Obama Employs Bush Administration Tactic, Blocks Photos
On Wednesday, Obama said he “would try to block the court-ordered release of photos showing U.S. troops abusing prisoners.” The release, which was to be the result of a Freedom of Information Act request made by the ACLU, had been reasonable in the final weeks of April, but today, Obama chose to come out against the release.
According to the Associated Press, “out of concern [that] the pictures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan” Obama planned to block them.
Obama intends to block the release of the photos because they may negatively impact American empire and American military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Gen. Ray Odierno, a prime architect of “the surge” in Iraq, and Gen. David Petraeus influenced Obama’s decision after informing the administration that they were afraid the photos will “cost American lives.”
Obama suggested that the “photos had already served their purpose in investigations of "a small number of individuals” and "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."
Also, Obama made the argument that "these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."
When choosing to make a “mockery” out of his “promise of transparency and accountability” (as one member of the ACLU put it), Obama is fine with contending that if information requested does not show something worse than said previous atrocity or does not show that something more inhumane happened the information should not be released.
Even if the information would give further credence to the argument that the Bush Administration tortured (which many in the corporate news media are still reluctant to outright accept as they continue to cling to the “enhanced interrogation technique” euphemism when discussing “torture”), the fact that it does not top the brutality of a batch of previous photos means that the ACLU’s FOIA request should not be fulfilled.
The ACLU released a response to Obama’s decision, which was written by Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:
The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government. This decision is particularly disturbing given the Justice Department's failure to initiate a criminal investigation of torture crimes under the Bush administration.
"If the Obama administration continues down this path, it will betray not only its promises to the American people, but its commitment to this nation's most fundamental principles. President Obama has said we should turn the page, but we cannot do that until we fully learn how this nation veered down the path of criminality and immorality, who allowed that to happen and whose lives were mutilated as a result. Releasing these photos – as painful as it might be – is a critical step toward that accounting. The American people deserve no less."
"It is true that these photos would be disturbing; the day we are no longer disturbed by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. In America, every fact and document gets known – whether now or years from now. And when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. Any outrage related to these photos should be due not to their release but to the very crimes depicted in them. Only by looking squarely in the mirror, acknowledging the crimes of the past and achieving accountability can we move forward and ensure that these atrocities are not repeated.
Obama said of the Freedom of Information Act in a January 21 memo, “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”
But, on matters of American empire or “state secrets,” the administration is as bad as Bush if not worse.
Robert Gibbs’ press briefing on the reversal shows just how poor a case the administration has for keeping these photos from being released:
QUESTION: Can you go over the sequence of events that led to this thought process? Because, on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case had pretty much run its course.
GIBBS: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: And now you’re saying that the president feels that there’s a strong argument to be made...
GIBBS: Because the argument that the president has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things, including, a law enforcement exception. And the judge ruled that, to seek a law enforcement exception, you have to -- you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception. This is a different argument that the president thinks is compelling.
QUESTION: Well, when did he decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say...
GIBBS: No. He came to the lawyers.
QUESTION: And when did all that...
GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office.
QUESTION: Robert, if that was such a compelling case, why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications?
GIBBS: The argument that the president seeks to make is one that hasn’t been made before. The -- I’m not going to get into blame for this or that. Understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the president entering into office, we are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date -- I think we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of those decisions by the Second Circuit.
QUESTION: But on April 24th, you also said, quote, “The Department of Justice decided, based on the ruling, the court ruling, is that it was, quote, hopeless to appeal.”
GIBBS: Right. QUESTION: Now you’re saying it’s not hopeless. GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling, and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations. The president isn’t -- what I’m saying to you, Ed, is the president isn’t going back to remake the argument that has been made. The president is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security.
QUESTION: This new argument -- if you’re saying, basically, that this could put troops in further harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan, Former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos. Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out? They’ve made the same argument about them?
GIBBS: No. Well, I’ll use the example I’ve used on this before, Ed. You didn’t begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you?
QUESTION: No.
GIBBS: OK. The -- I’m saying...
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
GIBBS: Hold on. I’m also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn’t likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration. The notion...
QUESTION: The graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people were abused in prisons. So why not put them out there?
GIBBS: I’m not sure that you’d do a graphic of a photo.
QUESTION: No. A graphic of someone being abused. We’ve all seen Abu Ghraib photos, and you were saying about the photos back in April, lack, it’s already exhausted and, essentially, these photos are going to come out anyway.
GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There’s a new legal argument that’s being made. My sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN?
QUESTION: We’re trying to show people -- explain to people...
GIBBS: OK. The president believes that the existence of the photos themselves does not actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did, indeed, or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees. And those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004.
GIBBS: The president doesn’t believe the release of a photo surrounding that investigation does the anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationality.
QUESTION: Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That’s not the president of the United States’ role to decide, well, this is information will illuminate for the people, and this information isn’t.
GIBBS: No, the -- the -- the role of the president in this situation is as commander-in-chief. And if he determines that, through the release of these photos, that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn’t believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos.
Those determinations are, indeed, made by this president and -- and -- and are being made.
QUESTION: The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops, and they did so in the way that you described, with -- with seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel.
GIBBS: Right.
(interruption)
QUESTION: The specific avenue that your -- that your legal team’s going to go, you’re not sure if it’s going to be going back to the district court or...
GIBBS: I don’t know the -- I’ll check with -- put that -- we’ll check with -- with those guys specifically. I think, in some ways, they’re looking at whether it is to go to a lower court or to go to the Supreme Court.
QUESTION: And then just to follow up on the new argument, so are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the president knows that exist that were not used? Because it’s -- I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn’t turn under every rock to try to find an argument to do this.
GIBBS: Well, the president doesn’t believe that was the case. And the president, after reviewing the case, believes that -- that we have a compelling argument. [emphasis added]
Already reluctant to have the Justice Department enforce the rule of law and hold investigations and prosecutions for torture and crimes against humanity, how do arguments that the president can decide what illuminates a situation and what doesn’t, that the president didn’t misjudge the national security implications of the photos, and that the press doesn’t need these photos to report on treatment of detainees help the administration at all?
Of course, the press needs these photos to be released so they can cover the issue of torture and war crimes, which were part of Bush Administration policy. What else is going to motivate them to cover the issue? Ethics and morals?
This reversal is just one event in a series of events that have occurred in relation to state secrets, accountability, and transparency since Obama was inaugurated.
Obama’s vow “to open government more than ever” was sharply contradicted by his Justice Department which chose to “defend Bush administration decisions to keep secret many documents about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists.”
In March, the Obama administration continued a tradition of the Bush Administration and, citing state-secrets privileges, they, like the Bush Administration, continued to stall a suit brought by the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which claimed that the government illegally wiretapped and violated the charity’s right to due process and freedom of speech because the government thought the charity was funding terrorism.
The Justice Department defended torture memo author John Yoo and Attorney General Eric Holder defended the decision claiming that it was in “the best interest of the United State.”
To mark Obama’s 100days in office, Sen. Russ Feingold released a “report card” on “actions to restore the rule of law.” Obama’s actions on state secrets earned him the worst grades.
Feingold cited the fact that Obama had “invoked the state secrets privilege in three cases in the first 100 days -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, and Jewel v. NSA” and had not taken a position on the State Secrets Protection Act.
Obama “issued an immediate halt to the military commission proceedings for prosecuting detainees and filed a request in Federal District Court in Washington to stay habeas corpus proceedings there.” But, most recently, the administration is seriously considering reviving military commissions for prosecuting Guantanamo detainees.
Even worse, Obama is considering “indefinite detention” for Guantanamo prisoners.
Now, Larisa Alexandrovna has compiled an article that suggests the “Obama Justice Department is continuing to cover up Bush-Era crimes.”
The decision to hold back the photos is another blow to freedom and democracy that follows a plethora of blows which have occurred in this decade.
The logic that these photos will create terrorism is patently false. It’s not the photos of torture that kill our soldiers, but the fact that the U.S. military and CIA tortures or tortured that creates or created terrorism.
We as a people must seriously consider how this decision to hide photos reflects our society’s values and how it shows our unwillingness to demand accountability and the enforcement of the rule of law.
What does the Obama Administration really want? The American people and its military forces to be safe from “terrorism” or the American people to stop demanding that the Obama Administration investigate and prosecute Bush Administration officials for torture and crimes against humanity?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Steven Rockford
Lina Thorne
Organian
SpiritManSF
David Schultz
Anonymous911
Salon.com
Comments
RT
http://www.privacy-resources.us.tc
Good point. The press and the American people can insist on the facts even without these photos. I hope they will.
I'm still very much in support of the President, but this is a disappointment. I urge all my OS friends to write the President and ask for an investigation.
...the American Left!
I never thought I would ever have as much disrespect for the Left as I have for the pathetic American Right...but at the moment, the Left is much more pathetic.
The guy is making decisions that he thinks are in the interest of America...and the American people.
What do you people think his motives are?
Do you think he is a scumbag...with some neferious intent?
What is it with you people?????
How dare we question the president?
How dare we dream of having a president who respects and enforces the rule of law, who properly holds in high esteem principles of transparency, accountability, and freedom?
What has this world come to?
No one is saying that Obama is a scumbag with nefarious intent. We are disagreeing with his actions in this particular instance.
Now Obama's administration is continuing and expanding wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They spread rumors that Talibans would get nuclear weapons in their hands, if they wouldn't be stopped.
The logic behind this is that the American public should become so scared that they would pay and accept any kind of criminal wars needed to kill those people, who could get nuclear weapons in their use. People behind Obama obviously want to build an Empire world wide and kill all the people who don't accept their rule.
I think it is the time to stop the wars as started by the previous administration and continued by Obama. I think that the best hope is with the congress. People should demand their congress representatives to do the job to put up an investigation, if possible international.
I do not think that an even commentary on the situation we're discussing.
The question for me is: Will releasing these photos endanger lives in XYZ place?
denese
How many lives are you willing to sacrifice for the Freedom of Information Act?
I don't think that publishing photos would make the life of anybody more dangerous, just the opposite.
Almost everybody in this world, who knows anything about foreigners (if that person isn't an American) knows already that American wars are killing nore people than wars by any other people. So they as well would understand that publishing more of those pictures would probably help Americans themselves to understand better that they should stop wars and stop killing their own people and others in those wars.
I want these horrible acts investigated and prosecuted, right up the chain of command.
Frankly, I don't need to see the photos. And since many people ignored or made light of the last set of photos-- I'm not sure that making them public will necessarily fire up the American people to want justice, any more or less than they already do. Worst case scenario: horrible photos are plastered across the front pages of magazines in the supermarket. The American people become not outraged, but numbed. Limbaugh says "they aren't that bad," or "a few bad apples." And nothing that needs to happen happens.
So call me crazy, but I'm STILL hoping that this story is not over yet. That we will finally see investigations, prosecutions, and consequences.
The photos are not the thing.
I don't know if the photos will "endanger lives in XYZ place," but in the meantime, look out---The swine flu has now reached 6,500 cases.
And we know how right the government and media was when they told us to fear swine flu.
Thanks for this, rated
Let's admit they were evil and vow to never do it again.
This following exchange is the argument against admitting evil and vowing to just never do it again.
FROM COUNTDOWN W/ KEITH OLBERMANN ON JANUARY 12, 2009, think about George Washington University constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley's argument:
OLBERMANN: Maybe Obama does not want to inflame the Holder hearings later in this week, but is not this cry for looking forward rather than backwards a little too Bushian for what may be needed in these circumstances?
TURLEY: I certainly would like to try that next time I bring a criminal defendant into court. Have them tell the court, you know, judge, I committed a crime. Let`s not look in the past. Let`s look forward. We would be laughed out of court. The problem for Eric Holder is simple deductive reasoning. If water boarding is torture, and Barack Obama has said that it is torture, and torture is a war crime, then the president has committed a war crime, if he did order water boarding.
Now, you have to do some heavy lifting to avoid the simplicity of that logic.
OLBERMANN: How much clearer is Mr. Bush`s guilt in this? Obviously not legally, because that interview certainly on Fox was not under oath. But, I mean, did he just clarify, if you will, the chain of guilt in this whole process?
TURLEY: That`s what`s so difficult for Barack Obama,
Enhanced Coverage Linking
Barack Obama, -Search using:
* Biographies Plus News
* News, Most Recent 60 Days
is that not only is this a presumptive war crime, but you have the actors coming forward and speaking quite candidly about it. When we were looking at Augusto Pinochet, he wasn`t going on interviews and laying out how he ordered certain devices. While we didn`t have a torture program that was anywhere near the Pinochet program, war crimes don`t really differ depending if you did it three times, four times or 400. You are not allowed to do them at all.
With all due respect regarding the swine flu: just because it hasn't been that bad, doesn't mean the government was wrong to be concerned, or to remain vigilant for the coming months.
Those who deny global warning like to go outside on a blustery day and say, "what global warming?!"
"The government" is not a monolithic group of people all in on some vast conspiracy. Swine flu warnings came from the government-- but included the counsel of those in academic institutions all over the world. Maybe they were wrong, maybe not.
I don't know enough to have an opinion, but I'm not reflexive enough to say "see, the government was wrong again!"
To clarify my position: I think these war crimes should be investigated. Period.
The pictures?: Normally, I'm an ACLU supporter. But, in this case, no. If there is a chance that releasing these photos will hurt our men and women in the field I'm against it.
Somehow the attention of the enraged often focuses on an act like not releasing pictures, because our "rights" are being violated. Your "rights" don't tip the balance when it's a question of one man or woman's life.
I neither suggested nor said that I think "the government" was wrong to be concerned about swine flu. However, let's look back at bird flu and admit, the government and the media created hysteria that made people fear something they could be pretty calm about.
denese,
Substantiate this idea that lives would be lost. So far, I am not convinced because of who the government is putting up as their sources for the decision.
These generals who do not want further lives lost are the very ones who continue to think we have a right to "win" or achieve some "victory" in an illegal war and occupation in Iraq and a brutal conflict in Afghanistan that has bled over into Pakistan.
The generals were behind "the surge" which I was more than skeptical of.
So, convince me: What exactly are they thinking and why?
Because most likely, it doesn't trump these remarks from George Washington University scholar Jonathan Turley spoken on "The Ed Show" on MSNBC yesterday:
ED SCHULTZ: ...Why do they have to be released right now?
PROF. JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Well, one of the reasons, Ed, is it`s the law. That is, the Second Circuit looked at this in a very good opinion -- it`s actually out on my blog if you want to read it. It goes through and explains that you cannot withhold documents under the Freedom of Information Act simply because it will embarrass you or the country.
Imagine if that was the standard? Obviously, George Bush constantly withheld things, so did Dick Cheney, saying that they would embarrass the country. That if you embarrass the administration, you embarrass the military, it`s a national security problem.
There`s no limitations to that rationale, but it`s against the law. And what the Second Circuit said was correct. They were unanimous on that point. And what the president is doing now is to say simply that it`s just not convenient, it`s going to be too difficult for us, and it could be used as a recruiting device.
What I would suggest, Ed, is that the best recruiting device against our country is to show we`re a nation of hypocrites, that we don`t follow the federal law or international law when it`s inconvenient. And that`s what`s happening here. That`s why they reversed their position.
They should be blocked because lives would be endangered.
Just a few instances to substantiate my feeling about this:
*The Muhammad cartoons published in the Danish "Jyllands-Posten" after which 100 people died.
* Daniel Pearl's death. I'm actually thinking about his severed head shown in a video next to photos of detainees at Gitmo.
* Salman Rushdie's novel, "The Satanic Verses," after which a fatwa was issued and he lived in hiding for 10 years.
* The beheading of an American (US) Nicholas Berg in response to images of U.S. military personnel torturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Unfortunately, I'm sure I could find more examples, and I'm not privy to classified information.
If I were Obama and I had to make a decision that could mean more deaths of US service men and women, I'd have to err on the side of not releasing them.
My brother in law is a psychiatrist/professor and he specializes in "the mind of a terrorist." Let me ask him and see what he says. If he responds to me I'll let you know what he says.
To clarify once again: I say investigate and bring those responsible to justice. Obama has come down on the wrong side of this issue I think. And yes, I'm very disappointed.
denese
As for Obama's refusal to release the photos, if I may, I'd like to cite what I wrote about a stance taken by Tony Blankley back in 12/07 when the news broke that the CIA had destroyed the videotaped evidence of their waterboarding prisoners:
Tonight on NPR I heard the most unbelievable Op-Ed piece by conservative columnist, radio personality, Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow and for eight years, Newt Gingrich's Press Secretary, Tony Blankley. Commenting on the CIA's destruction of its videotapes of waterboarding torture, he proudly declared that "Finally, the CIA did something right" by preventing the inflammatory videotapes from falling into the hands of YouTube or Al Jazeera. He went on to say what an "incubus" of a PR disaster its general distribution would have been because it would harm "our" efforts to "win the hearts and minds" of the Muslim world.
I could not believe my ears. No words of dismay or outrage about the fact that the CIA has been torturing people from Mr. Blankley. No, in today's America, according to the mouths of reactionaries such as he, the good thing is that the video evidence of these heinous acts has been destroyed. And NPR had the temerity to run such monstrous talk.
Is this the ultimate in spin? It doesn't matter, according to Mr. B, that our government has been torturing people. No, what matters is that the most inflammatory evidence of said acts, the most dramatic proof and footage of their existence, has been eliminated. The Muslim world won't know the difference, or so Mr. B thinks. What contempt for truth. What contempt for the Muslim world - that they wouldn't be offended and inflamed by the knowledge - a fact that the Muslim world has known for years already - that the U.S. government and military torture people. What contempt for Americans that he thinks such twisted logic can convince Americans not to rise up against this regime and send it to the Hague!
How dare we question the president? How dare we dream of having a president who respects and enforces the rule of law, who properly holds in high esteem principles of transparency, accountability, and freedom? What has this world come to?”
Well I ask you Kevin…what is wrong with the notion “Give the guy a chance to do what he has to do…his way?”
He has made some judgments. He thinks jumping into prosecutions will do more harm than good. He thinks releasing the pictures will do more harm than good.
Give him a chance to do it this way!
Jeanette following you says she does not see Obama as being a scumbag…or as having nefarious intentions.
Neither do I.
I think he is assessing the situation…and making judgments (perhaps even based in part on material he cannot pass on.)
Give the guy a chance!
FIVE MONTHS…and we see people like Dennis Loo writing blog after blog and response after response excoriating Obama for not doing this or not doing that.
I ask again…what the hell is it with you people?
If you see the value of questioning the president…why can you not see the value of going along with him during this difficult time?
Are you that sure your way is the best way…and that his way is inferior to yours?
Give the guy a chance!
I think that one of the best things to do for the army to help the things, would be openly investigate those torturing cases and punish the people who were in charge. If trying to hide the things more and more, the rumors, what happened would become bigger and bigger.
Did I say that I thought the evidence should be destroyed? Did I say that these acts should not be investigated and that the perpetrators should not be held accountable? No. In fact I said the opposite.
I'm sorry Dennis but I don't "get" why you said "Ask yourself why American troops are in harms' way in the first place? Who put them there? Who continues to keep them there and in fact is escalating their presence in Afghanistan?"
What does this have to do with releasing photographs, which is what we're talking about?
Anyway, this fellow that calls himself George Washington, has a blog and he says that the pictures in question are here (see link below). So I guess it's a moot point:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/05/here-are-few-of-torture-photos-obama.html
Why some people might be embarrassed over the torturing case.
There are innocent civilian people killed all the time in the wars started. The whole war in Iraq was started by bogus reasons as was the war in Afghanistan, too. And it is clear that many people arrested and put in jails as war prisoners and tortured there are completely innocent, they had nothing to do with the wars. Add to this that torturing doesn't bring any valid knowledge out. Add to this that torturing is illegal.
As for the connection between US soldiers being harmed by this and the release of photos: I thought that was obvious, but apparently not - the Bush regime put American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place and Obama is continuing this policy. So the people who have put US soldiers in harms' way are Bush and Obama. For Obama to say that releasing the photos will harm American soldiers overlooks the point that he is responsible himself for maintaining, indeed, escalating those wars.
Give Obama a Chance to Do What? ---[ http://www.opednews.com/articles/Give-Obama-a-Chance-to-Do-by-Kevin-Gosztola-090402-285.html ]
Dennis makes some great points and I thank others for engaging him in conversation on this thread.
I understood that you were pointing out what you believe to be Obama's hypocrisy.
But, to be *consistent,* that is, *not hypocritical* what do you think he should he do?... release these photos to put our soldiers in further harm's way?
Of course you don't. But the rhetoric you're espousing doesn't lead to a decision about these photographs that makes sense or that is reasonable or even just.
And yes, just to be clear, I want our soldiers to come home too.
Obama has said that he made this decision not to release the photos based on 1. what was in the best interest of the troops, and 2. because releasing the information would produce no positive results; that is, it would not lead to a further understanding of the abuses that took place. In fact, the release of the photos would produce negative results for our troops. I believe that that is very sound reasoning.
And he's right, the photos aren't particularly sensationalistic, at least in comparison to what we've seen at Abu Ghraib (at least from the website I already provided). He didn't say that they were a fraud, that they weren't evidence of torture, that torture didn't take place. He didn't say they should be destroyed.
I'm sorry Kevin, I'll get off of your blog now.
Goodnight.
Denese
“Give Obama a Chance to Do What?”
I am going to treat that question seriously, although ever fiber of my body feels it ought not to be treated that way.
I am asking to give him a chance to solve some of the most perplexing, incredibly entrenched problems any new president has ever been asked to solve…problems which he has on his plate in abundance because of the piss poor stewardship and general incompetence of the previous administration.
Are you telling me, Kevin, that you honestly didn’t know about this????
You wrote: “Dennis makes some great points and I thank others for engaging him in conversation on this thread.”
I do not know Dennis personally so I cannot speak categorically about him…but my estimation from reading his posts is that he is a fraud…possibly an ultra-conservative plant pretending to be intelligent and measured while actually being relentless in savaging Obama. For certain he is the “leader” of the “let’s savage Obama” contingent on OS.
In a move of incredible intellectual cowardice, he has banned me from his threads…and I guarantee I was not inappropriately rude or disruptive. I was impassioned in my remarks…nothing more.
If you copy and paste that link, you will be able to read what I think about the idea of "giving Obama a chance."
I can't speak for Dennis, but it's his threads. He can do what he wants.
As for me, you can be angry about my treatment of Obama and share it with others as much as you want on my articles.
Rest easy. You're irritation is welcome here.
In return, I'll try to quiet the passion.
As you can probably tell...it may take some doing on my part!!!
If I seem less than dazzled, however, it has to do with one of the “…it means…” that you left out.
Allow me to offer it up for consideration: Giving Obama a chance means giving a guy elected to do an almost impossible job…righting a ship of state listing past the failing point…the opportunity to do things his way.
He has to make decisions based on what is here now…not what we wish things were.
I do not agree with some of his decisions…and some, although I do not necessarily disagree with…anger me.
Not prosecuting the scum who have so offended this country’s honor by allowing torture knifes through me like a dagger. I would so love to pull these miscreants through mud…especially knowing that if the tables were turned, the conservatives…the Republicans…would probably already be engaged in a bloodbath.
But Obama has shown me that a steady hand…and a refusal to go to the low road…can bring results. He was elected.
Now he is bringing some of what he used in his campaign to the business of running the country.
I WANT TO GIVE HIM EVERY CHANCE TO SUCCEED.
He has his enemies on the right…and will always have to deal with them. I think it is a black stain on our country…and on progressive thinking…that he has so much static coming his way from the left.
Make no mistake about it. Some of you are saying what reduces to: He has been in office for almost six months now…and everything is not yet repaired.
Well…if you really feel things should be better…perhaps you should be agitating to impeach him. Argue that he is a failure.
For me…I am going to give him lots more time…and I am going to fight the lot of you refusing to give him your help, good wishes, and respect. I am going to fight you people with everything I can bring to bear.
But it was an interesting essay, Kevin…and an interesting way to deal with the issue. My congratulations.
anti-American sentiments, from reducing support for the much needed Pakistan action against the Taliban to reducing support for NATO's presence in Afghanistan to inciting thousands of young persons to wish to kill Americans."
My viewpoint is quite opposite. I'm not an expert on terrorism, but I've lived quite long times in developing countries near Pakistan including working some time in Pakistan.
The thing is that most people in that area and many people in America and in Europe are thinking that the whole war as started by Bush administration in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan is simply criminal. It was started by bogus reasons about Osama Bin Laden involvement in the terror strike 9/11 and about his complete unknown hiding places somewhere there.
Americans never gave out any proof about anything connecting Afghanistan and Taleban with 9/11 terror strikes. But a big war was started quickly against the whole country of Afghanistan. Then later using similar reasons another war was started against Iraq.
Now Obama has already started to expand the war in Afghanistan.
The whole world already has got the opinion that the reasons given out to start the war in Iraq were just fabricated. There is a growing mistrust on the reasons for starting the war in Afghanistan. There is a growing evidence that Americans have violated their own and international laws by torturing people in jails and captured in the connection with these wars.
Obama had the opportunity start putting the things in order.
He had the opportunity to order investigations on the alleged torturing cases in jails. He had the opportunity to start pulling out American troops from Afghanistan and to start making peace accords with the various forces there.
But Obama has started acting just the opposite way. He is by all means preventing investigations on torturing cases. He started to expand the wars, which were started by very dubious reasons and which are killing lots of civilians every day and which have already made almost one million people refugees.
I think that behavior of Obama administration is creating lots of hatred against Americans. If Obama would start working the opposite way, allowing and helping investigations on wrongdoings of Americans most people would think that finally Americans started correcting their ways and the hatred against Americans would diminish.
Obama has already shown his true face.
I posted a commentary about this yesterday here.
It's funny that some people would draw the conclusion that I am some kind of secret right winger because I have been pointing out that Obama has been doing some awful things and that what he's been doing is the opposite of what someone would do - the very opposite - if they were planning somewhere down the road to prosecute Bush et al for their torture policies and so on.
I guess in this putative democracy, criticizing the president makes you a right winger and one isn't supposed to criticize the president. If you dare to do so, then it's the duty of right-thinking Americans to tell you to shut up.
I guess that makes the New York Times today also right wing as they said this, as cited by Glenn Greenwald:
"On that topic, here is the first paragraph of this New York Times article this morning by David Sanger, summing everything up:
"'President Obama’s decisions this week to retain important elements of the Bush-era system for trying terrorism suspects and to block the release of pictures showing abuse of American-held prisoners abroad are the most graphic examples yet of how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office.'"
Bingo, according to some folks' logic: the New York Times = Fox News! Who would have thought!
Here is what Dennis Loo wrote:
“I guess that makes the New York Times today also right wing as they said this, as cited by Glenn Greenwald:
"On that topic, here is the first paragraph of this New York Times article this morning by David Sanger, summing everything up:
"'President Obama’s decisions this week to retain important elements of the Bush-era system for trying terrorism suspects and to block the release of pictures showing abuse of American-held prisoners abroad are the most graphic examples yet of how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office.'"”
Folks…here is a link to the full Times piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Read it!
You will see that the Times is much, much, much more willing to see Obama’s moves as being reasonable…and the result of new forces at play in the Oval Office that were not in play during a campaign.
Dennis Loo is not even being ethical…let alone reasonable. Everything he is saying apparently has to travel through his considerable ego…and gets terribly distorted as a consequence.
No Dennis…the New York Times is not acting like a covert right-winger. But you sure as hell are!
I mentioned on Dennis' blog that I am the last person to think I'd find myself on the other side of Dennis Loo's arguments. This particularly example is just part of the reason why.
denese
When I first read Dennis’ comments—with the thrust being that the article bolsters his take on things…I couldn’t understand it. How in the heck did he possibly think that article was in his corner?
But to give him the benefit of the doubt, he was not quoting from the article, but from someone else who was quoting from the article.
Dennis should have gone over to the Times and read the entire essay before using it the way he did. David Sanger, the Times writer of the piece, was obviously using the first paragraph as a huge “BUT”…for the remainder of the article…which was, as you pointed out, an even-handed recitation of the facts with pro-Obama conclusions.
To suggest it was negatively critical of Obama to a significant degree is way off base. If Dennis did it knowingly...shame on him. If he did it unawares...shame on him anyway.
I think there is a place for Dennis Loo. He's passionate and he voices a side that maybe ought to be said. The problem is that Dennis needs a balancing act (sorry Dennis) and I guess that's you n me.
Things aren't perfect in Oz Frank. I'm not happy with the way this whole torture issue has been handled. But, I truly trust Obama-- his character, his intellect, his instincts-- I don't envy him his job. Thank God that many of his critics don't have to make the decisions he does. What a weight.
d
:-)
Let's have some empathy for one another.
d
The only reason I am being as strident with Dennis as I am…is because he banned me from his threads…in effect he is censoring me.
For the most part, however…I am a most empathetic fella!
In fact, my hopes are that he will come to his senses--withdraw the ban--and we will become close cyber friends...albeit, friends on the opposite side of the Obama question.
Minimally he deserves to have been impeached long ago. In reality, he deserves to appear before the criminal court in the Hague, along with his predecessors for crimes against humanity.
When voices like Professor Loo and Kevin, who wrote this incredible piece are drowned out by loons who bray give him a chance, all is lost.
His obligations started on day one, not when appeasers decide that the time is right.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
--Carroll Quigley
Voting is just a way to get people to accept being ruled by giving them the appearance of control over the govt.
"The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes --- a large class, no doubt --- each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change."
--Lysander Spooner
Once again, in 1998, Amnesty International led an international campaign to call attention to the massive human rights violations (i.e. torture...) going on in American prisons, detention centers for immigrants, jails, etc. They were NOT the work of a few bad apples, they were (and still ARE) the result of the ATTITUDES, ASSUMPTIONS, TACIT CONSENT and INDIFFERENCE of the majority of American citizens. (How many comments on this subject and Guantanamo, vs the comments on the recent SCOTUS decision ? Case closed.)
So... WHO are we going to put on trial, and WHO is responsible for this, and to what extent ?
Are WE going to continue passing the buck this way ?
For the photos... since when was not plastering photos on the Internet, in newspapers all over the planet (thus ensuring violent, inflammatory reactions...) a coverup ?
And... when are we going to question the big MANTRA that the way to ensure that this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN is to have trials, convict people and punish them ?
The trials (and don't forget, the punishment...) are going to ensure that this never happens again ??
This idea is extremely... naïve.
It's time we started discussing this ideological mantra, instead of bowing down to it as though it were a modern day commandment.
We haven't really opened up this box and looked inside it carefully yet...
It's the notion that because I believe myself to be a good person then when I resort to actions that'd appal me if my enemies pursued them the fact I'm doing them with good intentions makes them somehow innately different.
If 'they' - the enemy - blow up innocent men, women and children, it's a crime of unalloyed horror perpetrated by inhuman monsters who must be brought to justice and made to pay for their insane devotion to evil.
If I blow up innocent men, women and children - oops!
I don't actually think Obama is a ringer for some hidden right wing/left wing IslamoChristoCommunoIlluminatoFascistoSatanoAtheistic conspiracy group - at least not wittingly - but rather a bloke who's trying to convince all sides - ESPECIALLY those whose values directly oppose his own - that he wants to do the right thing, and every time he catches a glimpse of how far he's slipping away from the centre of his OWN values, he points out to himself what he's doing can't be wrong because he's doing it with the best of intentions.
Obama has lied about almost everything so he has zero credsibility,
and if he claims it is day, the world now believes it is really night.
The public has NOT been shown all the Abu Ghraib pictures, thousands have still been classified, obviously because they showed things that were far worse than the ones already released,
hence the coverup. Obama has still not produced his birth certificate or records from Columbia University (not one person remembers him there).So he's hiding something which fits in with his profile of lying.
Showing the Abu Ghraib pictures is one thing, but the next best thing would be to desctribe what he doesn't want shown in pictures, but he's refused to do that also. He couldn't stop the New Yorker however from publishing an article in 2008 which described pictures of bones incinerated in a crematorium similar to Auschwitz.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/24/080324fa_fact_gourevitch
The pictures have been classified, but we KNOW that people were incinerated just like Auschwitz, which is not torture, but cold-blooded murder. The rest of the world knows about this article--it is not secret--and so the world knows how barbaric the Bush administration was, and Obama has embraced every single one of these barbaric policies, in fact has enhanced renditions and torture according to Jeremy Scahill.
He clearly is therefore in collusion and complicit with these war crimes and really imagines if he hides all records he will not
incriminate himself . He should be charged along with all the rest of the war criminals, Pelosi included who approved of torture.
Nuremberg proved that when criminals hide and coverup, the truth is finally exposed and Bush, Obama and the rest of the war criminal thugs in his barbaric regime will be charged and held to account one day. We haven't forgotten about war criminals Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. And the story is not over. When the events of 9/11 are exposed after a full impartial investigation in the Hague, more heads will roll. Other foreign governments are involved as well, as we all know.
I am no fan of The Messiah, but the insinuation that America makes difficult national security decisions just so we can expand our "empire" is ludicrous to the core. Such a claim is simplistic hyperbole and does little more than expose those who claim it as being guilty of historical ignorance.
The pictures?: Normally, I'm an ACLU supporter. But, in this case, no. If there is a chance that releasing these photos will hurt our men and women in the field I'm against it.
Somehow the attention of the enraged often focuses on an act like not releasing pictures, because our "rights" are reduce chest fat being violated. Your "rights" don't tip the balance when it's a question of one man or woman's life.
Parier sur le sport en misant chez les meilleurs site de pari sportif en ligne.
I wouldn't want to think that his real concern about the photos is not that they show people in the Middle East that a war is going on when they already know that, but that he's simply intent on suppressing the explicit dissemination of this information to the American public.