April 23, 2009

Two hours ago published an article about Obama, and the title was “Obama open to torture memos probe, prosecution”. The president explained in this article that he conceives prosecution against the employee within Bush administration, which ordered CIA to perform torture like apparent drowning, sleep loss and violence. Obama added that it is the Minister of Justice responsibility to decide if there should be any prosecution.
The president had the day before promised that there should be no judicial process against them, he said that these people has only lead orders to project their country. It seems to be an opinion he first shared with the earlier vice-president Dick Chaney, he also defended the hard questioning. According to Chaney it gave him valuable information on the road to stop new terrorist attacks against the USA.
But, Obama has changed his opinion. We already now that Obama’s keyword is Change, in the election he talked about change all the time, and I liked it. But I did not think he would change his opinion over a night. Suddenly he thought that USA had lost the moral compass when the torture was performed.
I think it is quite odd that Obama has apologized so much for USA’s earlier behaviour. Sure, I think that it is important that USA doesn’t appear like an arrogant country, but they shouldn’t be seemed like a weak, feeble-minded and apologizing country either.
I think Barack Obama has made the right desision. The Question according to me is if the methods lead to truthful information or it the people who were tortured confessed everything and just told them what they wanted to hear. Regardless if it was true or not, just to stop the suffering…

When I examined the source I found a number similar aricles in the Internet, with the same information. One of them was (link down below)–+Latest+news

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Arial Unicode MS”; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129023 0;} @font-face {font-family:”\@Arial Unicode MS”; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129023 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} h1 {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:1; font-size:24.0pt; font-family:”Arial Unicode MS”;} h3 {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:3; font-size:13.5pt; font-family:”Arial Unicode MS”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>


Ku Klux Klan vs. barack Obama

April 22, 2009

I have decided to change track in my blog, since I do not find any new and interesting articles about the Guantanamo prisoners. But of course, I will continue to follow Barack Obama in his work and acting. A couple weeks ago, I read an article ( about Ku Klux Klan, a racist organisation that struggles for white supremacy and a society based on awareness of the different races. The article tells us that it is the first time in Klan history that any member of the KKK has ever publicly supported an African American candidate for the presidency. This surprised me, and I think it surprised almost everybody since they actually have a racist direction, and last time I checked was Obama still black. The reason seems to be “that anything or anyone is better than having that “crazy ass bitch” as Hillary Clinton. My first thought was if they really support Obama or if he just is the better alternative?

A couple days ago, I saw a news bill that told me that KKK’s do NOT endorse Barack Obama, in other words a new direction. I decided to search for an article about this on the Internet, since I found this very interesting. I found an article in the Huffington post written of Michael Gene Sullivan. I read that this person is a veteran writer and also a director, when I look at his work I noticed that he have wrote a lot about politic. The Hufflington post is an American liberal news website and aggregated web log. The site has won many prices, for example The Best Politics Blog in 2006 and 2007. It seems like this site is serious so I regard this source as trustworthy. In this article I read a quote from Imperial Grand Wizard Gomer Bath “”Our secret membership just did not feel that Senator Obama was addressing our core values.” He thinks it is missing something in his standpoints, special his standpoints in medical care, which evidently is important for the KKK’s. They want more substance in Obama’s promises. What does this means? Is this something Obama should be scared for? I actually do not think so, but I actually agree a little bit. It feels like that he has promised many things, but I think he rarely tell us how he will solve the problems.


What do you think?

The big question

March 30, 2009

The big question is still, where should they go? It is a question that many newspapers ask, for example the New York Times. Everyone has realized that even if Guatanamo is closed, they don’t mean that the detainees will be released. Instead they discuss in which prison they will be placed. Several state governors have already said that they don’t want the detainees in their own state. According to them they, the detainees will create a risk for terrorism attacks against the state. Some even propose that the old island-prison Alcatraz, as now is a tourist park, should receive them. The confusing is in short big. I think it is quite amusing that the criminals of war like George W Bush, Dick Chaney and Paul Wolfowitz did everything too avoid those people to get a normal legal trial. They created secret CIA-prison where people could be tortured. They were put in Guatanamo so they shouldn’t be comprised of the American legislation. Laws were created to make torture okay. And now ask the White House and the American medias if there are countries whose can take care of this people. I still wonder, why cannot USA take care of them? “We can of course not have dangerous terrorist in our towns” indicate medias. If they are released it signify that authority hasn’t enough proof too prove theft of an ice cream, more less terrorism. If the struggle against terrorism means that all human rights can be ignored, who is the biggest terrorist then? Release the prisoners. Let them chose a country they want to live in. And for everyone who doesn’t find a refuge, it is the American authority’s duty to find a place for him or her in USA. And it EU decides to welcome the prisoners; they must have all the information about them. They must know who they are, if they are guilty and if they really has been put in trail. And they should ask why they couldn’t stay in USA. It should be the demand, no secrets.

I found this article on and the writer is William Glaberson. He often writes about and concentrates on Guatanamo, so it feels like he knows what he talk about. The New York Times is also one of the worlds most respected and extensive new paper. So I really think this is a perfect source.

What should EU do?

March 26, 2009

As I wrote in my past blog contribution, now when Barack Obama enter into the world of presidents he wants to close the Guatanamo base and he wants Europe to take care of a number of prisoners. And now I have read about a series of organizations that support Obama’s idea. One of them is Amnesty International in Brussels.
One of the employees of Amnesty International, Natacha Kazathchkine, says in an article that’s Amnesty International just lies a stone’s throw from the European Parliament and the organization devote a lot of time in this question. She thinks that EU has moral obligations and they must take responsibility over the fifty or sixty persons whose need a country to live in when Guatanamo closes.
Sweden has not take position in this issue; the responsible persons wants to know more before they put their foot down, the question is regarded as complicated, of course. EU tries to have a common position in this question, but every member country can to what ever they want, they mustn’t listen to EU, and this may cause shatter in EU’s countries.
If EU decides to welcome the prisoners, I think they must have all the information about them. They must know who they are, if they are guilty and if they really has been put on trail. And they should ask why they couldn’t stay in the USA. It should be the demand, no secrets. I read that all the prisoners whose going to be released from Guatanamo, are innocent. And because of that, people don’t understand why countries are so worried, but I assume that when you have the responsibility over a country, you are very keen about the security. If the prisoners isn’t a security risk for USA they should stay there, and if they not, they shouldn’t be released. That’s my opinion.
Peter Walker, Mark Tran and agencies

Can USA handle the Guatanamo Bay Naval base?

March 19, 2009

Today I found an interesting page on the Internet, when I searched for information about Barack Obama. The journalist and historian Andy Worthington wrote that Obama has recently request Europe and EU to take care of a number of prisoners from Guatanamo Bay Naval base. Andy Worthington is, as I wrote, a journalist and historian, based in London. He is also the author of The Guatanamo Files, the first book to tell the stories of all the detainees in America’s illegal prison. With that, I consider this source as trustworthy since he is well read in this subject. And this wasn’t something new for me; I have heard Obama’s wish about the prison before.

I found a quote from Sara Ludford, a British baroness who is a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords. She said, “It is time for Europe to muster the political will and help America finally close this shameful chapter of history…digging the Americans out of the hole that they dug themselves into”. I actually think it is remarkable brazenly; it feels like the USA should take care of their mess and not roll over their problems to Europe.
       The reason why I chose this particular story is that I am interested about what Obama means with his key word Change. I did a comprehensive piece of work about him before the election, and one thing I liked about him was that he promised to close Guatanamo, but he never told us how. Is the answer to roll over the problem to other countries, and just say, “This is not only the USA’s responsibility, it is yours to”?  

In point of fact don’t have any expectations on Obama, even though I really think that it is a success for the world that the Americans has chosen an afro-American for president. A view that I probably share with the whole wide world. It perhaps means a great deal for a nation that has characterized of racism before, but a change in the American politic towards the world? No, absolute not yet.