CIA director nominee Leon Panetta gave startling testimony in his confirmation hearings this week by retracting a statement critical of the Bush Administration’s rendition policy and proclaiming that CIA employees will not be punished for any war crimes that they committed. I discuss the testimony on this segment of Countdown.
Panetta made the statements before the Senate Intelligence committee and in an interview with AP. He stated that
“[i[t was my opinion we just can’t operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department.” While he did not address the prosecution of those who ordered the war crimes, he categorically dismissed the idea that you could be prosecuted for just following orders. Of course, that is precisely the defense that we rejected after World War II and executed those who made the “just following orders defense.” We do not apply the same standard to terrorism: we will prosecute the head of Al Qaeda or Libyan intelligence service in a terrorism case but not the individuals who carried out the orders. Like other crimes, you are not allowed to commit torture and you are expected to refuse. Some did refuse in this country and those who did not committed a war crime.
None of this means that low-level CIA employees were likely to be prosecuted or that they had no defense. As I have said before, these employees can make an estoppel defense argument. However, such defenses are made in the course of an investigation. No reasonable leader should state that there is some irrebuttable presumption that an alleged torturer cannot be prosecuted if he was just following orders. The harm done from such careless statements to international law is incalculable. Moreover, by starting with such statements, you remove any leverage of investigations in seeking the cooperation of low-level individuals, who are less likely to cooperation if they know that they cannot or will not be prosecuted for their roles. President Obama and now Panetta have created a new American rule that, so long as a lawyer tells you to commit a war crime, you are immune from prosecution.
Finally, there is the problem of a future CIA director making such an announcement. While Panetta said he would “leave to others” the question of whether high-ranking officials might be prosecuted for war crimes, he could assure the committee that the actual torturers would be given immunity. It is a dangerous and presumptuous claim for an agency head to make. Even an attorney general nominee would be unwise to make such a categorical claim. A CIA director has no part in the decision whether one of his people should be charged as a war criminal — a legal question.
On the renditions question, Panetta was equally baffling. When pressed by Sen. Kit Bond (R., Mo.) on his prior statement that there was a policy to rendition individuals for torture, Panetta conceded that he was “not aware of the validity of those claims” and retracted the statement. Bond then publicly spanked him for “making statements or making judgments based on rumors and news stories,” saying that this was just rumors put out by “liberal blogs” and journalists.
However, it was not liberal blogs and journalists who put out these statements. Various people involved in the case admitted that they routinely used rendition for this purpose and many such cases show precisely this pattern. Panetta should have said that we can debate the meaning of an “official policy.” However, where there is such a pattern and understanding, many would view it as a policy. Policies are not formed like legislation or regulations with a record of committee reports or federal register events to mark its creation. Many an administration routinely renditions individuals, who are tortured, there is ample reason to call it a de facto policy.
For the story, click here
attaboy LEON.
Must be skeletons in your closet, too.
Taxes, Leon?
Been shorting the IRS on taxes?
Sorry betty!
No one here wants the torturers proper on trial. Maybe a few of the most egregious offenders – those who strayed into murder and rape and even your boy Panetta said those guys will get what’s coming to them.
We the People DON’T WANT THE TORTURERS. WE WANT THE GUYS WHO ORDERED IT.
So suck it up, troll boy/girl/thing. We’re coming for your masters!
War crimes and treason trump taxes as something to bitch about. Get a clue.
Buddha:
“No one here wants the torturers proper on trial.”
***********
Come on now Buddha, you’d make an exception for betty and maybe bron98, wouldn’t ya?
mespo,
I’m flexible. I think there’s room for a fair number of Dick’s little helpers in prison. Especially the willing. No one can be ordered to be evil, only to commit evil.
“373 of the U.S. War Criminals Named”
WINSTON-SALEM, NC — In the following 2 links 373 members of Congress are named who voted Aye on the Resolution of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq on Oct. 10th and Oct. 11th 2002. These votes to give Bush war powers were unconstitutional, felonious and treasonous. The votes represent ratification and evidence of War Crimes. Several of these War Criminals are in Obama’s cabinet and his administration. Some of them, like Obama, have voted at least 11 times since 2003 to fund the US-led wars of mass murder, maiming and torture.
296 Co-Conspirators in the House of Representatives Who Voted Aye
77 Co-Conspirators in the Senate Who Voted Aye
http://BuenaVistaMall.com/WarCrimes.htm
I am sure that most of the progressive left would be ecstatic if investigations were brought against any in the Bush regime for war crimes like torture. However, it is the (how did the Beatles put it?) little piggies in the white shirts who ordered and authorized the illegal torture that we are aiming for. I hope I remembered that beatles paraphrase correctly. I wouldn’t want andy Beatles Trolls to come after me.
Obama is leaving the rendition program in place with some changes but sill allowing, at this point, torture, specifically techniques that go beyond the AFM (which already allows behavior considered torture by other nations and frankly our own). Further, the US, under Obama is so far not allowing evidence to be given in civil cases alleging torture and rendition, citing the “state secrets priveledge”.
Every indication coming out of the WH is there will be no prosecutions. If people of conscience keep sticking their heads in the sand about this, we will allow what should never be allowed. In the “recovery movement” that’s called enabling. I’m not big on that whole movement, but I think the term applies here. We need to open our eyes and open our mouths.
I’m of a mixed mind on this. We established after WWII that “following orders” did not exculpate one from prosecution for war crimes. Nevertheless, we have to remember that frenzy the country was whipped into after 9/11 by the bushies, the punditocracy and the rest of the MSM. The first total fool who went on national TV and uttered: “Well this changes everything” unleashed a maelstrom of feeling that led people to believe that all was null and void in our pursuit of vengeance. Don’t get me wrong, as someone who worked (until 1999) 3 blocks from the WTC, went to numerous meetings there and spent many lunch hours there I felt devastated by the loss. However, the greatness of the US can only flow from our system of government, our legal system and our humanity. Under the rightful President Al Gore, I’m pretty sure that our response would have been no less decisive, but we wouldn’t have attacked Iraq, Al Queada would have been destroyed and the US would have had the sympathy and support of most nations and been protected without the commission of War Crimes.
Given the blitz of propaganda shaped feeling, the lack of official protest and the drumbeat of mindless pundits, one can see a lower level CIA/NSA/Military functionary believing sincerely that torture was appropriate. That some protested, that some refused and some resigned rather than take part in the illegality is a tribute to their morality, patriotism and true understanding of what kind of country America should be. They were/are true heroes.
We know though that not all of us are cut out for such heroism.
Given the nature of those times and the vehemence of pressure from above, they either believed in the validity of their orders, or caved in to overwhelming pressure.
I can therefore understand the case for absolving them. The prosecution of Lindy English et. al. also showed the problems in this. Her and her cronies behavior was reprehensible, but they were basically grunts responding to authoritative commands and demands. In a military service that demands obedience to those of higher rank, how many of them could we have expected to refuse, or to not carry out what they perceived as duty? They also had been over exposed to the propaganda the military uses effectively to ensure adherence to the defined mission. Having said that though, on the other side we see the pleasure and creativity that they brought to their torture. That there was an erotic SM component to their actions is shown in the pictures and accounts. Hence the dichotomy of my thought on this issue. Since they, at the lowest levels were the only one’s being penalized, my heart puts me on the side of absolution for them as long as those in authority suffer no harm.
The real issue in this, as most of us I think have agreed with JT, is that there must be prosecution and punishment meted out to those at the higher/highest levels, who authorized these atrocities and in their actions shamed/stained the US and its citizens. There can be no equivocation on this, lest we give future administrations the belief that this represents viable options, which can be used with no cost.
Jill
I didn’t get the same impression as you did of President Obama’s position on rendition. My understanding is that he would allow for the picking up of certain individuals and have them transferred to their home country for legal prosecution in that country for crimes committed in that country, but not where torture is a possibility and at no time will his administration stoop to the depths of Bush’s sociopathic regime.
Jill,
I agree with your concern that we all need to open our mouths and keep the Obama Administration’s feet to the fire when it comes to torture. I diagree that the amended or corrected or improved rendition program recently announced allows for torture. I do not believe in rendidition for any reason, but if torture is off the table and it is not used in the way the Bush regime did, I can live with it. That being said, the Bush regime also claimed that we do not render anyone to countries that torture, while at the same time listing some of those countries as torturers in our own State department reports. We will have to watch them closely on this issue. I also disagree with your comment that the AFM contains techniques of torture. Which items are you referring to. It was amended during the Bush regime to take out any abusive techniques, if I remember correctly. All in all, your concern is warranted. I am hoping that Holder sticks to his guns and the new OLC head also sticks to her earlier statements and investigations of the higher ups should be initiated. I need to see action though, not just words.
We are JUST the people.
Do you understand now?
JT, great interview with KO last night. You look trim!??
I apologize in advance for the length of my post, but it is my only defense against the hand-wringing I encounter here on an almost daily basis. Please indulge me ;p
I heard another interview recently with Glenn Greenwald, I believe, who made it sound like renditions started under ’43′, George W. That’s not true, if that’s what he was implying.
Renditions occurred at least a dozen times under Clinton, from what I’ve understood, but the distinction being made is against the ‘extraordinary’ style renditions and the torture program making the US famous.
However, if we were to start investigating renditions, we’d have to go back and look at ’41′, George H.W. Bush, who was also a former head of the CIA.
Below is an ’05 ABC article about and a ’07 statement before House Foreign Affairs from former CIA counterterrorism Agent, Michael Scheuer, who started the renditions program under Clinton,
he says…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm
CIA renditions began under Clinton: agent
“The US Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) controversial “rendition” program was launched under US president Bill Clinton, a former US counter-terrorism agent has told a German newspaper.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, has told Die Zeit that the US administration had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system.
“President Clinton, his national security adviser Sandy Berger and his terrorism adviser Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al Qaeda,” Mr Scheuer said.
“We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said ‘That’s up to you’.”
Mr Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, says he developed and led the “renditions” program…”
————-
foreignaffairs.house.gov
/110/sch041707.htm
The Rendition Program
The CIA’s Rendition Program began in late summer, 1995. I authored it, and then ran and managed it against al-Qaeda leaders and other Sunni Islamists from August, 1995, until June, 1999.
A.) There were only two goals for the program:
1.) Take men off the street who were planning or had been involved in attacks on U.S. or its allies.
2.) Seize hard-copy or electronic documents in their possession when arrested; Americans were never expected to read them.
3.) Interrogation was never a goal under President Clinton. Why?
–Because it would be a foreign intelligence or security service without CIA present or in control.
–Because the take from the interrogation would be filtered by the service holding the individual, and we would never know if it was complete or distorted.
–Because torture might be used and the information might be simply what an individual thought we wanted to hear
B.) The Rendition Program was initiated because President Clinton, and Messrs. Lake, Berger, and Clarke requested that the CIA begin to attack and dismantle AQ. These men made it clear that they did not want to bring those captured to the U.S. and hold them in U.S. custody.
1.) President Clinton and his national security team directed the CIA to take each captured al-Qaeda leader to the country which had an outstanding legal process for him. This was a hard-and-fast rule which greatly restricted CIA’s ability to confront al-Qaeda because we could only focus on al-Qaeda leaders who were wanted somewhere. As a result many al-Qaeda fighters we knew were dangerous to America could not be captured.
2.) CIA warned the president and the National Security Council that the U.S. State Department had and would identify the countries to which the captured fighters were being delivered as human rights abusers.
3.) In response, President Clinton et. al asked if CIA could get each receiving country to guarantee that it would treat the person according to its own laws. This was no problem and we did so.
–I have read and been told that Mr. Clinton, Mr. Burger, and Mr. Clarke have said since 9/11 that they insisted that each receiving country treat the rendered person it received according to U.S. legal standards. To the best of my memory that is a lie.
C.) After 9/11, and under President Bush, rendered al-Qaeda operatives have most often been kept in U.S. custody. The goals of the program remained the same, although the Mr. Bush’s national security team wanted to use U.S. officers to interrogate captured al-Qaeda fighters
1.) This decision by the Bush administration allowed CIA to capture al-Qaeda fighters we knew were a threat to the United States without on all occasions being dependent on the availability of another country’s outstanding legal process. This decision made the already successful Rendition Program even more effective.
D.) The following particulars about the Rendition Program may be of interest to you.
1.) From its start until today, the Program was focused on senior al-Qaeda leaders and not aimed at the rank-and-file members. With only limited manpower to conduct the Rendition Program, CIA wanted to inflict as much damage on al-Qaeda as possible and therefore focused on senior leaders, financiers, terrorist operators, field commanders, strategists, and logisticians.
2.) To the best of my knowledge, not a single target of rendition has ever been kidnapped by CIA officers. The claims to the contrary by the Swedish government regarding Mr. Aghiza and his associate, and those by the Italian government regarding Abu Omar, are either misstatements or lies by those governments.
–Indeed, it is passing strange that European leaders are here today to complain about very successful and security enhancing U.S. Government counterterrorism operations, when their European Union (EU) presides over the earth’s single largest terrorist safe haven, and has done so for a quarter century. The EU’s policy of easily attainable political asylum and its prohibition against deporting wanted or convicted terrorists to country’s with the death penalty have made Europe a major, consistent, and invulnerable source of terrorist threat to the United States.
3.) Each and every target of a rendition was vetted by a battery of lawyers at CIA and not infrequently by lawyers at the National Security Council and the Department of Justice. For each rendition target, I, and then my successors as the chief of the bin Laden/al-Qaeda operations, had to prepare and present a written brief citing and explaining the intelligence information that made the rendition target a threat to the United States and/or its allies. If the brief persuaded the lawyers, the operation went ahead. If the brief was insufficient, the lawyers disapproved and no operation was conducted against that target until additional reliable evidence was collected.
–Let me be very explicit and precise on this point. Not one single al-Qaeda leader has ever been rendered on the basis of any CIA officer’s “hunch” or “guess” or “caprice.” These are scurrilous accusations that became fashionable after the Washington Post’s correspondent Dana Priest revealed information that damaged U.S. national security and, as result, won a journalism prize for abetting America’s enemies, and when such lamentable politicians as Senators McCain, Rockefeller, Graham, and Levin followed Ms. Priest’s lead and began to attack the men and women of CIA who had risked their lives to protect America under the direct orders of two U.S. presidents and with the full knowledge of the intelligence committees of the United States Congress. Both Ms. Priest and the gentlemen just mentioned have behaved disgracefully, and ought to publicly apologize to the CIA’s men and women who have executed the Rendition Program.
4.) To proceed, the Rendition Program has been the single most effective counterterrorism operation ever conducted by the United States government. Americans are safer today because of the program, but that degree of safety will ebb as the Senators just mentioned slowly but surely destroy the program. If there are those in this Congress, in the media, in this country, or in Europe who believe that we would be safer if Khalid Shaykh Muhammed, Abu Zubaydah, Mr. Hambali, Ibn Shaykh al-Libi, Khalid bin Attash, and several dozen other senior al-Qaeda leaders were still free and on the street, then the educational systems and the reservoirs of common sense on both sides of the Atlantic are in much more dilapidated shape than I thought.
5.) On the issue of how rendered al-Qaeda leaders have been treated in prison, I am unable to speak with authority about the conditions these men found in the Middle Eastern prisons they were delivered to at President Clinton’s direction. I would not, however, be surprised if their treatment was not up to U.S. standards, but this is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.
Under President Bush, the rendered al-Qaeda fighters held in U.S. custody have been treated according to guidelines that were crafted by U.S. government lawyers, approved by the Executive Branch, and briefed to and permitted by at least the four senior members of the two congressional intelligence oversight committees.
6.) Finally, I will close by saying that mistakes may well have been made during my tenure as the chief of CIA’s bin Laden operations, and, if there were errors, they are my responsibility. Intelligence information is not the equivalent of court-room-quality evidence, and it never will be. But I will again stress that no rendition target was ever approved or captured without a written brief composed of intelligence information that persuaded competent U.S. government legal authorities. If mistakes were made, I can only say that that is tough, but war is a tough and confusing business, and a well-supported chance to take action and protect Americans should always trump other considerations, especially pedantic worries about whether or not the intelligence data is air tight.
–To destroy the Rendition Program because of a mistake or two or more would be to sacrifice the protection of Americans to venal and prize-hungry reporters like Ms. Priest, grandstanding politicians like those mentioned above, and effete sanctimonious Europeans who take every bit of American protection offered them while publicly damning and seeking jail time for those who risk their lives to provide the protection. If the Rendition Program is halted, we will truly be able to say, by paraphrasing the late film actor John Wayne, that: War is tough, but it is a lot tougher if you are deliberately stupid.
Well put
rcampbell and rafflaw,
Thank you both for being professional in your disagreement with what I wrote. I will try to give you the information on which I based what I wrote. Please let me know what you think. The following is a clip and link to the Center for Constitutional Rights;
“President Obama’s three executive orders of January 22, 2009 call for the closing of Guantanamo within one year, the closing of secret CIA ‘black sites,’ and the limiting of interrogation techniques to those allowed in the Army Field Manual (AFM). Join us to close torture loopholes that remain.
Description
President Obama’s three executive orders of January 22, 2009 call for the closing of Guantanamo within one year, the closing of secret CIA ‘black sites,’ and the limiting of interrogation techniques to those allowed in the Army Field Manual (AFM), eliminating the numerous executive orders and opinions issued during the Bush administration that granted official approval for torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, and abuse. These executive orders certainly represent an extraordinary step forward, but we remain concerned about potentially exploitable loopholes. Please take a moment to ask him to close the loopholes.
While the current Army Field Manual does not allow waterboarding, it does include approved techniques that constitute torture. One glaring problem with the executive order on torture is the implicit approval of the current AFM as it stands. The Army Field Manual is a guidebook for U.S. interrogators, meant to set a standard in accordance with the law. However, it has serious shortcomings – particularly following a Bush-era 2006 revision that attempted to legitimize some of the abuses taking place at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
Please join us in urging President Obama to clarify that his executive order truly means an end to U.S. torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”
http://ccrjustice.org/get-involved/action/close-torture-loopholes-army-field-manual
This is one of the cases I’m refering to on state secrets. It is being filed by the ACLU. Here is a clip and the link:
“SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA – February 1 – The American Civil Liberties Union will argue in federal court next week for the continuation of its case against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. for the company’s role in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. The ACLU is opposing the government’s attempt to throw out the case by misusing the “state secrets” privilege in an effort to avoid legal scrutiny of the unlawful and shameful program.
Tuesday’s hearing is part of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of five victims of the rendition program who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and torture. The lawsuit charges that Jeppesen knowingly aided the program by providing flight planning and logistical support services for aircraft and crews used by the CIA to transport the victims.
After the lawsuit was filed, the U.S. government intervened to seek its dismissal, contending that further litigation of the case would expose state secrets and be harmful to national security. However, the information needed to pursue the lawsuit, including details about the extraordinary rendition program itself, is already in the public domain.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0201-06.htm
sigh – the adults leave the room and the kids are on the dinner table again . . .
Rendition isn’t the issue. Got that?
Only a moron thinks “rendition” is even new under Clinton. What? Surprised to hear a “lefty” say that? What exactly did you think the CIA was doing all these years? Assassinate to solve every problem? Standing around with their thumbs up their butt until it was time to kill someone? Drinking martinis and humping while the real work is left undone (sorry James!)? No. That’s what AUTHORITARIANS and IMAGINARY CHARACTERS do. Rendition isn’t the answer. Rendition isn’t even the problem.
Rendition for the sake of torture is.
Rendition into a bottomless pit with no form of due process is.
Taking bad guys out of circulation isn’t.
You jackass Neocons can’t distinguish between the JOB and the LEGALITY AND ETHICS OF THE METHOD. Taking care of bad guys is everyone’s goal, but torturing them and holding them forever absent trial? That’s Neocon tactics. That’s NAZI tactics. FACT – That’s illegal, immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional. That makes YOU as big or a bigger threat than foreign terrorists. It’s because most of you are sociopaths.
There’s little doubt now.
I’ll bet a dollar that’s not the real Patty either.
Keep stealing nicks, trolls. It’ll cause JT to ban you even quicker. In fact, it’s the only real banning offense I’ve personally seen him use. Plus, it’s not nearly as easy to do as you’d think. First, none of you are as smart as Patty. Second, Patty simply knows better than that drivel up above as evidenced by just about ALL of her other posts. Third, Patty isn’t afraid of controversy, but she wouldn’t walk into that a position to imply torture is good and it started on someone’s watch beside Bush’s – she’s knows that not to be the case and she knows she’d have the rest of the regulars on her like white on rice.
A mild step up your tactics, but overall, your game still sucks. The truth is Bush and Cheney are war criminals. No amount of spin or bullshit or obfuscation will make that go away. We the People are not going to let it slide. Our allies are not going to let it slide. The truth is no one is interested in prosecuting the individual torturers except for the murderers and rapists. We want the ones who ORDERED the torture. That’s pretty clear by now unless 1) you’re stupid, or 2) you have a vested interest in protecting Bush Co., PNAC, lobbyists, Big Oil or Saudi Arabia.
You’re not going to stop us. We the People outnumber you Neocons 9:1. Next time you want to bring up a number, ANY number, that’s the one that should concern you. We also have the advantage that we’re not all evil and crazy – traits we’ve seen in abundant supply in the troll camp as of late. Many of us are very intelligent and capable – most importantly saner than you. It won’t be a fair fight when the adults get up and moving, childrens. That’s what you don’t get. You can’t even comprehend the can of worms you seek to open by obstructing justice. Face it. You’re not only losing the battle here in the logic, law and ethics department. Quite frankly it has been a PR disaster too. I’m THRILLED about that, but I thought someone should point it out since you all have demonstrated problems grasping the obvious.
You won’t stop us and especially not with this weak effort. We the People will have justice. To try to stop that will only result in more harm to YOU. In that respect, thanks. On that note, to paraphrase another great Adams, Douglas Adams . . .
So long and thanks for all the syrup . . .
Finally, here is so information from Panetta’s testimony. Please find a clip and a link:
“Mr. Panetta also said the agency would continue the Bush administration practice of “rendition” – picking terrorism suspects off the street and sending them to a third country. But he said the agency would refuse to deliver a suspect into the hands of a country known for torture or other actions “that violate our human values.”…
Although the C.I.A. can no longer hold prisoners indefinitely, and can no longer hide prisoners from the Red Cross, the exact rules governing agency detention operations remain murky. For instance, Mr. Obama has yet to spell out exactly how long the C.I.A. can detain a prisoner, and how long a detainee can be in C.I.A. custody before the agency notifies the Red Cross.
Obama administration officials said the agency was likely to follow a Pentagon rule that requires Red Cross notification within a few weeks of a prisoner’s capture.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/06-5
BTW, it’s rendition we’ll be using to extract Cheney from Dubai. Ask him if he wants to be waterboarded. We’ll make an exception for him.
This is one more important case to keep aware of. The following is a quote by the head of the ACLU. I have referenced this case in previous posts.
“NEW YORK – After the British High Court ruled that evidence of British resident Binyam Mohamed’s extraordinary rendition and torture at Guantánamo Bay must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama administration told the BBC today in a written statement: “The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens.”
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:
“Hope is flickering. The Obama administration’s position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn’t be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors.”
http://aclu.org/safefree/torture/38662prs20090204.html
rafflaw and rcampbell, I am very worried about all of these things.
Jill,
Thanks for the link.
Buddha,
You are welcome. Again I appreciate rafflaw and rcampbell not personally attacking me. I know that we feel differently about Obama and that makes it extremely important to show the evidence for my thinking.
Jill:
“I am very worried about all of these things.”
*****************
Rome wasn’t built in a day or even three weeks. Give him some time. Would you really rather have the past 8 years over the last three weeks? Commanders have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and the political realities. He knows the right course. Let him tack a little before condemning him. I think he is prudent and doesn’t want to rush headlong into confrontation that will doom him early.
I posted those articles, Buddha!
My objections are to the incessant hand-wringing and sweeping implications that Obama has the full intention of keeping George W. Bushes programs in place, despite his statements and short-order demonstrations to the contrary. It makes me tired.
Like JT, I don’t understand why Panetta felt the need to retract his statement, but I didn’t hear his entire statement.
The Scheurer article and statement I provided were supportive evidence of both the longstanding practice of ‘rendition’, generally, how matters ‘escalated’ under G.W. Bush, and as an unimpeachable CIA source from both former administrations – outside the ‘liberal blogs’.
BTW, I am one of the original ‘turlees’ and most of us regulars know where I stand on the issues as I do, they. Most know that I am active on constitutional issues in my region. Because of that, I am also guilty of assuming most are capable of reading between the lines. Sorry if I was not crystal clear.
George Bush had eight years to screw things up, royally, and was a busy boy right before he left office. Obama may need a couple more weeks to straighten it all out… ;P
Mespo,
I never ever said I would rather have the past 8 years rather than what is happening now. That said, we will get 4 more years of the past eight years if we bury our heads in the sand and ignore what is happening. Criticism isn’t something Obama can’t take. It’s healthy and it means we are still a democracy. Glenn Greenwald has pointed out many times that those who want the status quo are not remaining silent. They have no qualms about letting Obama know exactly what they want him to do, right now. We are “chumps” (to borrow from JT) if we don’t let Obama know that we want him to do the right thing, right now. If we stay silent and wait, Mr. Greenwald is certainly correct that those who want the status quo will surely prevail. Only Obama can “doom” himself . Being questioned by a educated public is something our founders would have encouraged (they certainly engaged in it!). He doesn’t need protection from facts and neither should we.
mespo
Zactly!
Ahhh!
Sorry, Patty. My bad.
That’s what I get for reading while eating. BBQ can be a distraction.
Jill:
“Criticism isn’t something Obama can’t take. It’s healthy and it means we are still a democracy.”
************
Criticism is fine, but like most things in unrestrained abundance, it can also be counterproductive when someone is trying to dig us out of a crisis. That Obama is not perfect in all things should surprise no one. While I do my share of critical analysis and criticism, I do try to remember the words of Teddy Roosevelt:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
“Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Churchill, as usual, said it better:
“It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic””
Sir Winston was better or briefer?
Teddy got more accomplished before breakfast than 20 men.
CCD:
Both – and briefer is always better as any poet knows. Churchill was just as active as TR even wearing out his much frailer cousin during WW2. Here’s Britain’s one indispensable man’s sleep habits:
“At his house at Chartwell, his routine was quite regular. He would wake at 8, spend the morning in bed reading papers, dictating letters, etc., take a long nap at tea time, and work till as late as 3 am. He averaged 5-6 hours of sleep per day. Those words are attributed to Churchill himself: “You must sleep sometime between lunch and dinner, and no halfway measures. Take off your clothes and get into bed. That’s what I always do. Don’t think you will be doing less work because you sleep during the day. That’s a foolish notion held by people who have no imaginations. You will be able to accomplish more. You get two days in one — well, at least one and a half” (source). Churchill’s well-drilled biphasic habits made him one of the most energetic wartime leaders. On a humorous note, F. D. Roosevelt’s aides noted that after a Churchill’s visit, the US president was so exhausted that he needed 10 hours of sleep for 3 days straight to recover.”
rafflaw and rcampbell,
I did back up what I said in response to your posts. The articles are lengthly but it is important to me to answer your questions in an honest, fact based manner. There are posts on the AFM (it still does allow torture) and rendition. I put in 4 or 5 posts, somewhat close to each other with the topics taken separately, for ease of reading.
Jill
Here’s a facet. The AFM manual also reaffirms the longstanding U.S. policy of granting *Geneva Convention protections to detainees.
***See Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (abbreviated GCIII or GPW)
This is an update on a case presented above: Please note that Ms. Bradley will testify that “conditons inside the Cuban prison camp have deteriorated badly since Barack Obama took office”. I am hoping that the readers of this blog do not hold a double standard on torture, namely that it is wrong if Bush lets it go down, but O.K. if it happens under Obama.
“Leutenant-Colonel Yvonne Bradley, an American military lawyer, will step through the grand entrance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London tomorrow and demand the release of her client – a British resident who claims he was repeatedly tortured at the behest of US intelligence officials – from Guantánamo Bay. Bradley will also request the disclosure of 42 secret documents that allegedly chronicle not only how Binyam Mohamed was tortured, but may also corroborate claims that Britain was complicit in his treatment.
But first, Bradley, a US military attorney for 20 years, will reveal that Mohamed, 31, is dying in his Guantánamo cell and that conditions inside the Cuban prison camp have deteriorated badly since Barack Obama took office. Fifty of its 260 detainees are on hunger strike and, say witnesses, are being strapped to chairs and force-fed, with those who resist being beaten. At least 20 are described as being so unhealthy they are on a “critical list”, according to Bradley.
Mohamed, who is suffering dramatic weight loss after a month-long hunger strike, has told Bradley, 45, that he is “very scared” of being attacked by guards, after witnessing a savage beating for a detainee who refused to be strapped down and have a feeding tube forced into his mouth. It is the first account Bradley has personally received of a detainee being physically assaulted in Guantánamo.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/binyam-mohamed-torture-guantanam
Obama and Holder have upheld the exact policy of the Bush administration on state secrets. Again, I am hoping there isn’t any person who spoke out against this when Bush did it who will now justify this reprehensible behavior on the part of the Obama administration. Here is the clip from ACLU. Again, all people of conscience should speak out against these policies and denial of justice and the rule of law.
ustice Department Stands Behind Bush Secrecy In Extraordinary Rendition Case (2/9/2009)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – The Justice Department today repeated Bush administration claims of “state secrets” in a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan for its role in the extraordinary rendition program. Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen was brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture. The Bush administration intervened in the case, inappropriately asserting the “state secrets” privilege and claiming the case would undermine national security. Oral arguments were presented today in the American Civil Liberties Union’s appeal of the dismissal, and the Obama administration opted not to change the government position in the case, instead reasserting that the entire subject matter of the case is a state secret.
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:
“Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”
The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the case for the plaintiffs:
“We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.”
We cannot keep excusing and denying the reality of Obama’s choices and their consequences. If we don’t speak now, these abuses will only continue.
Jill definite swing and a miss.
Dangerous and slippery slope we continue on. President Obama and AG Holder passed up an important opportunity to pivot our governments position towards law. What is motivating this choice?
CCD,
Read this from Glenn Greenwald. He isn’t mincing his words. I don’t know what the motivation is, but that’s a good question. All I do know is–commence flooding the WH with the message that this will not be tolerated!!!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Thank you for the Glenn Greenwald link. I think were going down, what would captain Sully do? Citizens brace for impact.
CCD,
If you go up a few posts you will see information on beatings of prisoners taking place at Gitmo under Obama. It is appalling.
Jill,
Yes I’ve read those, and the way things are contracting…
Now for something completely different. More brain ache.
Come on CCD. These are ongoing cases. Holder promised to review the state secrets privilege claims to verify they’re not totally off the wall, and I trust him to do that.
ACLU stated today ” … Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court…”
Exactly right.
Now, as for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order, the day after he was sworn, for conditions at the prison to be reviewed according to Geneva. Human rights groups have been allowed guided tours since 2004, but not access to detainees. I would prefer to hear their first-hand assessments, once they become available.
If you care so much, get off your ass, do some real research, and then contact your elected officials and ask how you can help
- instead of cyber-bitching.
Attacking Obama, in this manner after three only weeks, makes you fair game, as well.
He won. Get over it.
From Glenn Greenwald,
“Thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration”: that’s about as explicit as it gets. It will be extremely difficult for even the most loyal Obama followers to deny that this was an active and conscious decision on the part of the Obama DOJ to embrace one of the most extreme abuses of the Bush presidency.
It isn’t merely that the Obama DOJ is invoking the privilege for this particular case, which contains allegations of torture that are as brutal and severe as any. That’s bad enough. But worse is that they’re invoking the most abusive parts of the Bush theory: namely, that the privilege can be used to block the adjudication of entire cases (rather than, say, justify the concealment specific classified documents or facts), and, worse still, can be used to prevent judicial scrutiny even when the alleged government conduct is blatantly illegal and, as here, a war crime of the greatest seriousness. They’re embracing a theory that literally places government officials beyond the rule of law. No minimally honest person who criticized the Bush administration for relying on this instrument can defend the Obama administration for doing so here.”
No person should justify torture or the use of state secrets to block justice just because it’s being sanctioned by the person they voted for. People need to keep their moral compass intact, otherwise we are engaging in pure worship of authority. It’s easy to oppose Bush, but harder to oppose Obama. We need to keep our courage and demand this stop.
You ‘worship’ Glenn Greenwald – I don’t.
Rather, what’s more persuasive is that Holder has chosen not to intervene in an ongoing prosecution in this way, after careful and thoughtful review.
That doesn’t mean that’s the end of it.
p.s. I didn’t ‘worship’ Greenspan when it came to financial forecasting, either. Thank goodness!
Monday 2/9/2009
Patty
“My objections are to the incessant hand-wringing and sweeping implications that Obama has the full intention of keeping George W. Bushes programs in place, despite his statements and short-order demonstrations to the contrary.”
ACLU
“We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course.
It’s early, there will be other opportunities to for President Obama to uphold his Constitutional oath of office. But they were taking the news today instead of making it.
Attacking Obama, in this manner after three only weeks, makes you fair game, as well.He won. Get over it.
Patty he got my vote and my campaign contribution. I was in Grant Park on November 4th 2008, it was electric. I maybe guilty of cyber-bitching whoops my bad.
Jill, PattyC, Mespo, CCD and anyone that I might of missed,
I also agree that if torture is still going on in Gitmo, it needs to be stopped immediately. I also agree that Obama needs to be given time to get his feet under him and his DOJ. I believe that more effective steps will be taken by DOJ down the road. I have said earlier that if the Obama administration does not follow up its words with action that I will be in the front of the line to voice my oppposition. However, we are not even one month into the administration. Jill, which interrogation method(s) still in the Army Field Manual is/are considered torture? I know I have seen articles where there were complaints about multiple tactics being used cumulatively that together might constitute torture, but I wasn’t aware of any individual tactic, that was in the manual that could be considered torture. I have the same concern that Mr. Romero of the ACLU has, but I am willing to give President Obame a reasonable amount of time to lay out his full program for his Department of Justice. I was happy to hear him tonight in his press conference repeat that if there is clear evidence of wrong doing by the prior administration that they should be prosecuted. I will be watching very closely.
Rafflaw,
If it comes to it we’ll be on the same flight, Mitchel to Reagan.
CCD,
I have never flown out of Mitchell, but I have dropped people off there and they enjoyed the ease of flying out of there. You are right that none of us can sit still for the status quo when the status quo includes torture.
rafflaw,
Here’s a link to the Center for Constitutional Rights. I did put this above on Sat. in answer to you and rcampbell, but it probably didn’t show up at the time you checked the blog. At this link type in AFM and also torture under the search.
http://ccrjustice.org/
Please check out what Glenn Greenwald has to say about this rafflaw. I am not trying to disparage Obama as part of some ‘I told you so’ game. I am very worried for this nation. I have been worried about it under Bush and I am worried about it under Obama. I am especially concerned that Obama supporters, many of whom are very intelligent and have a good will towards other people, are turning away from the facts because it’s hard to face that Obama may not be the person they hoped he would be. I understand how that would be difficult. Still we had 8 years of lawlessness because people looked the other way on Bush. They believed in him after 9/11 and he was able to push through a whole set of terrible policies because people assumed he was a good man without checking into what he was actually doing. We don’t have time to wait while Obama continues in some very bad policies. He needs to hear from us that he’s engaging in behavior contrary to the rule of law (please read G. Greenwald on this, he is very clear on that aspect of the administration’s position). I know you respect Obama. Part of respecting another person is not letting them get away with really bad shit.
Friends don’t let friends drive drunk . . . or torture.
“I am especially concerned that Obama supporters, many of whom are very intelligent and have a good will towards other people, are turning away from the facts because it’s hard to face that Obama may not be the person they hoped he would be.”
Jill,
You know I love your stuff and personally like the “you” I’ve seen on this site. In the interests of the honesty with which we have engaged in back and forth discussion, I must say that the above few lines from you piss me off considerably. Partly because this is not worthy of the open-minded person that you have shown yourself to be.
The MSM meme that played out in this election, first put forth by Hillary supporters was that somehow those people supporting Obama have been mesmerized by his charisma, charm and eloquence. The meme continues that because of this rapture his supporters failed to recognize that he was not all he was made out to be. Your paragraph patronizes me and other Obama supporters on this site because its’ essence is that we are naive.
I’m sorry to resort to this but I find I can’t fully express my thoughts without providing the context to them. In the 60′s and 70′s one might define me as a “Movement” person although my participation was not in leadership but on the fringe. I was able,
however, to glimpse some of the leaders in action. Where I was more a direct participant was in a NYC Civil Service Union from 1967 to 1972, that was arguably the most radical union in the US, of its’ time. This for me was between the ages of 23 & 28. I was politically for all intents and purposes what people called a “Hippie,” although my roots were really in the “beat generation.”
While engaging in both civil rights and Viet Nam War protests I was able to engage against what I then saw as the “Evil Right,” fascists trying to prevent the people from gaining power. Being of a “bohemian” nature though I found all “ism’s/political theories” to be bogus, whether right, left or center. This was because when one adopted an “ism” one had to adopt the “party line” that went with it. Once you adopted a “party line” you became locked into being the problem, not the solution. The fallacies of the Right were easy to see, but the fallacies of the left were less clear since on the surface I agreed with so many of their aims.
It was my union activism that showed me that the left had its’ own problems. Without ego, given my current decrepit state, I was young, handsome and a stirring public speaker. As a Union Delegate (Shop Steward)I led a Welfare Center that was among the most militant. I was just the kind of person that the various political factions wanted to recruit to their cause. At the time besides your normal liberals and conservative this union had all factions of the left in strong representation. Communist Party (Marxist supporters of the USSR), Progressive Labor Party (Maoists), Trotskyites, Socialists, et. al. All of these groups tried to recruit me to their banner and I rejected all of them because in each I would had to have adopted their party line/groupthink that I abhorred. It became apparent that in their belief in an “ism,”
following leaders who interpreted the dogma, they were no better than the authoritarian Right wingers that I despised.
Coming to that conclusion I dropped out of union activism and began to look inward to first change myself and then worry about changing the world. That happened, led to my becoming a Psychotherapist/Social Worker and so forth.
So Jill, when you imply naivete’ among Obama supporters I do take umbrage. I’ve been there, done that for the last 50 years and I am very far from being a political naif. While in their current iterations those on the right march in lockstep and as I have said elsewhere are really faux conservatives, cum fascists, who give real conservatives a bad name.
However, many on the left are the antithesis of “lockstep” marchers, since they take pride in not following the “herd.” I have watched the analysis of every move Obama’s made since the election and it is a hodge-podge of the MSM punditocracy, mixed in with the pessimism of those whose candidates didn’t prevail and with the “hipper than thou” left wingers, who don’t trust anyone in political power. As I’ve said elsewhere there are some Obama moves that I’m not happy with, but I give him the benefit of the doubt, not because I’m a star struck follower, but because he is trained in the wisdom of Saul Alinsky. The tactics he learned as a CA in chicago are invaluable to promoting change and as was true in Alinsky’s lifetime he received much disdain by more orthodox leftists, who never accomplished even a quarter of what he did.
I’m not making judgments 3.5 weeks into Obama’s administration and those who do I thnk are not only missing the big picture, but are truly pessimistic of the possibility of any effective change.
Finally, I read Glenn Greenwald daily and respect him, but his record of being correct is not pristine. I’m an ACLU member but they are not always right. The only person’s viewpoint I follow is my own and my only real heroes are Clarence Darrow and my father, both of whom were very imperfect men.
Mike,
I must stand behind what I said. I do think Obama supporters are not looking at the facts, not just of the past 3.5 weeks but of Obama’s voting record. I do not see any facts to back up your idea that Obama is inflitrating the establishment. I do see facts to back up that he is the establishment. I am not quoting Glenn Greenwald as a god, he has laid out quotes from the courts’ own questions showing that the Obama DOJ had itself considered its position and supported it of it’s own accord. While supporters are giving him the benefit of the doubt things are going crazy at Gitmo, detainees are being abused and will most likely die. Obama signaled his bent by his own actions. He was busy lunching with the telecom lobbyists while the reporter from ABC was roughed up during the Democratic convention. He received only 1/3 of his hugh campaign war chest from small donors, the rest came in large part from the defense and telecom companies. So yes, I am very frustrated by the refusal of his supporters to deal with the reality that is Obama. I feel that people are following a cult of personality just as JT mentioned in his column. Meanwhile our detainees are suffering. He doesn’t deserve a break while others are denied justice. Of course he’s imperfect, that’s exactly my point. He will not be accountable to “we the people” unless we realize this and act accordingly. To do otherwise is being naive. And I like and respect you as well and that will never stop, but I can’t get behind this program.
Jill,
I like and respect you as well and that will never stop, but please understand while we can always disagree amiably, you are putting me and others down by your implications. Debate me on the merits of each issue, but the merits are not expressed by:
“I feel that people are following a cult of personality”
Your are only expressing a meme. It is not only insulting, it ignores the body of statements I’ve (and others) made both before and after the inaugural disagreeing with some of Obama’s policies and admitting the possibility that I could be wrong about him. I would also point out to you that you have written about never being an Obama supporter, so by the same token if I accused you of only looking for things to support your opinion and ignoring everything else, I too would be insulting your open-mindedness and intelligence.
Careful with memes, Jill. They’re like a virus. It’s a hazard often created by word selection and their intrinsic “value load”. Using the term Cult of Personality is a disservice to the man and those who elected him by creating a false association with Stalinism, not only the definition of CoP, but the founding example of said definition.
No, Obama isn’t the Cult of Personality. You could make the case that Bush was/is, because most of his votes were based on “people wanting to have a beer with him”, not sound policy and adherence to the rule of law. Is there a bit of cultishness to some Obama supporters? Perhaps, but no more so than to be expected for a truly historic figure: the first black President. I’m sure Jefferson had groupies too. And although he was never President, it’s a well known fact Franklin had groupies. The get naked and chase you type too. But that’s a long way from giving Obama carte blanc ala the Cult of Personality, Jill.
If your argument is based on giving him time to stop torture and if three weeks isn’t an acceptable time frame, exactly what would be? This isn’t a nuclear reactor. You don’t need time to shut it down. You simply stop. One is torturing or one is not. There is no “try”. Or is there? The staggering is most likely caused by trying to sort out the criminals from those compelled to obey orders. Or do you think that no one would destroy evidence if the hammer was visibly coming down and they were facing war crimes trials? Sun Tzu advises the destruction of your enemies before they know you are coming. That often takes the form of planning and preparation, not outright conflict. Obama is a big boy, he knew what the heat was like when he wanted in the kitchen. And I, like many of his supporters hold this simple value: Fix the crimes and punish the criminals of the Bush Administration or be a one term President – If you won’t bring back justice and the rule of law as promised, We the People will. Angering We the People is risky. These cases against the Neocons and successful prosecutions are his litmus tests with the Vox Populi. If he doubts that, I hope he enjoys having someone else head the ticket next time should he drop the rule of law ball. But don’t get your hopes up Neocon GOP, you won’t be seeing the inside of the White House any time soon except as visitors. Or on television from a cell. In the mean time Jill, you might want to back off that Cult of Personality comparison. It’s poor word choice at best and inaccurate.
“But there is a danger of a cult of personality developing around Obama, that supporters could, in all this adoration, confuse the man with his mandate.” from JT in his latest column.
I am not spouting memes. I am worried. When good, intelligent people stop being critical of things they used to be critical of under a different president I am worried. What would you call this situation?
Buddha, are you also telling JT he should not mention anything about a Cult of Personality? Is it a “poor word choice at best and inaccurate when JT uses it as well”?
I do not think any time of allowing for torture is acceptable and I do not know where you ever got that impression from what I said. In fact, it is very upsetting to me that so many Obama supporters are staying silent, giving him time, while the detainees in Gitmo are suffering and people who have experience rendition and torture are being denied justice in the name of “state secrets”.
Mike,
It was never my intention to insult you and I am sorry for hurting your feelings. I do remember that you have said you may be wrong about Obama (as have I). So, what evidence do you base your conclusion on that Obama is an inflitrator? Is it acceptable to you that detainees under Obama are being abused? Is his recent position taking during the court argument acceptable to you? Is his faith based initative acceptable? What about the monetary policy? What about the war in Afghanistan? Do you think sending in troops there is a good idea?
No, mentioning it is fine as long as context is provided. No one should be idolized like Stalin and keeping our Pres in check on that is indeed important. We’ve seen what unbridled ego can do in the office of President and VP. While I agree with the ethical pragmatism of “it stops on a dime”, I think you are missing point as a matter of evidentiary procedure and sound investigative practice. Criminals will run and hide and destroy evidence when the Sheriff is coming. That’s human nature. Is it unjust? Absolutely. But which is worse, a tapering off of torture or just letting the most egregious torturers and those who ordered it go?
He should shutter Gitmo as soon as possible while retaining the evidence required to prosecute war criminals. Successful prosecution is key. That’s the truly pragmatic solution. Otherwise, it’s all academic – our standing will never be restored internationally. If that means an “inefficiency” now, that’s the cost of doing business as the saying goes. Sometimes justice delayed ends in a truer justice, but letting “it slide” isn’t going to happen, Obama or not. Is it sad some are still in Unca Dick’s torture gristmill? Yes, it is, but not all systems are 100% efficient. Otherwise, thermodynamics would be called thermostatsis. Optimal function is the goal, perfection impossible.
Yes, this pitch could go wild, but keep your eye on the ball. Don’t charge the mound until it’s time. Sometimes it’s RBI’s that win the game, not home runs.
Buddha,
Please explain how allowing prisoners to be abused aids in the criminal prosecution of GWB and Dick Cheney.
Very good points everyone (I will not make lists, right CCD?!)
Jill, I understand your frustration and once Obama selected Mr. Tim Geithner, I lost most of the limited respect I had for him. However, we are stuck with him for at least 4 years—and as you are doing—we must keep him honest. He must succeed or we all fail through no real faults of our own making.
Mr. O. made some very naive promises and now he is changing some of those pledges he made to us, which garnered our votes. He is intelligent enough to use good critical thinking and if he will continue to reason things through, we must support him; we in fact, have no other choice. Buddha’s neat analogies fit the bill for patience, as long as Obama continues to remain open, transparent, and honest with the public.
Jill,
I’d think destruction of evidence would explain it all.
FFLEO,
You are extending the olive branch and I accept. There are many people on this blog who I respect, like and think the best of. I will never agree with these same people, so mote it be!
I hear an echo…
Mike S.’ assessment is very insightful. Jill decided months ago that Obama is a scumbucket and has been on a mission collecting ‘evidence’ (AND personalities) to support her position. It’s boring!
She needs to ‘get off it’ and apply her energies and criticisms constructively.
ACLU is holding events on Guantanamo and on Human Rights. Why not join them? Get involved.
Otherwise, we’ll be voting on a name change – ‘Jillimbaugh’
Jill,
You may not have intended to insult me, but nevertheless you did and I didn’t ask for nor need an apology, which saying you’re sorry for hurting my feelings wasn’t. My point to you and I’ve iterated and reiterated it over many comments, on many different threads here is that it is way too early to make judgments after 22 days of his Presidency, in any respect. Taking full control of the reins of government is not easy under any circumstances, but this has to be the single most difficult Presidency to assume since FDR and before that Lincoln. Shall we list although not in level of priority?:
1. End Iraq War
2. Resolve Afghanistan
3. Keep monetary system solvent
4. Get people working
5. Get economy moving
6. End torture
7. End illegal surveillance
8. End rendition
9. Bring peace to ME
10. Bring health care to all Americans
11. End inequity of wealth due to unfair benefits for wealthy
12. Reform government oversight of corporations/banks
13. Deal with housing crisis
14. Reform election financing
15. Reform voting irregularities
16. Prison Reform
17. End the War on Drugs
18. Remake our educational system
19. Make higher education affordable
20. Reform inequitable tax structure.
Now I specify that that’s just off the top of my head, but please understand they are not weighted in priority order because I think all of them are of an equal priority, if we are ever going to get the country and society we want. In fact I added 5 more to the list just after writing the preceding paragraph. Given this, figuratively stamping one’s feet over the fact that a problem still exists, is much less helpful than at least trying to add one’s small voice to the solution.
Also in those 22 days I phoned (202-456-1111) The White House 5 times to express my displeasure with particular issues and have sent it at least 8 E mails also with criticism. I also made quite a few negative comments on policy here in that same 22 day interim and prior to it. Somehow I don’t think that makes me an idol worshiper.
You have asked for proof of my contentions and I have provided my reasoning over and over again, including above some self disclosure about how I came to think as I do politically. I have provided you time and again with my reasoning only to have you comment either “thank you” without comment, or to fail to respond to salient points. I am and have always been an iconoclast. I read voraciously and spend hours each day scanning the news on the net. My way has always been to synthesize what I see and develop opinions based on that synthesis. Can I provide you chapter and verse of authority to back up my point of view, sure I can. But then of course so could you and rather than a discussion it becomes a battle of the validity of sources. As you well know if someone has proven a statement of mine false I have immediately acknowledged it and apologized.
Buddha has provided two cogent posts above and your response to them was not to refute his points, but to slide around them or ask him further questions. You even used a quote from JT as refutation:
“But there is a danger of a cult of personality developing around Obama, that supporters could, in all this adoration, confuse the man with his mandate.”
JT is clearly expressing that a danger exists, however, you have been saying during the campaign and afterwords that it not only already exists, but it is the prime reason people supported Obama. That is not quite JT’s statement. However, let’s say for argument’s sake it is. As much as I admire, respect and like the Professor (in a internet/TV sort of way) if that was his position I would disagree with him.
I think though that you miss the point of what people like JT, Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, Glenn Greenwald, et. al. are doing. I am sure they are all personally thrilled that Obama’s in office, but as public men with standing and a following they are representing their points of view to try to push the policies they believe in. This is the warp and woof of politics and political discourse.
Often to be heard above the MSM din you have to in effect overstate or over dramatize your case to be effective.
Since though, you have chosen to characterize me, perhaps you’ll understands why I stated in my comment above:
“I would also point out to you that you have written about never being an Obama supporter, so by the same token if I accused you of only looking for things to support your opinion and ignoring everything else, I too would be insulting your open-mindedness and intelligence.”
If you truly believe that I am in the “Obama Thrall” why would it be unreasonable for me to believe that you’ve never liked the guy and every move he makes you’ll pore over to find a justification for your feelings? It goes both ways and discussion to me is always preferable to negative characterization.
Thanks Mike Spindell for the list and your perspective. We can never have enough contrary evidence and reasoned opinion, both of which are essential ingredients necessary for critical thinking skills.
Mike,
I never used the term “Obama Thrall”. In fact, that is the first time I’ve ever heard of that term, so don’t attibute it to me. I can’t take back thinking that there is a “cult of personality” just as JT said, forming around Obama. That’s what I think and that’s what I said. I can’t be sorry for something I believe. I can only be sorry that I hurt your feelings for saying it and that’s what I said. (I think JT and others mean exactly what they say. JT has been remarkably consistent in his analysis.)
When we first started discussing the prosecution of war crimes, you said Obama was just pretending not to prosecute until Holder was confirmed and/or time had passed. I did not agree with this idea but because you said it and I respect your opinion, I thought, well maybe this is what is happening so it does make sense to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Whether you believe me or not, because of you, I did hold out hope that you were correct, that I read all the signals incorrectly and maybe he would order the prosecutions. I thought maybe you and others were correct that Obama and Holder were not committing to prosecution so he could get confirmed. It was not what either my heart or my mind told me, but I kept open that possibility. I said it was my opinion that this isn’t what was going on but that I hoped I was wrong. That was the truth. It was also my opinion that it would be a good idea, either way, to let Obama know he needs to prosecute for war crimes. So I kept open this hope, that I had misunderstood everything. Then two unmistakable decisions by the Obama administration occurred. 1. They would not release information to the British for help in a civil suit on rendition. 2. Yesterday’s ruling on state secrets. This left presidential power potentially unchecked , just as his vote on FISA did. In addition, there was testimony of brutal abuse of our prisoners under his watch. Those incidents do not leave a lot of room for doubt about how Obama feels concerning war crime prosecutions or presidential power.
I believe I gave many reasons, in addition to those I just listed for why I feel Obama is not an infiltrator of the establishment. Those included his past voting record, his funding by banks, telecoms and defense contractors, the list of his appointments, etc.
I have been trying to explain why I feel more and more nervous about Obama supporters. That being: people on this blog who used to acknowlege that Bush’s actions were wrong, seemed unwilling to call these same actions wrong under Obama. Until today, I didn’t realize anyone was sending the WH any e-mails or phone calls expressing that they thought those things were wrong. Much of what I heard from this blog was people saying they were going to withold judgement until later. This made me quite nervous. It’s one thing to withold judgement while letting Obama know you think he’s doing something wrong, and quite another to just keep your mouth shut because you are withholding judgement. The message I have been reading is to stay quiet while Obama works it out, gets his bearing, or does his infiltration. I can’t in good conscience assent to that idea.
Bruce Fine says the United States can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes we are facing multiple crises. Yet the Obama DOJ did sit down and come to a decision regarding state secrets, one that enhances presidential power and denies justice. Since they spent the time to come to that conclusion it is only fair to say that they could have come to a different conclusion. The time spent is the same in either case. Obama spent the time to give his decision to the UK, that time was also spent and we had another bad ruling. So in these cases time was not the issue, bad decisions are. As to appointments–these took time as well, again the problem is not time, it is the bad decisions. Jeremy Scahill goes over the defense appointments in detail. He cannot be called a MSM or a right wing critic. He points out the connection between the military/contractors and those appts. JT has said many times that once war crimes are committed the president has only to get out of the way and let the rule of law take its course. This has yet to happen. Time was taken to come up with the rules for faith based intiatives, again, it isn’t time that is the problem, it is the decision. So yes, we have many problems but we have already seen some very bad decisions on these problems. Finally, I have seen people justify the abuse of detainees under Obama. That is simply an immoral position to take. So yes, reading posts on this blog has been both frustrating and scary. I can absolutely understand giving more time to Obama while simultaneously calling him on bad behavior. I wasn’t seeing a lot of that going on. I was seeing his bad behavior justified and excused, to include abuse of detainees (see posts above).
I said I was worried about the cult of personality based on the aggregate of the posts on this blog, justifying really bad behavior. I did try to lay out my own positions and back them up with citations. I don’t know what more I can do.
“I have been trying to explain why I feel more and more nervous about Obama supporters. That being: people on this blog who used to acknowlege that Bush’s actions were wrong, seemed unwilling to call these same actions wrong under Obama.”
Jill,
I don’t want to belabor this any further but all of the Obama supporters on this site, even FFLEO who probably had to pinch his nose to vote, have written extensively with critiques of various policies and of their disappointment. When I have said to give him time, I never said that people should shut their mouths, merely to point out (using another of my cliches) that Rome wasn’t built in a day and we shouldn’t be so sure we know where things are going quite yet. Why would you think my belief is to just to rollover and be quiet when at the same time I’m making critical comments and my political views on JT’s site have been extensively delineated?
In your last post you’ve really adjusted your point of view from there was/is a cult, to there is one forming. Throughout the election you had written about Obama’s cult of personality as an explanation for his getting the nomination and so on. I get that you neither like, nor trust Obama and haven’t all along. That is certainly your prerogative and you are an intelligent person. Please though, don’t disabuse my intelligence or commitment to a better world by making me into an automaton, because this slices both ways. I could just as easily say you mindlessly dislike the man and nothing he does will please you. That would be not only be disrespectful but unfair, since I do respect your independence of thought. Give us Obama supporters the same benefit of the doubt (there I go with cliches again)and just dispute our opinions fairly.
P.S. I used the term Obama Thrall not as a quote (I shouldn’t have used quotation marks)from you, but as shorthand for describing the cult references. I was unclear in my writing.
Mike,
I can’t take the responsibilty for everything you are associating with my statement, “a cult of personality”. That isn’t the same thing as a cult. You are belaboring points and I think that isn’t being fair to me as a person, nor is it a reflection of what I have actually written. As I said before I was responding to a group of posts, some of which included that Obama should not be criticized because of his greatness, others who justified torture and so on. I am not willing to be the bad guy in all of this because I wrote in response to what I was reading. The statement to refraim from criticism came from another person, not you. When I read that, it was rather shocking, seeing that this is supposed to be an open forum and that policy has never struck me as a good idea where people in power are concerned.
Jill,
I don’t think anyone is trying to paint you as the bad guy. Maybe pointing out a perception of hastiness or bias, but I don’t think anyone thinks you’re one of the bad guys, Jill. It’s less about motive than methodology from what I’ve read.
So this can keep escalating or everyone can return to their corner.
I suggest calling it a round before anyone gets hurt/more hurt/whatever. We all (the regulars) agree that torture is both wrong and illegal. We all want it stopped and those responsible brought to justice. Now is the time to discuss how, but arguing is counterproductive as long as forward progress is in play.
Mike,
Is it possible you have mistaken Jill’s zeal for something else? As I said, there is no bad party here, but there is a palpable misunderstanding somewhere. Just a thought.
We are stronger together than apart. Remember that.
Jill,
Ma’am, there are no bad guys or losers here; you and Mike S. are two of the best.
One of my favorite country songs, sung best by Linda Ronstadt, is entitled, “Sometimes You Just ‘Cain’t Win”
Chair,
I respectfully motion to postpone to a definite time.
Buddha,
I say amen to your comments that noone here thinks ill of Jill because of her views on this thread. The bottom line is that we should all keep an eye on the Obama administration at all times.(or any administration) No politician gets a free pass.
I second that Amen!
I agree that no one thinks ill of Jill, but her cut and paste arguments, and worship of absolutist Glenn Greenwald’s don’t convince me that the sky is falling because Obama doesn’t march lockstep with their ambitious timetable for correcting each and every abuse of the Bush administration. In essence, Jill is saying things aren’t moving fast enough. Fine, but why argue they aren’t happening at all when much of the criticism appears coming from those with an agenda. Let’s at least give the guy a couple of months before judgment is pronounced.
Mespo,
Thank you for succinctly summing up my point and recognizing that I am certainly not out to attack Jill’s integrity, commitment or good nature.
Buddha, Rafflaw, & FLEO,
You are all correct in your comments, as is CCD in the request for postponement and CEJ’s motion. Although FFLEO, I do realize that in affirming your comment there is some self-service on my part, but then what’s an old fart to do?
Jill,
While I put forward strong arguments from my position on this, my regard for you has never diminished. You were the first person to welcome me to this site and your comments on my posts have always been kind and generous. I thought I took pains to make my points without venom, but it is obvious that to you and others venom came through. I apologize for that, because while I state my lack of intent, obviously I was overzealous in making my case and in the process gave you and others the strong impression of an untoward attack.
Like others, my life has been a journey of self discovery (I’m sorry, it wouldn’t be one of my posts without a good cliche). One thing I found out about myself is that as a very passionate person in my beliefs, I sometimes overstate my case and hurt others feelings needlessly in the process. I’m hardly a milquetoast (cliche again) but I like most people and don’t like to do them harm. My disdain/anger/vituperation/ferocity is reserved for the ignorant, the pompous, the prideful and the cruel of this world. You so obviously fit none of those categories that clearly rather than rebut and debate our different outlooks, I created a situation that looked suspiciously like attack. That is my fault and for that I’m sorry.
Mike
Mike,
Thank you so much for what you said. I hated having bad feelings between us. We are both passionate about what we think and neither of us qualifies for the “shrinking violet” award. My good will towards you never diminished either. I absolutely value your opinions and what you have said has opened me to whole different ways of thinking about things. This matter is closed!
Jill
Horse hockey…!
Hey Patty C, please be cordial. You, Jill, and Lindylou are the only female regulars we have on this blawg and I think that good women rule.
I always look forward to comments from the feminine ‘Trio’.
I should have also thanked those people who urged a rapproachmont between Mike and me. I am very grateful for your kindness.
Jill