Academia, Congress, Courts, Criminal law, International, Military, Politics, Society

Obama: We Must Uphold Our Principles To Be Safe and Strong

225px-official_portrait_of_barack_obamaSpeaking to the graduating class of U.S. Naval Academy, President Barack Obama told the graduates that the best way to protect our nation is to stand up to its principles. I discussed the detainee issue last night on this segment of Countdown.

President Obama stated: “We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to — not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe, . . . When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops.”

If only the White House would match its actions to its rhetoric, this country would be able to regain our moral and legal leadership in this troubled world. He needs to guarantee a trial for all detainees and to investigate the U.S. torture program.

For the story, click here.

245 thoughts on “Obama: We Must Uphold Our Principles To Be Safe and Strong”

  1. racism; I don’t look at the color of a murderer’s skin. I accused Bush too, has he changed colors?

    Obama’s ‘racism’ is his stupid attempt at diversion when he is confronted with some of his crimes.

  2. A War Criminal cannot legally be president of the U.S. He should not have been on the ballots. Obama is a War Criminal, has been for years. I refer you to his voting records as senator. Funding Wars of Aggression is a War Crime. Obama and Biden are major conspirators in U.S. War Crimes.

  3. BVM,

    I do not agree with what I see as racism in your attack on Obama. I also do not agree that Obama is an usurper to the presidency. That Obama has ordered strikes resulting in the deaths of civilians is indisputable. I don’t see how his race has anything to do with that. Vince Treacy, a fellow poster here, has given a very good account of the law concerning who may be president of the US and I would refer anyone to his outline of the law.

  4. From what I have read only the U.S. has the drone capability in delivering these murderous bombs in Afghanistan. ABC News has reported, “Obama to CIA: Bombs Away! No Let Up in U.S. Drone Attacks.”

    Obama doesn’t discriminate, he murders and maims men, women, children, rich, poor, infirm, etc. of any race, color, creed.. by the hundreds of thousands. He is a continuation of the Bush murderous fascism. Obama has funded, conspired and waged these Wars of Aggression murders for years as a senator and as usurper president.

  5. Mike S.,

    You are not reading what I’m saying. I have presented multiple sources. I am not claiming because Amy Goodman said it is is true. That would be like saying because Obama said it, it is true. I have refered you to the testimony of detainees, one of which has been given in a court of law. I have refered you to the testimony of the detainee’s atty. who heard about this directly from the detainees during their visits with them. There are medical reports documenting the torture. Al Jazeera was called and given information that they were being tortured by two detainees. They contacted the DOD with that information and have heard nothing back. None of this constitutes anything like, : “Well Amy Goodman said it so it must be true.” I refered you to Jeremy Scahill because he did a summary of the evidence on Amy Goodman’s show. He has researched the original source evidence and summarized it. The evidence is verifiable should you care to look at it.

    Certainly it is a form of personal attack to call someone a kool-aid drinker, to say they have not thought through their arguments and aren’t making a critical argument. I’m not going to argue with you about any of this. I have presented good and multiple-sourced information. That is as far as I can go. If you believe this multiple sourced information is incorrect that is certainly your right.

  6. M72 wrote

    “By doing this you are rendering Patty C’s assessments of you very prescient.”
    _______________

    Mike Spindell, that is a personal attack by proxy, if there ever was one.

  7. “I wish to directly address these personal attacks. The information I have been providing on this blog is multi-sourced. For example, information that torture is occurring right now in Gitmo was most recently claimed on Thursday’s Diane Rehm show by 1. a lawyer for several of the detainees and 2. a representative of a human rights group. In addition there have been multiple reports by other detainee attys. There has been testimony given by detainees to al jazeera. Binyam Mohamed is claiming torture under Obama in a court of law in the UK. Human rights groups have spoken out. So to recap: direct testimony of victims, testimony of detainee lawyers, investigations by human rights groups and reporting in various newspapers.”

    Jill,
    Personal attacks would be something like:

    Jill is a bad person
    Jill is stupid

    That would be calling names. Mespo did not make any personal attack in saying ‘drinking the Kool Aid again.” That describes actions Jill is taking rather than, herself as a person.

    Someone could say about me:

    Mike is up to his old tricks again.
    There Mike goes again blindly defending Israel.
    Mike sees this problem from a purely Jewish perspective and that clouds his judgment.

    Now had the last response been:

    Mike sees this problem from a purely Jewish perspective and that clouds his judgment, because it shows his extreme greed, stupidity and hypocrisy.

    That might have risen to a personal attack.

    Mespo did not attack you personally. He did attack your sourcing, as do I. You present news stories from sources that could be based on someone’s personal bias and from media that has its’ own axe to grind. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they are opinions and not facts because Amy Goodman says they are. While I like her more than the MSM she is not pristine in her judgments. Argue your case all you want, but nobody has yet personally attacked you on this particular thread.

  8. Jill,

    Post what you like. That M72 would mention PC in reference to you and serve as a potential instigator and then have AnonY chime in agreement is unconscionable, especially given his previous thrashing of being called a liar by PC about his son’s death.

    You are not a troll. Although I do not always agree with you, you are as good as or better than anyone posting on this blawg is.

    Any reader does not need to review more than the past 2 days to read of my praise of M72. I simply must say that he is flat out wrong by stating what he did about you. You have a position-right or wrong-and what M72 wrote is the last thing I would have expected to read from him.

    Now, please do not thank me; just post your contrary evidence and let those of us who know how critical all views are, especially when accompanied with attributions, decide for ourselves what is kool-aid speak or what is not. I do *not* need or want someone deciding that for me.

  10. It’s a cost of maintaining a constitutional democracy that sometimes dangerous people in custody who cannot be tried or convicted are and must be freed. But in a conventional war between the U.S. and another nation, it’s unquestioned that a country may detain an enemy combatant indefinitely–until exchanged or until the end of hostilities–usually a clearly defined event–irrespective of whether the individual is believed to have committed a crime. To me it follows that the constitutionality of the President’s preventive detention “Category 5” should be judged by first addressing the question whether and to what extent the conflict between the international jihadist movement and our country partakes of the war characteristics accepted as justifying indefinite detention. Then, the differences in the nature of the conflicts need to be recognized and considered in guaranteeing the constitutional safeguards needed, including those that may not apply in the context of conventional wars between nations. This I believe is what the President is doing, and I agree with it.

  14. Jill:
    The Guardian link will not load. Thank you for your honest perspective.

  16. Here is what mespo wrote earlier about my posts:
    ———————————————————-
    “I think you’re on the kool-ade again Jill. You bought the far left’s assessment without any critical analysis….

    Critical analysis means being critical of your own impressions first and then realizing that you can be manipulated as well as the next guy. It’s facts, facts, facts, not wild-eyed supposition.”

    ——————————————————————

    I wish to directly address these personal attacks. The information I have been providing on this blog is multi-sourced. For example, information that torture is occurring right now in Gitmo was most recently claimed on Thursday’s Diane Rehm show by 1. a lawyer for several of the detainees and 2. a representative of a human rights group. In addition there have been multiple reports by other detainee attys. There has been testimony given by detainees to al jazeera. Binyam Mohamed is claiming torture under Obama in a court of law in the UK. Human rights groups have spoken out. So to recap: direct testimony of victims, testimony of detainee lawyers, investigations by human rights groups and reporting in various newspapers.

    If this called: “wild eye speculation, drinking kool-aid, and not being a critical thinker”. I cannot see how any of what I described fits that accusation.

    As to claims of white phosphorus, The United Nations is investigating this “wild eyed speculation full of kool-aid and uncritical thought”. Afterall our military first said the Taliban did it. When they couldn’t get away with that story, they assured everyone they hadn’t done it. If our military says they didn’t injure civilians, and I’m mespo’s kind of “critical thinker”, I’ll believe it. Just better to ignore civilian testimony, doctors, human rights groups, the UN and the Afghan govt. Again, these are multiple sourced statements by reputable people/groups. So to call this wild eyed, kool-aid drinking, uncritical thought pieces, is simply inaccurate.

    Finally, to address Obama’s oath to the Constitution. On this blog there have been post after post showing that Obama is not abiding by the rule of law. That’s the judgement shown in JT’s post on NSA spying just this A.M. We do know that indefinite detention is not Constitutional. These are not some wild eyed, kool-aid drinking, uncritical analysis of the “legal” positions Obama is arguing. We know what the case law has been, we know what the Constitution says, Obama isn’t following it. Not just one or two times, but multiple times, where it really matters.

    Take the arguments on directly. Calling me names says to me that a person has a weak argument and can’t take on an issue squarely because they know they don’t have evidence to back up what they are saying.

    Here is the info on torture again. Here is also an analysis of the white phosophorus. Have the integrity to look at the information. If you think it is not credible then state why it is not credible. I do not call people names on this site and I expect better from most people here than to use personal attacks in place of honest engagement in argument. ttp://rebelreports.com/post/110058178/my-appearance-on-democracy-now-this-morning-to

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/10/afghanistan-attacks-phosphorus-investigations

  18. cherry:

    First they ignore.

    Then they ridicule.

    Then they attack.

    Then I win. (after they have all left for the night!!)

    ***********

    Bravo. Glad I came back to check the weather.

  19. First they ignore.

    Then they ridicule.

    Then they attack.

    Then I win.

    YOU OBAMA BOT IDIOTS are so predictable!

  20. Gyges:

    As always Gyges you are correct. Enjoy the holiday. I am up at 5:30 am to begin my trip to quarterback camp in Roanoke. Hut, hut!

Comments are closed.