Speaking 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.
Hadi Jawad 1, May 22, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Obama not only inherited a “mess” from the previous administration, as he said yesterday, he also stepped into a stronger exceutive branch in the nations recent history. You might remember that after assuming office Cheney, et al, bemoaned the erosion of power of the presidency in the aftermath of Watergate and set out aggressively to tilt the balance in its favor. I submit that beacuse of the efforts of Bush era officials the executive is much stronger than the legislative and judiciary branches of our government today. And therein lies a problem
Those of us who were complaining, as George W. Bush was begining to look more and more like King George, were pointing out the longer term consequences of the imbalance developing in a system that depended on a delicate balance of power sharing between three branches of government. The accumulation of power in one place was dangerous in the minds of the founding fathers. They knew that the allure of power after all is seductive, maybe even a mind numbing aphrodisiac.
Along with a “mess’, Obama has stepped into a position of enhanced presidential powers. For one to expect that he will willingly give up some of these powers is at best naive. To put it more simply, ever seen a hungry dog give up a meaty bone?
******************************************
These were my words first. I am angry and upset you did not give me credit on a Blawg. How dare you. I will hold my breath until you turn blue. I will take the poison and and most certainly you shall die. You evil person you. Don’t you understand how Ignorant I am. You evil gog, I will turn you into a frog. You will marry the south end of a northbound monkey.
Bron98 1, May 25, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Anon:
“You know, I have a friend that I have talked with and she reads this Blawg and has not posted yet. Why, because of the fear of being ridiculed. Me, on the other hand bring it on.”
************************
Have you noticed a lot of us have been ridiculed lately. Whens your turn buster.
Jill was the first victim, I was aware of.
Former Federal LEO
Someone Wrote
“That’s because you don’t understand ‘law’ – neither the rule nor the practice of it, and especially not its full significance.”
___________
Well, as a nonlawyer—but regarding the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution—I am in the excellent company of Professor Turley, Mr. Greenwald, and thousands of other lawyers, some of whom are constitutional scholars.
******************************
I learned early on it does not matter the amount of education one has, it is how you apply it. Some of the best criminal attorney are prison inmates. They understand the application of the rule of law better than most attorneys’. Some attorneys could not find the courthouse if their life depended upon it. Some should never ever enter the courthouse.
You forget you are not an original Turlee and you are not blueblooded enough to carry on a conversation. So don’t you forget that. You were warned yesterday and MY God I have to warn you too. I would trust your approach better than others.
I am only kidding.
I’m curious. Why would such erudite, highly educated, sophisticated and insightful people spend their blog time trying to discredit someone who’s ideas are of no account? If it were me, I’d spend my time making my points about the topics at hand, but that must be because I’m so uneducated and poorly spoken. Oh Well!
FFLEO,
I love you Constitutional Hour idea. It would be really great.
FFLEO,
I, too, respect Jill’s right to a contrary opinion – I was speaking to her rhetoric (and some of my frustration with the group of people described by Mike S. spilled over – for which I apologize to Jill) which I do think tends to stifle rather than promote discourse by polarizing the discussion. Also, I took the time to listen to the link you provided on preventive detention – for the most part I found that it raised concerns that should be heard and considered, but that we really wont know how well founded they are until details of President Obama’s plan are released. Specifically with regard to what sort of judicial and congressional oversight is placed on these sorts of detentions and what limits are placed on its use. The final point on prisoners of war I disagree with. For those that don’t want to listen to the clip, Ben Wizner of the ACLU argued that as the war on terror (or al-Qaeda in particular) is unending and not limited to a any battlefield that the concept of a POW cannot be applied in this case (I’m simplifying, but I think I captured the gist of the argument, please correct me if you disagree). We didn’t decide the scope or the terms of this conflict (and I am referring to the conflict with al-Qaeda and its affiliates, not the non-sensical “War on Terror”, as the idea of a war against a tactic is stupid) and I do not have any sympathy for those that started this or the people who found common cause with them. If the only way we can end al-Qaeda is by throwing 100,000 of its members into prison for the rest of their lives, so be it. Finally, let me engage in a hypothetical speculation: Suppose a group of Japanese air force pilots refused to accept the surrender and pledged to undertake kamikaze missions against American targets. If one of these men were captured, would it not be permissible for us to hold them in permanent preventive detention? How is this different from a captured member of al-Qaeda? And on the issue of campaign promises, I think that while President Obama has failed to live up to some his, he has kept or is trying to keep most of them in what are extraordinarily difficult circumstances and while I wont stop hoping that he will fulfill all of his promises, that doesn’t keep me from appreciating that he is already doing better than most politicians.
PC wrote:
“That’s because you don’t understand ‘law’ – neither the rule nor the practice of it, and especially not its full significance.”
___________
Well, as a nonlawyer—but regarding the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution—I am in the excellent company of Professor Turley, Mr. Greenwald, and thousands of other lawyers, some of whom are constitutional scholars.
Slar wrote:
“Comments like yours only serve to further polarize the debate and prevent civil discourse.”
___________
Slar,
That would depend on the reader and his critical thinking skills; therefore, I totally disagree with your assessment.
I simply point out when I disagree with Jill and I want her contrary opinions. I, in no way, will denigrate her views because she is less educated than some others who post here. She makes the effort to do some research and like all of us, she sometimes makes some very stupid remarks.
Former Federal LEO 1, May 25, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Patty C,
I found my comments on Mr. O’s campaign pledges and I crossed party lines to vote for him based on his comments. There is abundant evidence here and elsewhere for me to legitimately debase the man’s character and to refute his actions, to date.
—
That’s because you don’t understand ‘law’ – neither the rule nor the practice of it, and especially not its full significance.
‘… This is a meeting of the minds between people, regardless of political persuasion, who see it all as hopeless…”
—
‘They’ may be espousing the same things but ‘they’ are doing it for entirely different reasons.
That much, I am more than able to reassure…
Anon:
“You know, I have a friend that I have talked with and she reads this Blawg and has not posted yet. Why, because of the fear of being ridiculed. Me, on the other hand bring it on.”
I have a feeling there are a good many people like your friend. I am actually kind of surprised by the sentiment, I thought people would be more thicked skinned than to worry what a bunch of nameless and faceless people thought of them. It is really quite interesting.
People who dont post, post your thoughts these people arent any smarter or better or more enlightened than you, they just have bigger mouths and thicker skin.
Slar,
Please take 20 minutes and listen to the concept of preventive detention.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/index.html#postid-updateA2
“UPDATE II: Ben Wizner of the ACLU’s National Security Project is the lead lawyer in the Jeppesen case, which resulted in the recent rejection by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of the Bush/Obama state secrets argument, and also co-wrote (along with the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer) a superb article in Salon in December making the case against preventive detention. I spoke with him this morning for roughly 20 minutes regarding the detention policies proposed by Obama in yesterday’s speech. It can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below. A transcript will be posted shortly.”
Mike S,
Well said.
FFLEO,
President Obama cannot possibly have lost a moral authority that he never had since it was thoroughly destroyed by his predecessor. Furthermore, your statement “It is the sovereign right—indeed a requirement—of any foreign country to defend itself against any and all outside threats.” is an argument for the president’s policy, rather than against – to wit, do we not have the right to defend ourselves against against declared enemies of our nation? It is recognized that there are times (in war) that nations are perfectly justified in holding prisoners indefinitely and without trial. Does this not apply to members of al-Qaeda? I have absolutely no problem with holding anyone established to be a member of al-Qeada by some sort of judicial review until that organization surrenders, is destroyed, or that person dies so long as they are treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva accords. This seems to me to be what the president is talking about, rather than the power of the president to indefinitely detain anyone he determined to be a threat that President Bush claimed. I know that during the 8 years of the Bush administration the word nuance might as well have been removed from the dictionary, but it’s back now and we should realize that subtle differences can also be significant differences.
Jill,
Again, after 8 years of President Bush it’s easy to understand why people see things in such black and white terms, but the truth comes in shades of gray. I hear this “unquestioning, god-like support of Obama” stuff for a while now, and it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have both repeatedly called out President Obama on issues on which they disagree with his actions (often with the help of Professor Turley) on their shows on MSNBC, the most liberal of news networks – and let’s take a moment to count the number of times that FOX News ever criticized anything at all about President Bush (I’m guessing that the next time will be the first) – I, as well as other posters on this blog who support President Obama, have commented on actions of his that we disagreed with, and the liberal blogoshpere in general has harshly criticized the president on several occasions. I (and I would guess most of his supporters) don’t see President Obama as a god or messiah. I think that he is a very pragmatic politician who cares deeply about getting health care reform passed and pulling the country out of the worst economic crisis it has seen in over 70 years. On top of that, he now has access to information that is truly terrifying (like the situation in Pakistan) and is trying to balance the concerns of civil libertarians with issues of national security in a world where our position has been severely compromised on military, diplomatic, and moral levels by his predecessor. In these circumstances I don’t think that any black or white analysis is appropriate. Furthermore, I don’t think that the 10% of his actions that I don’t agree with obviates the 90% the I do agree with (nor do I think the 90% excuses the 10%). Additionally, he has shown a willingness to listen to those who disagree with him and change his mind when he is convince that they are correct that was totally alien to his predecessor. I believe that it is the patriotic duty of every American to support our president as well as speaking up loudly and respectfully when they disagree. Comments like yours only serve to further polarize the debate and prevent civil discourse.
I would like to add one more thing about distrust and cynicism. Some people, with perfectly reasonable beliefs, hold it as a tenet of truth that the US is a corrupt nation, led by corrupt people, whose sole purpose is to benefit the elite. There is much to be said for this viewpoint, except that barring violent revolution, it leads us nowhere except for lonely rants in the night that are joined by others of like mind in an orgy of self-fulfilling prophecy, that reaches across political boundaries.
There are other people, of which I am one (and who has seen and been involved with the seamier side of society throughout my career), who have seen the corruption and choose to act in their lives as if there really is hope of a better day. These people don’t look at politics with the immediate gratification needs of five year olds, but fully understand it to be a difficult process of evolution. These people are no less vocal about what they see wrong as the first group, but they understand that for society to change the process is not directly linear.
The problem with the first group is that they attach milestones of “righteous behavior” to the politicians and dissect each statement from the viewpoint of its’ adherence to a party line that sets the bar so high and the time frame so short, as to make it impossible to comply with any of their demands. They alone define the context and the time frame with which their demands must be met. The interesting dichotomy about this first group is that while professing a respect for the democratic system, they haven’t the slightest idea how to rally it, nor do they even believe that this is possible.
We see it on this particular thread alone, where the line between right wing trollish cries of doom from this President, find concurrence from this other side as to the President’s failure, after a scant time in office. This is a meeting of the minds between people, regardless of political persuasion, who see it all as hopeless.
It is hard to build an effective movement around a sense that it is all hopeless and I categorically reject it. Added to this mix are those who voted for people like Nader, Paul and wanted Kucinich. Had either of these three been elected President they would also dissatisfy this first group, because given our political clime they would be accomplishing nothing. Does anyone really think McCain/Palin would also have been better at this point then Obama?
I’ve been medically on the brink of death a few times. Good fortune, good Physicians and a good health care plan have kept me alive. However, deep inside I believe that one of the greatest factors in keeping me going, is in refusing to surrender any part of my life to hopelessness. To me many in this first group, of which I speak, must be gaining similar gratification from believing that it all stinks. They find hope within their pessimism and cynicism, though why I can’t fathom, since they do nothing to advance their cause or gain adherents. I think my way and those who think like me, represents a better possible solution to making the US a bastion of freedom and the human race farther down a positive evolutionary chain..
Patty C,
I found my comments on Mr. O’s campaign pledges and I crossed party lines to vote for him based on his comments. There is abundant evidence here and elsewhere for me to legitimately debase the man’s character and to refute his actions, to date.
rosemorals,
You wrote: here we have men – perhaps financier, trainers, teachers, clerics, commanders, bomb engineers, whom we know of their work – that is key there, we know of their work yet we lack any hard evidence against them. also remove any possibility of flipping anyone against the other – so none will turn state evidence. so what should the state do here.
So what do you propose? Confining people, suspects, based on what they think? what they believe? what they might do?
Holding humans for these reasons is against the rule of law and Prof. Turley’s comments on Countdown explain exactly that.
What do you think the state should do? open more concentration camps like Gitmo? Because that is the business that we are in when we condone “indefinite detention”
Former Federal LEO 1, May 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm
During statesmanship, one participant cannot be considered a diplomat when he is discredited as a liar, a constitutional coward, and an abject hypocrite.
****
That is your characterization based on your personal bias, just like Jill’s is on hers.
I’m STILL not persuaded.
There is no evidence of same – only supposition, whether yours and/or someone else’s.
During statesmanship, one participant cannot be considered a diplomat when he is discredited as a liar, a constitutional coward, and an abject hypocrite.
Look up the word ‘diplomacy’.
And then look at what it might mean to focus on interests
– rather than ‘positions’.
‘Getting to “Yes” ‘ is a book from Harvard you might be interested in reading, as well.
It has nothing to do with ‘love’, much like Labor Unions….
Mr. Obama has lost the moral authority to demand anything from any *other* rogue nation. If I were a leader of a rogue nation, I would prepare my country against the worlds’ potential aggressors and especially those nations that would demand something from my compatriots while hypocritically denying basic human rights to others.
It is the sovereign right—indeed a requirement—of any foreign country to defend itself against any and all outside threats.
“WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama assailed North Korea Monday for new missile tests, saying the world must “stand up to” Pyongyang and demand that it honor a promise to abandon its nuclear ambitions.”