this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
428 points (100.0% liked)

politics

20365 readers
3252 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 77 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you were wondering what you would be doing when Hitler started building concentration camps and loading up the trains...you're doing it right now...

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think I'd be browsing social media in the 1930s.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Newspapers were effectively the lemmy of that time

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They censored the papers. They can't censor the lemmy

[–] deedan06_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

Lemmy is like the few newspapers that fought till the very end. meanwhile the big social medias have all already fallen in line in advance

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

They've trained people so well that they won't even need to.

Technology has improved though, giving us the power to yell at people in the comfort of our homes when the news makes us mad.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 73 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Who else remembers past Presidents campaigning on closing Gitmo, then dropped the subject after getting elected?

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 61 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Obama signed an executive order to close it, but Congress and the legal system slowed it down.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Where is congress and the legal system now?

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

Oh come on you know damn well where it's at.

in the shitter

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

"They go low, we go high"

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Still there... proving, once again, that racism and the love of money is indeed embedded in America's everything

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

90 senators, including Bernie Sanders, rejected Obama's 2009 funding proposal that would've closed the camp. And with good reason. Obama's move would've simply moved the prison onshore while continuing the indefinite detention without trial, potentially legitimizing the practice further and providing a clearer legal precedent.

Yes, he technically tried to "close Guantanamo Bay" but in a way that wouldn't adress the actual reasons people want it closed.

Sanders' statement:

“A number of important questions remain unanswered regarding the rather complicated issue of not just how you close down the facility, but what you do with the prisoners,” he said in part. “In order to answer these questions, President Obama has appointed a high-level committee of top administration officials who will be issuing a report in the coming months. I think that it is prudent to review that plan they develop before we spend $80 million in taxpayer money.”

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] Dashi@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And what would have happened if he did it sooner? They would have kept stalling out out? I believe no matter when he did it out would have needed approval

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then make them be the ones to block it from being shut down. Not try to do it right before leaving office.

And maybe not sign the bill to upgrade it...

https://www.courthousenews.com/obama-signs-bill-expanding-guantanamo/

Plus not like he even closed it with his closing EO

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-gitmo-plan-reaction-219696

[–] Dashi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

That first article quotes Obama trying to close it. From the sounds of it congress attached keeping the base open as a rider to another defense funding bill. That's a common tactic I think

[–] frezik@midwest.social 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

He did start the process sooner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13492

This was issued in 2009. It's obstructed (by the same institutions not obstructing Trump right now), and Obama slowly releases inmates over the next couple of years. What you're linking to there is a "final" plan in 2016 to close it after the prison population of Gitmo had been reduced from 800 to 91.

A final plan that never happened because Trump took office.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago

So dems really haven't learned anything since 2008???

(from my other reply)

Then make them be the ones to block it from being shut down. Not try to do it right before leaving office.

And maybe not sign the bill to upgrade it...

https://www.courthousenews.com/obama-signs-bill-expanding-guantanamo/

Plus not like he even closed it with his closing EO

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-gitmo-plan-reaction-219696

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because it's a very popular issue with the voting public but the voting public doesn't have any recourse if you renege on your campaign promises.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 week ago

I appreciate the sentiment but Brian Thompson wasn't an elected official, let alone POTUS.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] LordLuz@lemmy.today 34 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I cant still understand how americans decided that putting up prisons and managing them should be privatised.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It began in the 1980s, when Republicans went full-throttle into privatization.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Really, it began it's current form when other slavery was outlawed, so states started capturing free slaves for "crimes" and leasing them out to their former owners. It's only a small evolution from there to today.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Slavery is independent of prison ownership. You’re referring to involuntary servitude versus the abolished chattel slavery. Privatization is an additional layer of systemic oppression.

Private prisons may or may not partake in indentured servitude. In addition to participating in the constitutionally protected slavery, they have far more systemic problems than public prisons. The goal is to spend as little as possible to meet minimum legal requirements in order to maximize profit (it’s a business, after all). Many of these for-profit prisons are infrequently or improperly evaluated, leading to far worse conditions than governmentally run prisons. There have also been countless cases of people being denied parole to maintain minimum headcount.

~~Modern private prisons first emerged in 1984 when the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), now known as CoreCivic, was awarded a contract to take over operation of a jail in Hamilton County, Tennessee.~~ See comment below for link to the origins of private prisons.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Fascinating. They’re much older than that of the sources I’ve read. Thanks for the link!

My point about the difference between public vs private prisons being independent of prisons that participate in indentured servitude still stands. One does not imply the other.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Americans dont run the US. Plutocrats run the US.

Its obvious that for profit prisons are in their interest

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

Americans didn't. A few rich ghouls did.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Prison profiteering has been going on since at least when the civil war ended. It's a crucial foundation for the imperial "economy".

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Damon T. Hininger still their CEO? Asking for a friend.

Send more blue shells 🥰

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 week ago

You don't need an offshore camp with nebulous legality for deporting immigrants. There's already somewhere to send them and you don't care if they go free. Pretty damn useful for domestic opponents though.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 week ago

'He's ~~Building~~ Expanding a Concentration Camp'

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 11 points 1 week ago

He's building another* concentration camp

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Belle of the ranch pointed out it costs more at gitmo because you have to ship everyone and everything there.