting record.  She has yet to oppose Bush on any of his moves, even his most recent one authorizing force against Iran(ie: permission to go to war again). She in fact championed the Iraq war when many other Dems were dubious.  Obama is a thinker and a negotiator, he has consistantly stood against war and been proven right over time.  Re-read Hillary's statements about negotiating with rogue states, namely, she is couching her terms very carefullly to be certain that she is not committing to unconditional talks, instead she wants to do it on her terms in her own time her own way.  Thats no different than Bush.

Reflex,

As per your country folk on here, you are no doubt in a better position to get to know all the attributes and facts about the candidates in the presidential nominations. I tend to hear more snippets, from the candidates and their advisers alike and more regarding the here and now. You'll no doubt remember and have learnt about many more of their traits and through their political history too.

Obviously i don't hold quite the same interest as you and most of your country folk, as the US isn't my country, but one thing I've learnt over time, is that politicians chop and change direction at a whim. Tony Blair has got to be the biggest Traitor to his party roots than any politician I've ever known, including those who have actually swapped parties.
That's why the US political race interests me (and I'm praising the US!) because I feel out of our 3 political parties, the government and the opposition (top two) are nearly one of the same. The labour party (Blairs old party) is now called New labour and it's a million miles away from what it once stood for. If that was good or bad, doesn't really matter - it's the choice the UK population have now lost.

On this thread Topic though

I'm watching a Docu Drama on Abu Graib as I type this. I have never seen it before and it is showing photo's I have never seen (ie the non-censored ones).

The Film/Drama is Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2007)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912585/

It has interviews with the US soldiers and former detainees. Parts of it remind me of SOME of the scenes seen on the UK History Channel recording the undignified condition Jewish peoples were put under by the Nazi's. Obviously and I am in NO WAY minimising the terrible conditions and treatment the Jews faced at the hands of the Nazi's.

I personally feel that all school children should be taught about the holocaust and modern events such as Abu Graib aswell as other world attrocities. Some of them will be political decision makers in the future, so an accurate grounding is a must in my opinion.

[Rocky]

I think Hillary and Obama are about 95% the same on their international agenda.  The difference is Hillary has been voting how the people have wanted her to vote versus how she actually feels, I think Obama has voted the way he feels even if its been unpopular at the time.  I think that sums up their canidacy's quite well.  Hillary says she will be a good President because she is good at leading the people in the direction they want to be lead, and I beleive thats true.  And Obama's message is that he will lead with what he thinks is right, while listening to everyone and making compromises when needed.  Obviously that is pretty summed up, but I dont think its 100% accurate to call Hillary a hawk, you could call her opportunistic, or complain about her safe voting record, but I think she was doing what the people wanted her to do at the time.  Or maybe its because shes a woman and she feels she has to be tough on military issues or look tough otherwise she will seem especially weak because she is female.  Who knows, but O and H are really really similar on their stances ON PAPER, but in practice they go about it in completely different ways.  Its why one appeals to moderates and one appeals to hardline left ideologists.

[Caffeine Cemetary]

..Who knows, but O and H are really really similar on their stances ON PAPER, but in practice they go about it in completely different ways.  Its why one appeals to moderates and one appeals to hardline left ideologists.

I'd tend to disagree to an extent on your summaration.  Although, I am not the typical Democratic/liberal base you might be solely referring to when you describe the two (so let me know if I'm misinterpreting)..

But just from an Independent (with a leaning toward Republican/conservative ideals), I find Obama to be a breath of fresh air.  On the other hand, our Junior Senator from NY (;-)) has repeatedly turned her back on Democrat issues in favor of recent Republican dogma, yet- being a former Rep myself- that makes her even less appealing to me.  Even so, Obama has shown conviction for the principles most liberals uphold while maintaining an open dialogue with Conservatives and Republicans alike.

While I do disagree with many of Obama's core social issues (say partial-birth abortion or affirmative action), it doesn't make me like him any less.  With Sen. Obama it seems that he is able to make intelligent decisions based off of his own "hardline left ideologies", without the entire exclusion of perspectives from the Right.  In this way, he reminds me more of McCain than Clinton.

But hey, I'm a conservative so what do I know?  ;-)

[Reflex]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, McCain is a worthy second choice after Obama, and should Obama not get through the primaries I do not feel a McCain presidency will be significantly different from an Obama one.  As for Hillary, we can all choose to invent our own narrative for why she has not only voted to support Bush and the Neo-Cons, but why she has argued so strenuously on their behalf over the past seven years, but thats just it, its an invention with zero supporting evidence.  In fact one thing I'd argue is most true about Hillary is her consistancy, she has never wavered, showed any real regret or changed course, its very very difficult for me to buy that this was just her following the will of the people, on many topics(like the Dubai Ports deal) she was at the forefront, fanning the flames personally rather than hanging back and simply following the people's will.  I do not feel it is unfair to call her a hawk, honestly she is roughly the same as Joe Lieberman in both voting record and positions, including the unconditional support of Israel.

[Rocky]

..Who knows, but O and H are really really similar on their stances ON PAPER, but in practice they go about it in completely different ways.  Its why one appeals to moderates and one appeals to hardline left ideologists.

I'd tend to disagree to an extent on your summaration.  Although, I am not the typical Democratic/liberal base you might be solely referring to when you describe the two (so let me know if I'm misinterpreting)..

But just from an Independent (with a leaning toward Republican/conservative ideals), I find Obama to be a breath of fresh air.  On the other hand, our Junior Senator from NY (;-)) has repeatedly turned her back on Democrat issues in favor of recent Republican dogma, yet- being a former Rep myself- that makes her even less appealing to me.  Even so, Obama has shown conviction for the principles most liberals uphold while maintaining an open dialogue with Conservatives and Republicans alike.

While I do disagree with many of Obama's core social issues (say partial-birth abortion or affirmative action), it doesn't make me like him any less.  With Sen. Obama it seems that he is able to make intelligent decisions based off of his own "hardline left ideologies", without the entire exclusion of perspectives from the Right.  In this way, he reminds me more of McCain than Clinton.

But hey, I'm a conservative so what do I know?  ;-)

I agree totally, I think thats why Obama appeals to moderates while Hillary goes after hardcore dem loyalists.  But you are also right, Hillary has voted lately when some stereotypical republican ideas, its an interesting line she is trying to walk, be a hardcore lefty at the same time trying to appear tough on national security.  I think she feels thats the best way to the presidency.  I think we're on the same page!