Obama proposes Indefinite Preventive Detention without trial
Obama proposed a new system of Indefinite Preventive Detention yesterday in his National Security speech that is stunning in its illegality.
Obama is proposing we keep people locked up not for the crimes they have committed and we prove they committed in a court of law, but on the chance that they might commit crimes in the future. There will be no trial, for no crime exists to be charged. There is only the nebulous threat of "future acts" to justify depriving people of their liberty potentially indefinitely.
Is this justice?
Imagine you are picked up off the street for daring to write something provocative in your blog. Perhaps you vaguely threaten to relocate to Afghanistan and work with a humanitarian aid organization there. Unkown to you the humanitarian aid organization might possibly be associated with the Afghan resistence. Perhaps the head of the aid organization is the third cousin twice removed of a suspected warlord causing our march for empire trouble on the border. Based on that alone you could be kept in a cell forever. After all, letting you out of that cell might mean you really would do what you threatened and we can't have that.
Don't think it couldn't happen.
Read here the story of a red crescent worker arrested for perhaps having the phone number of a possibly terror related individual, Take a Walk in Lakhdar Boumediene's Shoes. Our government kidnapped Boumediene, tortured him, kept him in a cell for seven years and seven months, had him sign an agreement not to sue and then deported him last week.
Many men have been swept up off the streets these past eight years not for what they did or said or who they knew and associated with, but based on anonymous and often false accusations from third parties who in return collected bounties equal to several year's wages. Many thousands still languish in our cells around the world with no hope of a hearing or legitimate trial and now Obama is proposing a system that will allow uncharged detainees to be held without trial FOREVER and he wants to make this system "legal." Maybe the DOJ will start producing memos to back Obama up.
Indefinite detention with no trial is unconstitutional and morally abhorrent. Bush would never have been allowed to get away with it and indeed the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights have fought de facto indefinite detention for years now.
So the question now is will Obama worship, unthinking partisanship, and irrational fear rule the day and allow this grotesque new proposal to come (officially and quasi-legally) into existence?
You who think Obama cannot do wrong (hope! change!) despite the growing number of civilian corpses and refugees in Af/Pak due to his policies need to start paying more attention to what he is really doing and saying.
On this issue Obama is proving that the new boss may in fact be worse than the old boss.
If you don't believe Obama really plans to lock people up potentially forever for "future crimes," Rachel Maddow lays it all out coherently and eloquently in the Youtube clip above which includes footage of Obama proposing and justifying this new system of indefinite preventive detention.
The ACLU doesn't miss a trick and their Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero, has already responded:
"We welcome President Obama's stated commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law and the unequivocal rejection of torture. But unlike the president, we believe that continuing with the failed military commissions and creating a new system of indefinite detention without charge is inconsistent with the values that he expressed so eloquently at the National Archives today."
From the NY Times article on Obama's speech: “It is very troubling that he (Obama) is intent on codifying in legislation the Bush policies of indefinite detention without charge,” Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said after the speech. “That simply flies in the face of established American legal principle.”
Other sources - Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan (NY Times), Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some (Washington Post), CCR: Obama Embraces Indefinite Detention, Not Meaningfully Different From Bush (TPM), Obama in Bush Clothing (Washington Post), Terror suspects face indefinite detention after Guantánamo (Financial Times), Facts and myths about Obama's preventive detention proposal (Glenn Greenwald of Salon), Is Obama creating "an American Gulag?" (Joan Walsh of Salon).
Full text of Obama's speech on National Security (21 May 2009, NY Times)
FOR ODETTEROULETTE and those who wish to do something, here is the number to the White House comment line:
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
TTY/TDD
Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitors Office: 202-456-2121
You can email him an ear eye full at this contact site.
There are protests planned for the 28th of May and OSer Jill McLaughlin has the informations and links in her blog, Breaking News: U.S. Citizens Hate Torture, Acting to Stop It.
Transcript of the YouTube clip (I typed this out by ear and it is rough - so no bitching) Maddow sums up the horror in the last paragraph:
Maddow: We will begin tonight with a tale of two speeches, both from the same man, both from President Obama. One speech that could have been billed as a ballad to the contsitution, a proclamation of American values, a repudiation of the lawless behavior of the last presidention administration. And another speech annoucing a radical new claim of presidential power that is not afforded by the constitution and has never been attempted in American history even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Remarkably President Obama today made both of those speeches simultaneously.
Standing inside the national Archives in front of the actual original constitution, Predident Obama delivered a blistering critique of theBush administration in which he called their actions and their legacy literally a mess.
Clips from Obama's speech yesterday: Our government made a series of hasty decisions. ... Poorly planned haphazard approach. ...too often we set those principles aside as luxories we could not afford. Our government made decisions based on fear, rather than foresight. The decisions that were made over the past eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable.
Maddow: "...An ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable." Ouch! Then moments later he announced his own, his own ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism.
President Obama today proposed something new. Something called prolonged detention. Doesn't sound that bad, right? Prolonged detention.
Did you ever see the movie Minority Report? It was based on a Philip K Dick short story. Came out in 2002 and starred Tom Cruise. Remember? He played a police officer in something called the Department of Pre-Crime. Pre-Crime is where peole are arrested and incarceratated to prevent crime they have not yet committed.
(Clip from Minority Report where Tom Cruise character arrests a man for a murder that is to be committed in the future. Man cries, but I haven't done anything.)
Maddow: You didn't do anything, but you're gonna. Future murder. Creepy, right? Putting somebody in jail not for what they have done, but for what you're very sure they are going to do.
Clip from Obama's speech: There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes. In some cases because evidence may be tainted but who none-the-less pose a threat to the security of the United States.
Maddow: We're not prosecuting them for past crimes, but we need to keep them in prison because of our expectation of their future crimes.
Clip from Obama's speech: Al Queda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States and those that we capture like other prisoners of war must be prevented from attacking us again.
Maddow: Prevented. We will incarcerate people preventively. Preventive incarceration. Indefinite detention without trial. That's what this is. That is what Obama proposed today if you strip away the euphamisms.
One civil liberties advocate told the New York Times today quote, "We've known this was on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama Administrtion over these powers is really stunning."
And it is stunning. Particularly to hear President Obama claim the power to keep people in prison indefinately with no charges against them, no conviction, no sentence, just imprisonment. It's particularly stunning to hear him make that claim in the middle of a speech that was all about the rule of law.
Clip from Obama's speech: We must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law. ...our government was defending positions that undermine the rule of law. ...to ensure they are in line with the rule of law.
Maddow: How can a president speak the kind of poetry that P resident Obama does about the rule of law and call for the power to indefinitely preventively imprison people because they might committ crimes in the future. How can those two things co-exist in the same man, even in the same speech?
Well that brings us to the self-consciously awkward embarrassing part of this speech today. After condeming the Bush administration for what he called their ad hoc legal strategy for trying to make things seem legal that patently weren't, this is what President Obama proposed.
Clip of Obama Speech: That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. ...We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified. ...our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.
Maddow: You'll construct a legal regime to make indefinite detention legal. You will... what does he say? Develop an appropriate legal regime so you can construct a whole new system outside the courts even outside the military comissions so you can indefinitely imprison people without charges. And you will build that system from scratch. What's that somebody said about ad hoc legal strategies?
Just for context here in the United Kingdom where there isn't even a bill of rights, there has been a major debate about whether people can be held in preventive detention. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted three months to be the outer limit for how long anyone could be held. There was a big political fight about it. Parliament ended up limiting that power to 28 days. 28 days is still the longest period of preventive detention that's allowed under law in any comparable democracy anywhere in the world
How long would President Obama's proposed indefinite detention last? He's not saying yet, but here is how he's defining the threat he says makes indefinite detention necessary.
Clip of Obama's speech: Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- 10 years from now.
Maddow: Ten years from now? So you could get arrested today and locked up without a trial without being convicted without being sentenced for say ten years until the threat of your future criminal behavior passes? Prolonged detention he's calling it.
This was a beautiful speech from President Obama today with patriotic even moving language about the rule of law and the constitution and one of the most radical proposals for defying the constitution we have ever heard made to the American people.
____________________
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Peter Breschard
Judy Mandelbaum
Jason M. Wester
David Cox
Colin Morley
Jules Mopper
Salon.com
Comments
The vapid and vacuous comments I hear from some here make me feel they should get thyselves to the nunnery as soon as they finish their next round of golf.
Either that or visit their eye, ear, nose, and throat specialist of choice ASAP.
(rated)
I'm not surprised at all, but there is a small part of me that wishes he would defy my low expectations and so the right thing.
I like Maddow. She is the only anchor to catch the indefinite preventive detention so far. Or at least the only one I've run across as I troll the internet.
Yeah, BBE, Olbermann missed it entirely.
Just the words preventive detention is scary enough.
Pretty soon wewill be doing dna tests for future criminals. Abort them or lock them up at birth.
Good, well written post here BBE.
A++
Obama is much more puzzling. Considering his childhood and background he should be doing the exact opposite of what he is doing on some issues. I'm almost beginning to wonder if someone has some major dirt on him and is using it to "keep him in line".
Welcome to the real world.
Fear is a currency that's not going away though. We know these wars we are perpetuating and the wholesale greed we are fostering are things that rot the soul. Guilty souls cannot escape feeling fear.
You are losers who deserve the kind of government your petty nipping leads to.
But I think that people with brains...a true sense of proportion...and a notion of reasonability...
...realize that all you are...are snake oil salepeople peddling snake oil.
Like yourself, I had low expectations for Obama coming in--after all he did promise to increase military spending during the campaign and supported all the banking and corporate bailouts last year--but this defies belief. I thought he was a Republican-Lite before, now I'm starting to think he's a Republican Heavy.
Obama is much more dangerous because everyone knew Bush was an asshole. Obama is so beloved he can get away with inhumanity like this.
Also notice how Obama made this speech right before Memorial Day Weekend. People are so busy planning their cookouts and getaways that it will be forgotten come Tuesday.
As Obama states: "We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. ...We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified. ...our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."
In a nutshell, here you have the essence of Obama. He differs from Bush and Cheney in that he wants to have a legit looking cover for what he's doing, whereas B and C are much more open about it.
Before he took office and there were stories about the discussions going on within his camp about what to do about Gitmo and about the problem of detainees who've been tortured, I wondered how he would end up handling this. We now have an answer. (For those who still can't see these policies for what they are, I can only say that I have land on the Moon I can offer you for a very low price. Lots of room to expand. No noisy neighbors!)
With the Constitution as his backdrop while he undoes what he claims to uphold, what better picture can we have for this pretender?
I vote we move directly to how do we/can we stop this from happening and forget about voicing our disappointment/yelling at each other. How do we/can we stop this from happening? Is it possible?
It's my experience that, when an announcement like this is made, the wheels are already fully in motion. How do we stop it? What can we do?
We can't wait until another election cycle, that's for sure. We have to do something now. I'm not sure letters will work, to the White House anyway. Mine are never even answered with a form letter.
I'm really really tired of being afraid of my government.
Rated - Nauseating
As for Pakistan: it is a war crime under int'l law to launch attacks on sovereign nations that have not attacked you first. That is what Obama is doing there with the drone attacks.
He works for American interests. American interests do not equal human rights or the rule of law. Americnan Presidents do that kind of thing, anyone who thought it would be different was smoking from the Axelrod bong.
Politicians suck - every single one of them. Suddenly, I feel like hosting a tea party...
Rated, rated and rated. Nice job, BBE.
And your attempts to justify an illegal war are laughable. Why don't you write a nice blog about it?
This like many others has been misrepresented. When the Pakistani government has control of the routes, it's hard to consider it an illegal war. Though I do retract my saying we have absolutely no military presence to say that we have a absolutely no ground presence and a minimal joint air presence.
I don't like Obama's proposed continuation of indefinite incarceration. I completely disagree with it. It's just frustrating to see a comment like the Af/Pak one thrown in as a complete non sequiter.
I, REPUBLICAN Sayeth ... so it must be 21% true
But then, I wouldn't want to engage in such tactics as that, so I will address others of your comments:
You say that this is purely a conflict in Pakistan between the Pakistani military and the Taliban, who you say can't be negotiated with. The US, presumably, has nothing to do with any of this? We don't funnel weapons and $ into Pakistan and we don't have any say so over what's going on? We are merely funneling millions and millions to them and not asking anything in return. This is extremely naive of you to say. You might want to take a look at US presidential press conferences and in light of that reconsider your remarks.
As for whether the Taliban can be negotiated with: the notion that someone is beyond the pale and can't be negotiated with is the kind of tact that Bush and Cheney and the neocons took and take and is primitive thinking. Even they aren't so stupid as to believe their own rhetoric on this. They said that because it suited their purposes of waging war, not because they really think that someone can't be negotiated with. In diplomacy anyone can be negotiated with. Anyone. To think and advocate otherwise is sheer childishness.
If you study the Af/Pak conflicts and history you will see that the Taliban was promoted (and Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda) by US policies in the region. The departure that you say the US is trying to "rectify" now is you misreading history and current affairs. US policy is carrying forward with the same "mistake" of doing things that promote the Taliban and related reactionary forces.
An understanding of Zardari is necessary to this equation. They protest, and at the same time issue quotes from security and military heads of cooperation and direction of the Drone attacks. Zardari is known as Mr. 10% for a reason. He is known for agreeing to a lot under the table while publicly denouncing it, while simultaneously taking 10% off the top, hence the nickname. Much of it was a play to get the US to sell predator drones to the Pakistani military, they are still trying but have settled into more open agreements.
The idea, however, that Pakistan is "controlling the routes" and that this makes US actions there not an illegal war is wrong. Pakistan's leaders (let alone its people) have objected strenuously to the US's military strikes.
Further, there is an inextricable link between the indefinite detentions and these illegal wars. They are like the connection between a wound and the blood that comes flowing out of it. They are all of a piece.
Take it for snark if you like, but truthfully your comments are making my point for me.
We arrest people all the time for making viable threats to do harm. We can lock a person up for 72 hours for being "perceived" to be a "harm" to self or to others.
And no one but me, months ago, has paid attention to the unlawful detention, torture, and abuse in our own prisons and juvenile detention facilities. I just can't believe this.
This henny penny attitude of listening to half of what is being said has to stop, and we need to understand that the detainees are being provided more access to the legal system than they ever have been afforded.
We don't have the full story. This situation is beset with land mines, and unforeseen consequences, due to an era of such despicable secrecy and illegal actions. We've only begun to unravel the situation.
And now we want to act as if the detainees are completely innocent and innocuous potential immigrant contributors to our society? Let the man do his job, please.
Then they turned on us due to our failure to build infrastructure and in essence an abandonment of the "end game" as Charlie Wilson put it. After the covert war during the 1980s the afghan's were subjected to horrible conditions under our watch because of failure to build infrastructure and facilities for the main population. The average age in the country post-Russian Invasion was under 18, a time when education could have strongly influenced the countries direction. Instead we abandoned ship congratulated ourselves on beating the Russians and let everything go to hell. Since we created that problem and now it has turned against us, I would say yes, helping the afghans build a stable government and building long overdue infrastructure would be rectifying part of our problem.
I don't attempt to claim that we did not have a hand in propagating this based on cold war policies. Those were huge mistakes of the past, but I feel that had we not gotten entangled in Iraq and focused efforts on Afghanistan we could have rectified some of those mistakes.
And if we have so much control over our aid and what is done? Why is 70% of it missing, 5.4 billion dollars in aid just up and vanished in pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/27/pakistan.usa)? Why are billions sent to Israel so it can directly undermine American discussion with Iran by attempting to push for aggressive action?
I am also aware of the garbage that is our prison system and the need for reform especially in the area of drug sentencing and legalization, but you can't use that as an excuse for Obama wiping his ass with the constitution.
Did you read what Obama said in is speech? He wants to lock people up forever with no trial. Think about that.
On the other side of the table, the legal justification they are making is that the people they are holding aren't US citizens (or at least they aren't supposed to be) and therefore not bound by the constitution. Unfortunately, this is true so long as the detainees aren't US citizens.
(yes, yes, I know this is all hypothetical and that indeed there have been US citizens held during the Bush Era. But, In a legal sense that isn't relevant unless there are US citizens there now)
so basically, Hypocrisy: In the extreme! Legality: They are probably going to be able to cover their collective butts on this one.
i really hope that's not true, and obama is a whole lot better than the previous motherfucker, but he needs to begin disavowing the shit bush, did not reinforcing it.
It would appear as I read what the President is doing is that he is going to continue detention (the Bush policy) pending the passage of legislation. So there is no change de facto from one Administration to the next. The question is whether if Congress does not past a law will he still detain indefinitely. It looks like he would and unless Congress passed a law ordering him to stop, which would be highly unlikely, he could continue to detain.
All that could possibly stop him would be a legal case taken on behalf of the detainees that went to the Supreme Court and wall upheld. Even if the Court held against him, he could spend time appealing that decision, all the while the detainees would still be in prison.
We may forget that there are still hundreds of Haitians rotting in our prisons who were denied asylum over a decade ago when they tried to get here by boat. I am pretty sure that they are still in prison. I am also pretty sure that there are also such detainees from other countries who have tried to enter the US who are held indefinitely in our prisons. The difference is that we have long ago forgotten about them.
Monte
The thing with those Haitians is they're black and poor and we're paying a private prison corporation millions of dollars to keep them locked up. When bad stuff happens to black (and brown) people most Americans don't care. Especially when there is money to be made.
This kind of 'bipartisanship' is just bull f*cking sh*t. Somebody needs to wake Obama up. You can't appease the right with this sort of half-ass bipartisanship. They hate bipartisanship in their own ranks even. What makes you think they'll appreciate a 'bipartisan' gesture from the other side?
Did Obama have to be elected? I realize that the geezer and the bimbo would have been worse but now I and many others might be asking 'How much worse'... Well, not seriously but jeez...
Obama has a lot of explaining to do. And I got smacked down by an extremely pro-Obamanoid. All he needs to do is roll on the environment and we'd all be better off without him...
I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people... Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded... That’s why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law.
There's the problem, in a nutshell. If the standards for detention policies are in line with the rule of law, then they can't lead to a predetermined outcome. The Republicans (and the moderates and a good number of Democrats) are going to scream if Obama does the right thing and lets people go that the government can't prove it should detain. This could bring down his Presidency. Given the system of justice that we have, though, we don't put people in jail forever unless we can prove that that's an appropriate punishment. If torture--I'm sorry, I mean "tainted evidence"--has been a factor in someone's having been locked up, that's just too bad for us. We'll have to try to keep an eye on those people in the future. And we'll have to try to avoid putting Republicans in positions of power. But as I understand it, habeas corpus rights go back to the Magna Carta. We can't just chuck them away out of fear.
US policy is horribly affected by the cold war. All of this is an extension of cold war mentality in the US system. We still feel that we are fighting a grand enemy and create policy as such. Essentially, we trample on smaller countries because we can in an effort to make headway against Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has become our new Russia. Our policy has been dictated by the idea of perimeter defense since NS-23 was approved by Truman. Iraq is the perfect example for the extension of that policy. We have turned international politics into a game of Us versus Them and have taken an entirely 'realist' approach to diplomatic relations. I had had hope that Obama would deviate from this policy and take a more constructivist approach and recognize that the "structure" proposed by neorealists is a sham and that social structure in foreign countries should be analyzed on an individual level rather than trying to fit everything into a mold.
In the end, our war in Afghanistan and by proxy our involvement in the affairs of Pakistan have become horrendously tainted by these policies, especially Iraq. Iraq has destroyed the legitimacy for our presence in the region. I think we could have actually done good things for Afghanistan had we not gotten tangled in an illegal war sold with false goods for the purpose of revenge and policy that should have long been dead. Had we immediately begun infrastructure construction in Afghanistan we had a chance of actually being able to establish a stable system and maybe actually promote some good will with countries around the world. However, this has all been thrown away because of our reliance on a policy that is antiquated and was not even truly appropriate for its time.
Furthermore, the policy has also caused a degradation of our principles and values. We are willing to play legal tricks to get around abiding by our own constitution in all cases. We pass supporting unconstitutional domestic spying programs(patriot act), they place heavy pressure on corporations(particularly ISPs) to give up private information about citizens who are supposed to be protected by the right to privacy.
Honestly, I don't know how to get rid of this policy. It has become entrenched in the American mindset and is funded by lobbyists and PACs. We can hope that if we can actually bring reform within the country our foreign policy will also begin to change. But, I don't count on it, particularly when I don't see much reform of the government system.
Rated and dugg.
One of the things I am fast coming to despise about liberal America…is what I see as a new-found tendency to see everything in simplistic terms just like the conservatives.
Obama is walking a fucking tightrope stretched across a chasm miles deep. He CANNOT just make all these moves you people are advocating without careful small steps in that direction. If he tries to do it the way you geniuses keep insisting that he do…he will galvanize a considerable segment of society in opposition to his efforts…AND THEY WILL FAIL.
He will not make the mistake Hillary did, for instance, when she wanted to do the medical insurance for everyone thing the way she wanted to do it.
SHIT IS GOING TO HAPPEN! You have got to realize that shit is going to happen. Enemies…people who loathe us…are going to try to attack us. ANY SUCCESS they have will be attributed to the moves Obama is making away from the moves the scum have been making during the last eight years.
He has got to move deliberately…and carefully.
HE IS DOING THAT!
GIVE HIM THE GODDAM TIME AND SPACE TO TRY TO GET THE JOB DONE…in a way that MAY eventually meet many of the objectives you have. To try to do it your way, in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of Obama), may very well lead to less chance of the objectives being met.
Give him the space and time to try to do things his way!
Stop piling on him.
Be supportive…because if ever a leader needed support from the country…Obama does right now.
Suck up to people like BBE and Dennis Loo if you hate humanity and our country...but don't kid yourself about what is going on here. If you back these people constantly nipping at Obama's heels...you are doing a disservice to our country...and by extension, to the entire world. TO HUMANITY.
rated
I just had an email exchange with a like-minded friend about some of these issues, and we were talking about process vs. outcome.
Clearly, not even the current occupant-- a constitutional scholar-- is able or willing to trust the process of our democracy (or republic) and its judiciary.
* * *
We always get back to means and ends. Process is the means, which cannot be justified by any outcome or ends. The means always determine the ends.
That phone number didn't work.
From the Whitehouse contact site:
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
TTY/TDD
Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitors Office: 202-456-2121
You may be correct in asserting that there a few choices that the president has in reality and none of them are that great. Even the president himself said that when decisions get to him all the options are bad. If the decision was easy to make, someone else would have done it. But I think that you are misconstruing some members utter frustration with this situation and how it reflects on our country with a desire to stand in the president's way to doing his job. As far as I can tell, no one here is impeding the progress of the president in enacting his policy. He seems to be chugging along just fine.
We believed in a man who we thought would really change the way that Washington and our federal government operates. From what we have seen so far, however, despite the fact that he did inherit a very shitty situation, it looks like we got duped.
I'll be the first to admit that I hope that I'm wrong. I truly hope that this man has a plan where in the end the rule of law as we knew it will come out ahead, but it's just very hard to see. And coming from a culture where one of the most important traits we are allowed to posses is skepticism, I don't blame people for using it here.
It says defend and protect the Constitution.
It doesn't say when I get around to it because I am busy with other matters (and frank apisa says you should give me time).
You look around at all the people here, and you say we are ALL losers.
Only frank apisa sh*t understands what is going on.
What an arrogant old goat you are. Any high school civics student would understand what a travesty we are perpetrating on the principals of CONSTITUTIONAL government, but I guess civics is not the focus at bartending school.
Try reading for a change - read the Constitution itself - read the origins and meanings of habeas corpus and what it means.
Put away your comic books before we call the city office of Piscataway and tell them the village idiot whom they are searching for has been found, right here, in the pages of OS..
What a freakin' tool.
You are losers who deserve the kind of government your petty nipping leads to.
Frank: Calling people names is more effective when you actually include evidence to support your ad hominem attacks, something you neglected to do.
And, I would be interested to have you demonstrate how our "petty nipping" *leads* to a government that existed before the nipping took place. I think you're missing the fact that our nipping is in *response* to actions by the government.
Have a nice day, Frank.
It looks like ocularnervosa went to the same school of logic as Frank. You're arguing by assertion, oc. Evidence supporting the assertion is usually considered a necessary part of a counterpoint.
Which reminded me of this:
Best Lead Sentence In A Book Review:
"A Reference Work About The Vietnam War That Locates Saigon In Indonesia Suggests Rather Limited Usefulness." -Journal Of American History June 1999, P. 320
In my not so humble opinion, *wanting to believe* in a politician is a voter's first and worst mistake. I think we can judge people by their actions. On that basis, Obama is neither a good nor righteous man. He had proved that with his FISA vote, among other things, even before he was elected.
Language note: taliban is a plural, thus they ARE "actively trying to acquire territory ..."
That the situation existed is irrelevant. He was handed two semi-official (if not legal) wars and Pakistan. Does he get slack for continuing Iraq, for expanding Afghanistan, for killing people n Pakistan from 7500 miles away in Nevada? Should we give him space to keep torturing people for a while?
What he does is his choice, thus his responsibility.
Well here's an idea, why don't you read the actual transcript of the speech rather than relying upon the carefully edited version of a political pundit.
So again, what's your plan.
Ok. So what is your reading of the entire speech? What do you make of his position on holding detainees indefinitely? That's not a carefully edited segment, any more than saying the First Amendment is an edited segment of the Bill of Rights.
But I think that people with brains...a true sense of proportion...and a notion of reasonability...
...realize that all you are...are snake oil salepeople peddling snake oil."
Look into the mirror frank - look carefully, and then try and convince yourself that this isn't you:
Narcissists:
"narcissism isn't just a combination of monumental self-esteem and rudeness. As a personality type, it ranges from a tendency to a serious clinical disorder, encompassing unexpected, even counterintuitive behavior.
The beauty of being a narcissist is that even when disaster stares you in the face, you feel neither doubt nor remorse.
Most people tend to protect their partner, sharing either the credit or the blame. "But the narcissists would say, 'It's totally the other person's fault.' They're completely willing to step on someone," says narcissism researcher Keith Campbell, associate professor of social psychology at the University of Georgia.
Intensely narcissistic people often live tumultuous lives, as few people can tolerate them for long
A narcissist can be hard to identify . . . in part because you wouldn't think someone with such self-regard could be so defensive and needy.
Campbell found that narcissists' need for power and autonomy leads them to shun commitment—and to cheat.
When you've built a life on falsehoods, it's hard to grapple with questions that everyone faces, like the meaning of life. The needle's stuck on "I'm wonderful," and your personality doesn't allow you to grow—to change your behavior or attitudes in response to life's challenges."
We arrest people all the time for making viable threats to do harm. We can lock a person up for 72 hours for being "perceived" to be a "harm" to self or to others.
Thee operative part of the previous sentence is "72 hours." Obama is a constitutional school. How long do we give him to determine that indefinite is illegal?
"This henny penny attitude of listening to half of what is being said has to stop, and we need to understand that the detainees are being provided more access to the legal system than they ever have been afforded."
What was the half we didn't hear, zum? I read the whole speech and I don't remember any part of it that flies in the face of what BBE said.
"We don't have the full story."
That's what was said about Nixon in Vietnam and the Iran-Contra illegalities. And though it wasn't true then, it is now being done in the full light of day: indefinite detention carried out under a "new, improved" legal system.
"This situation is beset with land mines, and unforeseen consequences, due to an era of such despicable secrecy and illegal actions. We've only begun to unravel the situation."
The situation was unravelled, actually, from the beginning: the war in Afghanistan was illegitimate because al Qaeda is a non-state actor that didn't need the Taliban to support their plot. Iraq was a criminal war created out of lies that Bush/Cheney *subsequently* tried to justify by using torture to get false confessions/information. People have been kidnapped and imprisoned since, at least, the Clinton regime and B/C added torture to the mix. I could go on, but I'll ask you a question, zum: What *are* the landmines? We know only too well that the unforeseen consequences are the free recruiting posters the government's actions have provide al Qaeda.
"And now we want to act as if the detainees are completely innocent and innocuous potential immigrant contributors to our society? Let the man do his job, please."
Speaking of selective hearing (or reading): "Two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office ." So, all those folks were innocent, not to mention the 17 Uighurs who have no where to go, hence are continuing there Cuban vacation. Plus, here is what Obushma said about the people left and what he intends to do about them:
"we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders ..."
You'll notice that he doesn't say he will do anything within our legal system to have this happen, as he affirms a little later.
"whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts ..."
Since when is a trial something which happens "if feasible"?
"The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions." The whole issue of who falls into this category is very fuzzy—purposely made so by Bush, et al.
"We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay." But, hearsay will still be allowed in military commissions, something that is NOT part of our judicial system.
"These reforms, among others, will make our military commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice ..." Not a hard thing to do, but still not truly credible due to those pesky ri;es of evidence that will be removed.
"finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. ... I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people ..." How, exactly is this "standard" determined? Remember, 2/3 of the Guantanamo detainees have already been released as innocent. These are the same people who were "the worst of the worst."
"We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category." Well, at least clear.
zum continues: I know that was harsh, but I just wish that we could support the president and have a little trust that, when he is able, he will do the right thing."
I too dearly wish I could support the president. But I can't. He's complicit in war crimes and is now taking on the wars and the indefinite, "preventative" detentions as his own.
"when he is able, he will do the right thing." Meanwhile, back in the original Gulag: "I'm sure that when Uncle Joe finds out about this, he will free us all!"
Want to still give Obama the "benefit of the doubt"? Okay here's what may have happened. The person(s) who wrote the speeches inserted some of Cheney's speech (prolonged/indefinite detention) into Obama's speech. A simple "cut and paste" mistake! I hope you know I'm joking. There was no mistake. Obama did not stutter.
Mark it down - MAY 21st, 2009 - The Day Democracy Died - unfortunately, this is NO JOKE.
Rated and Dugg.
Charge them. For the ones whose charges stand up to scrutiny, put them on trial. If they're guilty convict them. If they're not, release them, apologize for torturing them, and make what recompense is possible.
As for those who have died in US custody through torture or despair leading to suicides: there is no way to make up for that other than to repudiate what has been done, prosecute those responsible, beginning with Bush and Cheney, and stop all of it NOW.
Those who, like a broken record, keep saying that we need to give Obama time remind me of those Jews in Germany who kept saying to themselves, "it can't get any worse," until the Nazis came to their doors or stopped them on the streets, grabbed them, and shoved them into trucks to be shipped to concentration camps.
If you allow civil liberties and the law to be overriden because you're afraid, then you have opened the floodgates to any and all tyrants to do what they will with you and others. Even if you believe that Obama isn't such a tyrant (because you haven't been paying close enough attention to what he is doing), then believe this: the next president or the one after that will not be so kind and will be able to do what they want because when the law was being dismantled and when unjust and immoral and monstrous things were being done in the name of "safety" and "security," people stood by and let it happen.
Liberty is not for the cowards and criminally ill-informed. Liberty is for those willing to stand up for principle in the face of danger and threat. Liberty isn't just for quiet times. Liberty is for the times of peril. Those who stand up for liberty deserve liberty. Those who don't and will look the other way in the face of injust and barbarity like torture, deserve to live under tyrants.
You are doing a bang up job of trashing Barak Obama—of making his job as difficult as possible. You are doing a superb job of offering as little support and understanding for him in these difficult decisions. You are doing such a good job—and in such force, I would not be surprised if he is fatally damaged.
Not really sure of your motivation. I would guess that some of you are malicious and mean to do him harm because you truly loathe him. I would guess that some of you are simply fools—steadying the hands of people trying to slit your throats.
Whichever, you have my respect and congratulations for your determination—and for the efficacy of your efforts.
You did your homework??? You think he's ABOUT to make a horrible decision. What about the heaps of horrible decisions he's already made, and the number of times he's reneged on his campaign promises?
I note you haven't made any comments since January.
I eagerly await your next bi-yearly report on your homework.
Someone, please wake me when this dingbat next returns.
What did you people really expect? When a man's campaign slogan can be summed up on a bumper sticker (Let's all hear it for Hope and Change!), it's clearly going to be business as usual.
Next time, if you want a president that actually might give you hope and change, vote for, or write in, Ron Paul.
If you actually read the entire speech you will see that he didn't say that, this is Rachel Maddows spin slicing out portions of the speech and only playing the few sentences she can spin the way she wants.
Heres the link for you.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22825.html
Check out page three.
Good going.
Hopefully the OS people will be able to create this kind of buzz from now on.
Congrats!
I can't believe one president is more important to you than this. Also, damn, y'all. This is the United States. Obama is not our damned daddy. We're SUPPOSED to say when we see a problem. Hello? Not sit idly by trusting our good daddies in Congress and the White House (and one or two mommies) do it for us. The time to stop sheeping around is freaking now. Damn.
The sheer thought that he wants to create a "new regime" with a SOLE PURPOSE of detaining people who MIGHT someday commit crimes scares the living shit out of me.
I hope he turns from this course. I'm not sure what to think of Obama right now; he's disappointed me so much on many issues since he's taken office. The don't ask/don't tell thing, this...
Sigh.
Check on return rate for prisoners already let go from detention. It is high.
I have sympathy for the innoscent held, but not for those who were in any way responsible to the death of American solidiers or any civilians of any nationality.
It could be we cannot prosecute and convict.
Maybe a new system or inquiry is needed.
Ocularnervosa refers us to page three of Obama’s speech, but the most important part is actually on page four:
Here it is unedited from page four of Obama’s speech:
“Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
“Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
“I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.“
Obama is referring in this section to those who he says he won’t release and he won’t try them in court or in a military commission.
What in this that Obama says is it that you are saying he didn’t say?
But let's put that aside for crying out loud. Must we argue over semantics? Let's start calling and writing and begging and making ourselves the squeaky wheel. How is this a bad thing? It's a GOOD thing to disagree. It's an especially good thing when the sitting president is thinking about making sweeping changes to our Constitution that have to do with search, seizure, speedy trial and so on. Come on. We cannot sit around and let this happen! I get that these people are dangerous. That is not the point. We have to remember what freedom is about. It's dangerous. It's hard to have. It's hard to keep.
Ben Franklin is quoted as writing "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
He was right.
even those unhappy with the 'current occupants' of the seats of power can see no farther than putting a new face in the seat. the ascension of obama is a particularly clear example of the fatuity of that solution.
until the resisters break through to understanding the need to transfer power to the people, nothing will be done or can be done.
i have been trying to explain this for 40 years with no success. either i'm crazy, or americans are admiring the emperor's new clothes. every facet of american society screams out corruption, inefficiency, arrogance of power, all lightly masked with pleasant hypocrisy. so i'll stick with the notion i'm right, you're all wrong.
it's not good enough to say obama is crooked. i knew that before i knew his name. you should have too, if you weren't blinded by the reverence for your 'betters' in politics.
you have to actually do something. not talk, not complain, not protest. you have to act:
send an email to every politician: "i will not vote for you or your party until you establish citizen initiative," and tell newspapers and political blogs what you're doing and why.
this could lead to a non-violent transfer of power to the people. the result will not be paradise, but it will prevent dictatorship.
good luck, but i have years of experience that have finally convinced me americans are slaves to custom, unable to resist the lies of politicians. just not citizen quality people.
"you get the government you deserve," is absolutely right. crooked politicians are just the scum-crust on ignorant passive taxcows.
Che was such a visionary, he helped create the notorious peligrosidad predelictiva law ("dangerousness likely to leading to crime"); which predated Tom Cruz's job in the movie "Minority Report". Like Minority Report, where a special police department called "Precrime" apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge provided by 3 psychics before any crime is actually committed; all you have to be arrested for in Cuba is your likelihood to commit a crime. Beaten, torture, labor camps, death.
Et tu, Obama? rated.
Let's start calling and writing and begging and making ourselves the squeaky wheel. How is this a bad thing? It's a GOOD thing to disagree. It's an especially good thing when the sitting president is thinking about making sweeping changes to our Constitution that have to do with search, seizure, speedy trial and so on. Come on. We cannot sit around and let this happen! I get that these people are dangerous. That is not the point. We have to remember what freedom is about. It's dangerous. It's hard to have. It's hard to keep.
Ben Franklin is quoted as writing "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
He was right.
From Dennis Loo:
Liberty is not for the cowards and criminally ill-informed. Liberty is for those willing to stand up for principle in the face of danger and threat. Liberty isn't just for quiet times. Liberty is for the times of peril. Those who stand up for liberty deserve liberty. Those who don't and will look the other way in the face of injust and barbarity like torture, deserve to live under tyrants.
Yes, thank you both.
Someone elese already got appalled at you, but gave no details. I'll do that:
Before the election:
Obama's economic team included Robert Rubin, the man who encouraged Bill Clinton successfully to support the overthrowing of Glass-Seagall leading directly to the economic disaster we are all experiencing now.
He voted for the bailout giving hundreds of billions to the very people who destroyed our economy.
He promised to filibuster the bill that destroyed FISA and the Fourth Amendment and then voted for it.
He campaigned for Joe Lieberman after Lieberman was defeated by a real Democrat in the CT primary.
He condemned MoveOn for its newspaper ad criticizing Gen. Petraeus.
He trashed Wesley Clark after Clark said that McCain's war service didn't prepare him for an executive position—the executive position.
Obama supported the Supreme Court decision overthrowing Washington, D.C.'s gun ban.
After the election:
The rest of his economic team: Larry Summers, a Rubin acolyte; Timothy Geithner, a corrupt member of the bankster class.
He refuses to investigate the myriad crimes of the Bush regime, wanting to "look forward" instead of holding all Americans accountable under the rule of law.
He stated that he would not give back the expanded executive powers that Bush claimed and the Congress, including Obama, did nothing to stop.
He expanded the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan including the killing of people (at a rate of 20 civilians to each combatant) by drones controlled from Nevada.
He raised the Pentagon budget.
He continues to direct his DoJ toblocklaw suits based on the fraudulent—and repeatedly overturned—premise that state secrets can prevent entire suits from being filed.
There's more but I'm heading over to a friend's for dinner.
Keep believing.
A pox upon your house, you who so willingly allow YOUR Constitution to be shred and in Your name.
One of Your crew from Tampa recently tried to squirm out of responsibility by saying who could tell in 2002 bla bla bla.
I told him then, and I tell you now, some of us knew, just as the majority within this post know NOW (and in most cases long ago).
Too bad, that by the time marla. et al. wakes up from her arduous homework assignments, there will be thousands of more civilian dead and the killing will have been perpetrated in your names, ye heathen few.
And frank, the next time you accuse people of conscience of being traitors, I have three choice letters for you GFY and that does NOT mean good for you.
Frank, it’s difficult to understand how a politician can run his campaign on one set of criteria, get elected on that platform, and then do exactly that against which he campaigned and have some of the people who voted for him on his platform actually defend him as he opposes his own rhetoric.
RATED
And still, I have to ask, what do we do now...? Speaking out like this is one thing. Civil disobedience and peaceful resistance is another. Nobody wants an insurrection we obviously cannot win. They own the game. They make policy while we rant and philosophize; but we aren't changing anything. Are we...? We may be educating, and mebbe even changing minds. Mebbe. There is an overwhelming surge to just let him do his job, which will only prove what is already evident to some of us.
What can we do to change what should never have been in the first place? How can we overcome the laws, the banks, the courts, the system itself...? In a blog I deleted a long time ago because of the TOS, I asked this question. How can we affect the social and political change we need, and do so peacefully and respectfully, with honor and decency? Or where can we go to rebuild the America we held in such high esteem?
As Jesse Jackson used to say: "Keep hope alive." Obama is the embodiment of the "hope" that this system and the PTB will allow.
Hope of dead ends. Hope of cruel deceptions. Hope that requires permitting war crimes and travesties to be committed in our names.
Obama was never - ever - the real deal. That was evident from the start if you looked with clear eyes not misted over by wishful thinking and naivete about how politics actually works.
The people as an independent political force must take the political stage and do what the government and media are refusing to do - ensure that justice is done and fairness prevails. We must insist that truth and facts carry the day instead of spin and lies and not give up until this is done.
Torturers must be prosecuted and it must all come out. All of it.
May 28th is a National Day of Protest demanding that torture be prosecuted as a war crime and that the 2,000 photos that Obama refuses to release - and that the Senate just said should be withheld for at least five years - be released.
If the people do not grab hold of cardinal political issues and move with their heads, hearts, hands, and feet on these issues instead of thinking that they can just let others do it, including the PTB, then things will continue to degrade and get more and more monstrous.
If, however, enough people step forward and struggle with others to come forward, and the people make their presence felt in a way that really means something (and not in the ways that the PTB tell us are legitimate) and we shift the balance of forces, then an earthshaking transformation will be possible.
One answer: Accountability Now
http://accountabilitynowpac.com/
Here's some of the history of that: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/08/accountability/index.html
I think you misunderstood my intent, Marla.
I wasn't saying that "politicians are evil." Nor am I saying one should never trust a politician, nor anything else cynical.
The operative word there is "wanting." It leads to believing uncritically, which I think you are doing.
You are forgetting a very important aspect: we were invading another country, The people in that country (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan) have every right to bring death to invaders, whether we like it or not.
"It could be we cannot prosecute and convict."
"Maybe a new system or inquiry is needed."
Art: A system that is designed to assure conviction is not a system of justice. Is that a system to which you want to be subjected? Based on what happened to Jose Padilla, born in Brooklyn, you don't have to be a foreigner to be captured, detained and tortured by our government.
If we have to choose, Art, I'll opt out, but you should feel welcome to participate.
"Obama ... CANNOT just make all these moves you people are advocating without careful small steps in that direction."
I would not accuse you, Frank, of being simplistic. Dishonest or deluded, yes. What we horrible simplistic liberals are noticing is that the small (and not-so-small) steps Obama is making are in an opposite direction—away from the rule of law, the Constitution and the various Conventions we have signed that are, too, the law of our land.
" If he tries to do [what the simplistic liberals want him to] do…he will galvanize a considerable segment of society in opposition to his efforts…AND THEY WILL FAIL."
Frank, this is pure supposition. Right now about one-fifth of the population identifies as Republicans. These are the now insubstantial "segment of society" that may oppose Obama if he were to do the right thing. Not to mention there is another small segment that will support him: libertarians.
"He will not make the mistake Hillary did, for instance, when she wanted to do the medical insurance for everyone thing the way she wanted to do it."
As of now, he is making one of the same mistakes: believing—as he announced triumphantly—that the insurance industry was getting on board with his health insurance reform plan. That took about three days to explode.
"SHIT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!" [Frank, cool down. Lower your voice. We can all hear you.]
"Enemies…people who loathe us…are going to try to attack us. ANY SUCCESS they have will be attributed to the moves Obama is making away from the moves the scum have been making during the last eight years."
Frank, you sound panicked. But you are missing an important fact: Obama is NOT moving away from what Bush did for eight years. That's what we simplistic liberals are trying to point out to you and Marla and others. Obama continues all the wars, expands the Pentagon budget more than Bush was going to, uses the fallacious version of "state secrets" that Bush came up with, continues an unconstitutional detention system—and wants to create a new system that will make this system "legal." It goes on Frank and THAT is what should scare you.
"He has got to move deliberately…and carefully.
HE IS DOING THAT!" [Frank, stop yelling!] You are right here. He is moving deliberately and carefully. He's just moving in the wrong direction.
GIVE HIM ... TIME AND SPACE ... TO GET THE JOB DONE…in a way that MAY eventually meet many of the objectives you have.
How will his moving south get us north? He is doing exactly the opposite of what we simplistic, Constitution-loving liberals want.
"To try to do it your way, in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of Obama), may very well lead to less chance of the objectives being met."
I totally agree, once again, because his objectives are 180 degrees opposed to ours.
"Give him the space and time to try to do things his way!"
It is determination to do things his—and Bush's—way that has us worried.
"Be supportive…because if ever a leader needed support from the country…Obama does right now."
Why should we support the destruction of the Constitution and the rule of law? You keep forgetting the point of our complaints.
"Suck up to people like BBE and Dennis Loo if you hate humanity and our country...but don't kid yourself about what is going on here. If you back these people constantly nipping at Obama's heels...you are doing a disservice to our country...and by extension, to the entire world. TO HUMANITY."
Frank, with this final plea, I'm voting for delusional.
And, you have yet to use a single fact in any of your posts, just ranting. Because of that, from now on, I will ignore you, and I recommend that all other simplistic liberals do the same.
Have a nice life, Frank, somewhere else.
Obama says that he will keep Gitmo detainees who pose a threat to the US in captivity. Right?
So how exactly is he proposing Indefinite Preventive Detention for all the American people? As far as I can tell, the only people this will ever apply to are some Gitmo detainees. Why is everyone convinced that Obama's now going to be arresting people off the street?
"Al Queda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States and those that we capture like other prisoners of war must be prevented from attacking us again."
Notice he said that we capture, not that we have captured. Suspicion of being an Al Queda operative or associate or being connected with anything deemed an Al Queda affiliate, could warrant indefinite (hence theoretically lifelong preventative detention). And since there is to be no trial, no ability of the accused to present counter-evidence to a neutral body, such suspicion need not itself be justified nor even sincerely held. Suspicion could be claimed for convenience sake or to squeeze people for information about other matters (like the fictive link between Al Queda and Iraq on Cheney's watch).
Obama speaks of prisoners of war, but there is no battlefield as such, and as a result there is no certain evidence in many cases, let alone proof, that so-called suspects are in fact enemy combatants. Accordingly the government, whether in the Obama administration or in some later administration, of a Sarah Palin, a Newt Gringrich, a Dick Cheney, could cynically exploit the uncertainty surrounding this untraditional war to spread their net to include all manner of "enemies of the state."
“I am not a member of any organized party - I am a Democrat” -- Will Rogers
While looking for that quote I found this one: “Lincoln’s views on the issue of states’ rights can best be summarized by Lincoln’s response in the Douglas debates: “There is no right to do what’s wrong.””
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
As for Dennis Loo, that is not my approach to this situation. I'm not saying it's okay for Obama to keep the Gitmo detainees in captivity forever, I'm just saying that you people are all jumping to conclusions way, WAYYY too fast. You are all overreacting over a single statement taken out of context, and it's quite frankly making me ashamed of my own party. I can see why it took so long for the Democrats to get back into power; this thread alone has shown me that if a Democratic leader so much as hints at (in an out of context statement, no less) a policy that his constituents don't agree with, he'll be called a neocon, an emperor, and the end of democracy as we know it. He's even got people quoting stories about the Holocaust. Christ, people.
obama, I thought you had more spine than that. I thought you had more brain than that. I guess I was mistaken.
it is really no surprise that the president, the "most powerful man in the world", would succumb to the Beast, and prostrate himself before it. it has been happening for decades.
humans are stupid. maybe they deserve to die.
You are incredibly naive about the way precedent, legal and policy, operates. The reason that lawyers say hard cases make bad law is because the alteration or subversion of a cherished principle can never be restricted to the original object of application. In this case, Obama's use of the present rather than the past tense encodes the forward momentum of a concept like preventative detention, momentum with the intrinsic potential to spread far beyond the Gitmo detainees. No, I'm not overreading. You're reading with your eyes closed.
The problem with the whole Gitmo mess is that some of these prison guards chose to do things because they had the power to do so, not necessarily because Bush or Cheney commanded it. And even with the current whining about torture, people seem to forget that our troops are being tortured, mentally and physically, every day. When McCain was running for President, he talked about what he went through in detainment camps, and the Taliban and Al-Qaida are doing worse things to innocent people, not even the ones they are fighting. Beheading reporters, killing civilians, threatening the United States, etc.
It's like if we were to play a game of soccer. The US has to play by a strict set of rules, but our enemies can use their hands, have 40 people on the field, punch or kick the other team, bring guns, and more. Who would win? While I don't approve of some forms of torture, I think there's a time when we need to force information out of those who have already proven themselves to be dangerous.
Bush's administration had a tough job. We were living in a time of fear, where any moment we could have another 9/11, especially in the months following the attacks. I'm not a Bush fan, either, but some of the stuff he did was actually helpful and made sense. And now we have Obama. The national debt has doubled due to "stimulus money" only going to the rich CEOs, gas is climbing again, and has risen almost a quarter in my area over the past few weeks, and now we are hearing about this "Guilty until proven innocent" stuff? I'm sorry guys. America screwed up this time.
You're just now starting to feel ashamed of the party. Where ya' been the last 8.5 years while they spinelessly complied and enabled all this horror.
Oh, you had your head stuck in the sand - that explains your total lack of coherence.
So you mean to tell me that if Obama had just said "captured" instead of "capture," it would have been fine? That's an awfully tenuous argument, there.
You tell me that I'm "reading with my eyes closed," and yet you seem to have completely missed the point I made about taking that statement in context. Obama's speech was about the Gitmo detainees. He made that statement following a sentence that mentioned the Gitmo detainees. He also mentions later in the speech that he is creating these new standards of law specifically for "those that fall into this category," which as he mentions earlier are those Gitmo detainees who cannot be transferred. Where is the connection to anyone else?
Now, I'm not saying I like the idea of preventive detention for anyone, but in the case of these detainees it seems that there is really no other option (unless someone here would like to provide me with one?). But that's neither here nor there: the point I am making is that you are all jumping to conclusions and completely sensationalizing a single statement taken out of context. If anyone in this thread can provide me with more evidence that Obama supports preventive detention for those outside Gitmo than just this single statement, then maybe I'll reconsider, but right now all it seems you guys are doing is taking additional meaning from Obama's words where there isn't any.
Small problem, Trevor. The vast majority of the people locked up had nothing to do with 9/11. As Obama noted in his speech, two-thirds of the detainees were released before he took office. There are 17 Uighurs from China who were declared innocent but are not being released because they have nowhere to go. Numbers of the people at Guanatanamo were given to US troops in return for bounties that were the equivalent of three years income in Afghanistan. So, of the remaining 200 and change detainees at Gitmo, there is an indeterminate number of people who are innocent and no one who has been *proven* guilty.
"The problem with the whole Gitmo mess is that some of these prison guards chose to do things because they had the power to do so, not necessarily because Bush or Cheney commanded it."
There is massive evidence against what you're saying and nothing to spupport it. Gitmo has Emergency Response Forces that are used to beat prisoners who don't do exactly what they are told to do.
"And even with the current whining about torture, people seem to forget that our troops are being tortured, mentally and physically, every day. "
You have no idea of what torture is, Trevor, so I'll give you the definition from the US Code:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE Sec. 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality.
Our troops are volunteers. Bzzt. No torture
"It's like if we were to play a game of soccer. The US has to play by a strict set of rules, but our enemies can use their hands ..."
Actually, you are right. The rules we must play by are the Geneva Conventions on War, The Convention Against Torture and the above section of the US Code. This is what separates civilized people from folks like al Qaeda. If we play by their rules, we have nothing to be fighting for.
"While I don't approve of some forms of torture"
Fortunately for the rest of us, what you approve of doesn't matter. This country is, allegedly, one of law not of "Gee, I think I'll rip the arms off this guy."
"I think there's a time when we need to force information out of those who have already proven themselves to be dangerous."
Two problems here, Trevor: 1) the vast majority of the people the US tortured were innocent. 2) Torture, as noted above, is illegal. And, a side note, despite what Dick Cheney tells you, people who actually do interrogation all say that torture doesn't work.
"Bush's administration had a tough job. We were living in a time of fear, where any moment we could have another 9/11, especially in the months following the attacks."
When 9/11 happened, one of Bush's responses was, "I hit the Trifecta." That was because it allowed him to play on fears of folks like you and destroy the Constitution, and also get things ready to invade Iraq under false pretenses. Fear is a powerful motivator as your statements prove. And don't forget that the next piece of terrorism after 9/11 was the anthax attacks, something that was traced back to a government lab. And don't think that the guy the FBI wants to have you believe did it, did do it. The evidence does not support that claim at all.
"I'm not a Bush fan, either, but some of the stuff he did was actually helpful and made sense."
And that stuff would be?
"And now we have Obama. The national debt has doubled due to "stimulus money" only going to the rich CEOs"
Trevor, it would be good if you actually had facts to support your statements. The bailout went to the CEOs and their minions. The stimulus money actually is going to, aside from things like useless tax cuts (useless because tax cuts don't stimulate the economy), jobs programs, infrastructure upgrades and other things that get money to regular folks who will then spend it and *stimulate the economy*.
"now we are hearing about this 'Guilty until proven innocent' stuff?
Trevor, we didn't just start hearing about this. Those of us who were conscious 9/11 heard about it since 9/12.
"I'm sorry guys. America screwed up this time."
Aside from the fact that McCain would have been even worse, I agree with you.
If there is legally obtained evidence, we charge, try, and convict or exonerate them. If they are found guilty, we mete punishment.
If there is no legally obtained evidence, we release them. It is not the problem of the accused; it is the burden of the prosecution.
We make up a whole new set of rules, against the will of our allies, to legally hold people in custody indefinitely without charges or trial, until such time as we feel like we are safe again. When do you think that might be?
We are reaching conclusions at the nice, leisurely pace that thinking and examining evidence requires.
T, let me give you some information from Glen Greenwald:
(1) What does "preventive detention" allow?
It's important to be clear about what "preventive detention" authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans"). That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants."
Once known, the details of the proposal could -- and likely will -- make this even more extreme by extending the "preventive detention" power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a "combatant." After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based -- namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain "dangerous" people even when they can't prove they violated any laws -- there's no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly "dangerous" combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.
See his complete article athttp://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/index.html
"sensationalizing a single statement taken out of context."
What you seem to be missing, T, is that the context is Obama's actions since before he was elected, including voting for the FISA amendments after saying he would filibuster them; using Bush's fraudulent version of "state secrets" that claims an entire case can be thrown out because the *case itself* is a state secret, even though that argument has been thrown out of court multiple times; refusing to investigate war crimes; refusing to release torture photos when ordered to by a court.
I have not called Obama a neo-con, but I have, based on the laws of the US, called him a war criminal.
How sadly cynical and ironic for the American people that Obama presented his administration's intention to *legalize* the Bush administration's shortsighted "preventive detention" policy in front of the US Constitution!
This rewriting of laws to justify the US government's criminality is an assault on and perversion of the US constitution. This action is an attempt to *legitimize* and continue the Bush Doctrine. Fear mongering by the Prince of Darkness (Cheney) has prevailed.
Person fingered!
Here were his first, brief comments after the ObamaCheney speeches:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-rebalancing.html
I know the stakes are high and the issues utterly seriousness, but I appreciate when the anger is disciplined. (And wish I could always get there myself.)
Here is a link to the "War on Terror" page at Amnesty Int'l.
I have a one word answer to your challenge to show us where else Obama is engaging in indefinite detention. The word is Bagram. He's holding some 600 prisoners there and has declared on record that no one held there now or in the future will be allowed to challenge their detention. A few weeks ago he approved funding to double the size of this gulag.
I think that the things started to go wrong already long times ago. During the cold war already the wars were started by false flag operations, by spreading fake news and especially by making people scared so that they are willing to commit any kind of crime to get those 'enemies' killed. Nowadays it is more sophisticated.
The war started in Afghanistan was criminal already in the beginning. People accepted it, because they were made scared of 'Al Qaeda' and 'Osama Bin Laden'. The plan to attack Afghanistan was made before 'the leaders' invented the idea to use 'Osama Bin Laden' as the pretext.
As for Obama he said already during his campaign that he wanted to extend the war in Afghanistan. In his inauguration speech he as well stated that 'the war on terror' is his top agenda. What he is telling now is logical considering especially his ideas about making the intelligence gathering systems more effective. It is worth of noting that he has already made the spying system of the state on the citizens stronger than it was during Bush' regime.
Obama's administration renewed the stories of Bush' administration about possible nuclear weapon threats from the direction of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They want to make Americans scared so that they would accept indefinite detentions not only of foreign people but also any of their fellow citizens by the pretext that the arrested people were planning for attacks against Americans.
Maybe Obama could be stopped by the threat that other Americans would arrest him as the most dangerous person planning to destroy the constitution and the whole state.
It reminds me of a remark by the late, great comic genius, Spike Milligan. Someone said to him "Why have you taken an instant dislike to me" and he replied "It saves time".
Perhaps we should be grateful that Obama disappointed us early on.
Keep that in mind and then things like this become very understandable.
And it is good to see that the partisans on the left keep their moral compass, regardless of whether the President has an (R) or (D) after their name.
Maddow and Olbermann have been going after Obama hard on this.
It is good to see those who criticized certain behavior from one party's members criticize the same behavior even though it comes from those who are in "their" party.
Obama's doing what he's doing because he's the chief representative of US imperialism and his task is to try to make what he's doing look palatable and proper when it is, of course, the very opposite of that.
Yes, but only in this theoretical game of football one side ('our' side) would be much, much larger, more stable and more powerful. The other side would consist of one lone lunatic with a terrible idea. Sure, he might have a weapon--usually, most likely a sling shot; in the worst of all possible worlds a gun with one bullet in it--whilse the other time would consist of 12 heavily armed men.
Am I missing something?
Of course, even this theoretical game you're setting up is neither here nor there. Since when did the 'war on terrorism' spill over into the court system? Or has Osama bin Laden decided that America's demise will come as a result of a criminal trial?
Basically, Trevor, your analogy doesn't work. Or if it does it says more about why we have a responsibility to be careful and judicious in rooting out our enemies--and 'careful' and 'judicious' does not mean weak or a lack of lethal force.
It is all the more so because the potential for abuse does not just affect th rights of these individuals whom we suspect of terror; we are also talking about OUR rights, our civil rights. Once you start making exceptions for less palatable individuals--once you've opened up that Pandora's Box of goodies--you start down a path beset with all sorts of difficult turns. And unlike other jurisdictions who've been here before--see, for example, European states and their responsbilities under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)--our Bill of Rights doesn't come with too many opt-outs, or too much discretion, now does it. The ECHR I think rightly comes with all sorts of limits to the curbs placed on state power; for example, freedom of speech can only go so far under ECHR law. But the ECHR does have absolute, water-tight prohibitions which leave out any discretion--for example, the prohibition against torture is absolute, and it is NOT encumbent upon individual states (and less upon revolving, individual governments and their in-house lawyer lackies) to define how far that prohibition goes.
What's my point here? That unlike under the ECHR, which is pragmatically open to some discretion for governments, the US Bill of Rights doesn't really leave much room for discussion. And yet, here we are trying to make all sorts of excuses as to why we can and should conduct ourselves in ways that go against our constitutional framework.
1. Words matter. Using the present tense indicates that indefinite detention remains an ongoing option in dealing with Al Queda and anyone we regard as their affiliates. Oh, wait a minute, Obama in fact said "Al Queda and their affiliates," not just the detainees, when discussing his new legal framework. So your insistence that he was only talking about current detainees is not just a case of reading with your eyes closed; it's a case of doing fictional paraphrase to serve the purposes of your argument. Obama went on to speak of those whom we know intend us harm bu whom we cannot provide evidence sufficient for conviction. Once again, he used general substantives not specific referents. Words matter. Had Obama meant his field of application to be the detainees alone, he would have said so. Indeed, as a constitutional lawyer, he would have known that he HAD to say so to avoid establishing precedents that could easily go beyond the walls of Gitmo, that in fact ALREADY have gone beyond those walls in the case of Bogram, where those held have even less purchase on Habeas Corpus than the prisoners in Guatanomo.
Words matter. The tense of the verbs Obama used are indices of his attentions. But they are hardly the only grounds for reading Obama's new legal framework as extending beyond the existing Gitmo suspects. There is the use of descriptive, rather than purely referential, phraseology to adduce the likely objects of hiss policy. And there is of course the nature of a "legal framework" itself, which implies general application.
Your reading on the other hand is entirely based on an insistence that Obama was speaking about and only about the Gitmo detainees, which of course is precisely the point under debate. Beyond tenuous, your argument is tautological.
The other reason, (besides that torturing is against human rights,) is that normally it doesn't work.
Many people, if tortured enough are willing to confess for example the murder of JFK, (to confess even the murder of president Nixon, which never happened), if torturing would stop with the confession. If you would torture many people long enough you could get many thousands confessions of murdering JFK. It would not help at all to find the real murderer.
If you think that you could prevent planned crimes by arresting suspected people beforehand and get the knowledge from them by torturing them, you've got the same problem. You don't know if they really planned to do the things they confessed. On the other hand, their friends involved in plans would change the plan, if one of them was arrested.
Except this time it is mostly the left pretending that "defending the constitution” is the reason for its intemperance.
For the last eight years we heard the conservatives sing that same song…and for the most part, their bullshit ended up with our nation paying the price.
That is what you people are doing.
You are no more defending the constitution than Dick Cheney was.
You are attacking a guy trying to deal with problems so complex…that EVERY solution, every tactic, is a horrible solution or tactic. The fact that you recognize solutions or tactics as horrible means nothing.
Some of you are joining a “let’s pillory the bastard and make his job as close to impossible as possible.”
You should all be hanging your heads in shame. You are continuing the damage to our country started by the people you scorn.
We have a long tradition of “defending the constitution” in our country.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove were always doing things to protect and defend our constitution.
The appointment of John Roberts and Sam Alito were done in the interests of “defending our constitution.”
Maybe our country is due for patriots of the sort posting here…people in ecstasy over each opportunity to trash a man trying to do an almost impossible job.
How sad things have come this far.
America deserves what it is getting…because America is begging for it.
You are certainly doing your part!
Now you're just plain lying frank - you are a deceitful, dumb as a doornail, pisa sh*t.
People ask you to cite facts, and you have none, so like YOUR heroes, you just lie.
frank's lying with the dogs and now he's got their fleas. GFY.
This option that he has chosen is completely illegal and immoral and BAD on so many levels. It is our duty to point this out, to ask our elected leader to act properly on this issue. If he changes his plan, and I hope he is looking for public support for changing it, we will shut up.
Unfortunately, the right will get noiser, telling us all that our security is more important. That is a lie. Our Constitution is head and shoulders above our personal safety. If Obama will choose to do the right thing--release people for whom there is no legally obtained evidence to incarcerate, I will personally climb into a 100 story building and wait until a plan crashes into it.
I am willing to martyr myself to save those principles upon which this country is built.
Frank, your Obama uber alles agenda has reduced you to blithering nonsense.
Obama isn't stupid. He knows that about half the country thinks that torture works, even though those who know better say it's ridiculous to think so. He knows that a lot of people think it's like 24 and the Jack Bauers of the world are getting useful intel by using torture, even though that is a joke.
He also doesn't want to give the republicans who will oppose him any ammunition to use against him. Thus, he will not move forward with torture prosecutions, and he will not back down from the indefinite detention claim.
It's politics, man. Nothing more, nothing less.
Right now, people don't really give a rat's ass about torture prosecutions. It's inside the Beltway punditry at its worst.
People care about the economy and jobs. That's what Americans say is their top priority right now. All the inside the Beltway pundits don't know what the hell they are talking about when they say that torture prosecutions are so important.
Tell that to someone at GM who's going to lose his job. See if he gives a rat's ass about whether or not someone gets prosecuted for waterboarding an alleged terrorist.
I skimmed the Sullivan piece and I have to say, I don't have the slightest clue why you want to hear more from him. "The speech does not shrink from clear positions but it always does so from a place of reason and authority as opposed to politics and power."
Any speech that proposes to toss out the Constitution—most especially when made by a Constitutional scholar—is not one I'd agree was made from a place of reason. Nor is his desire for preventive detention and setting up a "judicial" system that makes sure the government wins, regardless of the facts. That's politics and power.
Someone mentioned the so-called war on terror and I wanted to remind people that the whole WOT concept is—not to put to fine a point on it—bullshit.
Wars are waged against specific enemies, not methods of warfare. We might as well have a War on Artillery. The WOT is a method of having truly permanent war, and people have bought into it, including many here who are defending the Constitution and the rule of law. We can't do the latter without denying the legitimacy of the former.
Frank "I am completely delusional" Apisa typed: "And the great job of wonderful Americans defending the constitution continues. ... blah, blah, blah, rant, whine, spew, yell, etc."
You wouldn't know reality if it fell on your head. And why hasn't it yet? Take a valium, or some lithium, but please keep your nonsense over on your on blog where it doesn't interrupt intelligent conversation.
frank: "George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove were always doing things to protect and defend our constitution."
markinjapan typed: "Now you're just plain lying frank." Thank,Mark. It saves me the trouble of pointing this our to him. Jujst another content-free post from Frank.
Tony Wang typed: "Dennis, you're wrong. About half of Americans are just fine with torture, and torture prosecutions are a non-winner, politically."
To a large extent I agree—now, Tony, but this wasn't true three months ago. Obushma didn't want to follow the rule of law then, when he was riding the initial wave of his electoral mandate and the population was significantly in favor of investigations and prosecutions. The political part was letting the support die down and fall prey to the conservatives—who were on the run. Obushma didn't want to do it ever. So, he's not avoiding this because of its political viability.
Not to mention, the recently jobless thousands in the auto industry are the direct result of Obushma's policies: money for the banks, trash the workers.
There are two major things wrong with your last comments here Tony.
First, you mistake what rests on the surface for the truth.
Second, you're adopting a morally indefensible position by defending Obama's refusal to hold those accountable for committing two of the gravest crimes around - torture and unprovoked aggressive war.
For heaven's sake man, think about what you're saying: that it's alright to base yourself on the most backward and ignorant sentiments out there that the economy is somehow more important than tyranny and torture?
Your sense of priorities has been warped by the "politics of the possible" that the Democrats and Republicans preach.
If Obama were to provide legal and moral leadership (something I don't expect from him, but not because he's behaving this way in order to himself re-elected, as you argue), most of those who now think that torture works would come to understand their mistake.
Obama is shielding the torturers because he's one of them. This argument that politicians do what they do mainly or exclusively because they want to curry favor with the electorate is hogwash and reflects a very shallow understanding of politics. How did Obama get elected in the first place? Partly, it's true things swung to him because of the financial crisis. But more importantly, he was elected because millions thought that he would bring a return to the rule of law and sanity and justice. They were mistaken, but that's what they believed based on Obama's presentation of self.
Obama is actually risking losing his legitimacy in the eyes of his base because of his actions. Witness the popularity of BBE's article (approaching 40k hits). Witness the growing disaffection to what Obama is doing among former or even current supporters of his. Check out the comments on BBE's article at Reddit and Digg. (My article on the Senate's actions and Obama's has, last time I looked, received 455 Diggs because people are shocked at what's happening.)
It's inexcusable to defend his shielding of torture and his expansion upon state secrets and his breathtakingly horrid claims that prolonged detention can be carried out just because the government declares that someone is dangerous. Do you even recognize tyranny when you see it?
Who are the most dangerous people against American citizens, the president Obama, who wants to get the rights to keep anybody by his own choice indefinite time periods arrested by the pretext that the person is 'dangerous', or those people, whom the president thinks to be dangerous?
To me, and most people, things like jobs, health care, climate change, a balanced budget and a boatload of other things are far more important.
I quite honestly couldn't care less if Obama gets around to torture prosecutions if he gets the economy fixed, gets universal health care, addresses climate change, balances the budget, addresses problems in the education system, fixes Social Security and Medicare, and just for good measure, gets immigration reform done.
You may say he will have had a failed Presidency because he didn't address torture prosecutions.
I will say who cares.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm defending an immoral position, blah, blah, blah. Whatever.
Torture prosecutions are a non-winner politically. Ain't gonna happen.
You are.
And I've got the balls to put my trades on the line. Good, bad, and ugly.
What the hell have you done?
Nothing?
Then shut the hell up.
And yes, I'd say it to your face.
Face it. People really don't give a rat's ass about torture. It's the punditocracy and people like you who do care. Hell, man, half the country thinks that torture is justified according to the Pew Center.
You may think it's the most important thing out there, but check out what people care about. Only the punditocracy and people like you think torture is at the top of the list.
Most people don't give a crap.
"I will say who cares [about torture].
"Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm defending an immoral position, blah, blah, blah. Whatever.
"Torture prosecutions are a non-winner politically. Ain't gonna happen."
Remarkable. If I was to create a foil for myself of someone who doesn't care about anything beyond their own pocketbook and could care less about those who have been tortured and killed by his government because they aren't himin order to demonstrate the mentality of a callous fool then I'd create someone like you Tony. But I don't have to create someone fictional to make the point. You have done that for me.
Stupid in stocks
Stupid in morality
Stupid about the world he sees spinning around him.
A consummate loser.
You maybe did not think about it much further.
Now you are not a subject of torturing. But the next time it might be your turn.
Obama is proposing that completely innocent people could be kept jails indefinitely. We don't know if those prisoners in jails committed any kind of crime.
"couldn't care less if Obama gets around to torture prosecutions if he gets the economy fixed, gets universal health care..."
Are you familiar with the concept of holding a "tiger by the tail"? President Obama was handed this mess that was created by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. They are the ones who pissed all over the Constitution when they decided it was OK to lock people up and torture them. This has been going on since 9/11. Some of the people at Gitmo apparently did commit crimes. However, due the torture tactics of the War Criminals previously mentioned, we can't prosecute them because the evidence is inadmissable. These are the tigers that have been handed to our new president. You don't like holding on, but you don't dare let go.
Prolonged detention is an awful solution to the problem. It is, at best, Bush lite. But please, if you condemn Obama's idea, come up with a better plan tht will work. I don't have one yet. One way to start would be to commence investigations on every detainee (legal investigations). Those deemed to be held without cause should be released ASAP. But, let's accept the notion that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Some of the detainees are really criminals. For these individuals, I'm OK for now knowing they are locked up.
Not exactly the liberal viewpoint I'm known for, but it's how I feel. And no, I'm not apologizing for Obama. I'm just trying to be practical.
We try them in federal court. If they are found guilty, we lock them up for however long they are sentenced. If they are found innocent, we set them free.
It has worked for hundreds of years. Why are we fucking with it now?
Tiger by the tail? More like a pile of shit Obama is only making higher and deeper as everyday passes.
This is a dilemma without satisfactory solution. If you want to start fixing this mess, let's prosecute those who created it.
That kind of 'evidence' is no evidence. Torture is illegal. The torturers should be put in jail. There might be even criminals in the jail, but they should be taken in a law court to find out.
These people, these politicians, control everything of power, everything of value. They control the media, they control the military, they control all government functions, they control the monetary system, they control and protect corporate interests in foreign countries and that necessarily means that in most instances they have some degree of control over those governments, they have us fighting wars to protect corporate and oil interests in other countries, they pander to lobbyists with the deepest pockets betraying any sense of duty to the public good, a majority of Dems have turned against the small handful of Dems that still attempt to uphold a more progressive agenda, they pay lip-service to a socially progressive platform while simultaneously refusing funding for those platforms under the guise of “fiscal responsibility” even as they throw away trillions on the interests of the wealthy, they are threatening alliances with other countries in order to protect the criminals of the previous administration, and blatantly refuse to uphold the law by speaking ridiculous excuses:
“‘I think it would be very unwise, from my perspective, to start having commissions, boards, tribunals, until we find out what the facts are,’ Mr. Reid said. ‘And I don’t know a better way of getting the facts than through the Intelligence Committee. I think that’s a pretty good way to do it.’”
“At the White House, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said that it was ‘not a time for retribution’ and that ‘we’re all best suited looking forward.’”
Mr. Reid, is that the same intelligence committee that has failed us so many times during the past 8 years? In essence, they say, “Just trust us.” That has a familiar ring to it. And as others have pointed out here, half or more of the American population accepts that. Game over.
"Detainees" are attempting suicide constantly because they'd rather die than endure more torture. I'd confess to anything too, under the circumstances.
First, I agree with Rick and Leslie.
Second, to elaborate on this in relation to the so-called war on terror:
As Alberto Mora, Former Navy General Counsel (2001-2006) testified before Congress on June 17, 2008:
“[T]here are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”
If Obama really wanted to reduce the threat of anti-state terrorism he would close Gitmo (and Bagram and all of the unknown prisons) down now and release the detainees, one and all unless there are actual criminal charges that have been leveled against any one already, and make a speech broadcast to the whole world that the US government erred grievously in carrying out torture and indefinite detentions. He would make a clean break with it and state on the record that these practices (which have been, as Mora points out, a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda et al) will end and that those who promulgated these wrong policies will be prosecuted.
Even if there are a few among the detainees who were terrorists and might resume that, then tough. What's a few of these individuals compared to the extraordinary PR blow that Obama would strike by these actions in undercutting the social support and sea of sympathy for al-Qaeda et al worldwide?
Of course, Obama will do nothing of the sort because his real agenda isn't ending or reducing the war on terror. His actions, "preventive" and "prolonged" detention, his denial of habeas corpus rights to the 600 plus prisoners at Bagram, his resumption of the military commissions, and so on, are the actions of someone who doesn't want to end this war but who intends to continue it.
The present administration is continuing and extending the wars, which the previous one started. They already sent more troops to Afghanistan. They started the war inside Pakistan, which has already forced 1,5 million people to leave their homes as refugees. Obamas's administration has continued the criminal practices to keep people arrested in jails without any trials. They have made the laws stronger protecting president's office from any criminal charges against unlawfully spying American citizens.
Already during his election campaign Obama promised to extent the war in Afghanistan, he as well told that he wants to extend that war inside Pakistan. We have seen the results.
My viewpoint is that the United States of America is ruled by the small elite, which is planning quite carefully, which kind of people to get there as the presidents. They as well quite carefully plan the election campaigns of the few candidates so that voting people will get some of their hopes fulfilled and the planners behind the scene can unharmed continue their own agendas.
The ruling elite is clearly serving the interests of the big industries. The big industries producing weapons killing people all over the world every day.
The United States of America is by far the biggest weapon producer and exporter of the world. It has as well sent its own troops to other areas of the world. Fighting for the causes, which were proved to be fabricated by its own intelligence agencies.
Is this the advantage of the American citizens?
Is this the advantage of the world's people ?
On the other hand, I have health insurance. Very good health insurance, so universal health care doesn't really benefit me. Climate change is a threat to the whole world, so I guess that benefits me. I'm finished with my formal education, so reforming the education system doesn't help me at all. Balancing the budget benefits future generations a whole hell of a lot more than it does me. I'll likely be dead by the time Social Security has to cut its payout to 75 percent, so fixing it doesn't help me. And I'm already here, so please tell me how immigration reform benefits me.
Oh, wait. You claimed that I only care about things that put money in my pocket. Well, hell, the only thing that would do it is the economy. Everything else with the possible exception of Social Security doesn't.
You're going to have to change your tune.
No, I don't care about torture prosecutions. They're not that important to me. Torture is wrong, and it shouldn't have happened. But your dream of Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and Gonzalez being locked up is going to be just that. A dream.
Not.
Going.
To.
Happen.
I just accept that we don't live in utopia. And I want things that affect people's lives much more than locking up Cheney and Rumsfeld and Gonzales would.
Can you seriously tell me that it is more important to lock those sons of bitches up for what they authorized than to make sure that a pregnant woman has access to prenatal care so she can have a healthy baby?
If you can, then you and I have a different set of priorities. I am more concerned about things that affect people in the real world, not in some ivory tower world.
It's not that torture is something I condone. I actually blogged here about why it is wrong.
It's just that prosecutions for torture do not get a high priority on my list of things for Obama to do.
If the system was healthy and working the DOJ would be filing charges already and what Obama had to say about it wouldn't matter, but we have gone so far down the road of the imperial presidency that the Attorney General is a cowed dog.
But if the AG acted he would have to file on Obama as well as the same war crimes have continued with him in office.
But how about future crime Tony?
Do you feel comfortable with Obama's plan for indefinite preventive detention without trial?
The political fallout from torture prosecutions would mean that nothing else would get done. That is why I do not support them. There are far more tangible things that need to be that affect people far more directly.
I do not believe in indefinite detention without a trial. I think they are wrong. Let's convict them and lock them up, or if we cannot, then we need to let them go. We can keep them under surveillance and see who they meet with and then nab them when they do something.
Can you seriously tell me that it is more important to lock those sons of bitches up for what they authorized than to make sure that a pregnant woman has access to prenatal care so she can have a healthy baby?
"If you can, then you and I have a different set of priorities. I am more concerned about things that affect people in the real world, not in some ivory tower world."
First of all, the very same people who are opposed to pre-natal care for women are the ones who either defend the policy of torture and unjust wars or are themselves responsible for those policies.
You say that nothing will get done in DC if torture prosecutions move forward. Even if this were true, which it isn't, it would be the proper and necessary thing to do.
The canard that atrocities have been going on for eons is absurd. You may as well say that there is no difference between genocide and the absence of genocide. It's the kind of thinking and rhetoric that privileged strata have used for millennia: "Why, people have always done with their slaves what they want! The very idea that there might be an end to slavery and that people might be treated the same is ridiculous! We've always done it this way!"
Why do you, Tony, claim that prosecutions and investigations must not and will not go forward?
Because the GOP would and is objecting? This means that no matter how horrendous or illegal the government's acts, they can escape scrutiny and consequences if they merely fight against their being prosecute and investigated.
What would happen if torture prosecutions proceeded? The pictures, the memos, the descriptions, and the testimony of people who were tortured and those who tortured would come out. The GOP would stand naked and freezing before the world, revealed for its utter depravity and deceit and those in the Democratic Party who colluded knowingly in this would similarly stand before the world. The GOP in particular would have no place to hide and be discredited for at least a generation. The Democrats could then get their domestic agenda and appointments to the Supreme Court et al through without any real resistance. This is what you say you want Tony, so why are you fighting against it so vigorously?
If you think for one second that torture prosecutions would benefit the progressive movement, you are deluding yourself. Fact: about half of the population thinks it's just fine to torture people sometimes or often according to the Pew Survey.
And your belief, as endearing as it is, that things will get done in Washington if torture prosecutions move forward, is just plain wrong. Tell me, what happened during the all Monica all the time phase of the Clinton administration? What legislation passed? What work was Clinton able to get done?
And torture prosecutions would make that look like a little picnic.
As far as the "right" thing to do, whatever. You can be right and get nothing done or you can be "wrong" and get things accomplished.
You're dreaming if you think torture prosecutions would do anything. You think that prosecuting people for something that half the country agrees with is going to move the progressive agenda forward? You will lose the middle of the road people, and those are the people who decide elections.
You tell me how that advances the progressive cause.
I am about doing things that accomplish something other than revenge fantasies. It's clear that the rabid left wants a little payback from Bush and Cheney et al. And that is understandable.
But you have to ask yourself what is more important, a little revenge fantasy or getting things done.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, but the principle of the matter. Well, we heard about a President who committed perjury back in the late 1990s and how it was about the principle of the matter back then.
How'd that work out for the people who pursued it?
I give you a Tony Award for pretending to be a "progressive."
If progressive = allowing torturers to go free and torture to be continued, then I'd be ashamed to be called a "progressive."
You give "progressive" a bad name.
If you think that it is utopian to demand that torture and other atrocities be punished, then I feel very sorry for you and the world you live in.
The fact that a lot of people think that it's ok to torture people is as valid an argument to not go after the torturers as were those who during the Dark Ages said that the earth was flat - after all, everyone knows that it's so!
As for "utopia:" you are describing a dystopic world.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. The president just came off a 90-6 vote against his closure of Guantanamo. It can be seen from a constitutional perspective that the executive has been stymied by the legislative branch.
And Obama's speech certainly shows the true power of the defense, intelligence communities as well as some of the worst, most vile people in the United States of America. Obama has been stymied by the Cheney faction in and out of government.
So, what's a constitutional lawyer to do? Hope that someone from the ACLU acts quick like a bunny and takes this mother to the Supremes ASAP.
Support and defend the ACLU.
Heck no!
This is a big one in terms of missteps for Obama. There is no way around it. On this one, Obama is down right wrong.
Want to know how to stop him? On 9-12 you should have been on the White House lawn with us.
Look, the people that were at that rally were just normal people from around the country. You could walk right up to any of them and be friends within minutes.
What this country needs is for people to stick to their principals. Regardless if you consider yourself republican, democrat or whatever. If you think cheating on taxes is wrong, then it's wrong for republicans, Tim Gheitner
eSky Web Directory
This is just a paragraph from the transcript of the speech. Incidentally, this paragraph contains the 7th occurrence of the phrase "rule of law".
I found this transcript at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/68646.html
Before I go defending Obama, I'm going to go back & read this transcript in its entirety, so I can know what he actually said (without Rachel Maddow's spin/clever editing).
Before you go condemning him, I'd suggest you do the same.
We try them in federal court. If they are found guilty, we lock them up for however long they are sentenced. If they are found innocent, we set them free.
It has worked for hundreds of years. Why are we fucking with it now?
Tiger by the tail? More like a pile of shit Obama is only making higher and deeper as everyday passes.
digital printing