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.
Swarthmore mom,
We are making progress at becoming more positive.
I posted on this blog earlier. I am not afraid. The conversation was so negative.
Buddha is waiting.
Where’s the Buddha? Hey Mike’s, FF LEO, Mespo, Jill, GW Mom and all of the others. How is it going this fine HOT HOT DAY?
Slartib,
Yes, ol’ Mikey says a lot of good with a lotta words. I sometimes disagree with the old cuss, but he is still my favorite blawger on this site.
As usual, Mike S. manages to make arguments that I was trying to make more thoroughly, and with more insight and eloquence than I could ever hope to muster.
Preventive detention is to me just as bad as torture. I do not believe that PD stands up to constitutional scrutiny and I don’t feel there is a case for justifying it. The Bush/Cheney Crime Family did it and our President has to deal with the results. However, as we can see even here, there are some of even Constitutional bent, that can see in their mind cases where it would be justified.
Many in our Military also believe such, as do many holdovers in the new Administration. To me this is a result of the phony post 9/11 mentality that “everything has changed.” This point of view was sold daily by the MSM for at least three years. playing rhythm with it was a constant barrage of stories primed to raise people’s fear levels and so a rather puny opponent, Al Quaida, was raised to the level of a huge threat to the US.
Some would say that how can I call the death of 3,000 people
the work of a “puny” group? Easily, because any number of tiny insignificant groups could conceivably do much worse harm than 9/11 and yet be no more than a ragtag collection of disenchanted psychopaths. It was necessary for the Bush
boys to build Al Quaida into a major threat to justify their excesses in all areas and to terrify the American public enough to not only let them do their foul deeds, but to approve of them. This support existed at the same time the American People were coming to the conclusion that they disliked and distrusted (see the falling polls from 2004 on)
the Bush/Cheney Crime Family.
In other words the propaganda of fear worked very well and it is still working, even though the country has voted itself a new direction. This was shown clearly last week when the Senate refused to vote funds to close Guantanamo.
Most of the Senate (almost all wealthy people who seem to be the most fearful of losing what they have)truly still are in thrall to the propaganda and their reading of their constituencies is such that they feel they are in concert with the voters. I would say that the majority of Americans do feel that we are “At War,” which we are not(we won both wars quickly, we are now in occupation of these countries which is not a war) and that we must fear the consequences of outside attacks as terrifying and imminent, a view which I reject.
Stepping into this mess is a new President, admittedly politically astute, who has voiced his opposition to these policies, but also understands that due to the years of propaganda, he has to change a lot of attitudes and can only succeed by doing it gradually. He has also inherited a bunch of people, especially at DOJ and State, who were given Civil Service Status in the last year of Bush. Not easily removed.
Now as this new guy took office he is faced with a financial collapse and skyrocketing unemployment, due the the continued deterioration of our manufacturing/agricultural sector. If he didn’t address these issue first, his Presidency would be over before it began. So given a people,
fooled by foreign policy propaganda, made fearful by imminent danger propaganda and saddled with a party of politicians who play their own selfish games, the man moves slowly and yes even uses the tactic of “feinting” what he’s doing.
We see rise up, shortly after these four months began, posters who believe he’s Bush/Cheney II. The complaint is he isn’t moving quick enough, or that some “authorities” speculate as to his lack of principles and it seems many have forgotten how really bad Bush/Cheney were and how much better we are now, even without their pet peeves being immediately acted on.
Part of this comes when people like JT, Glenn G., Digby, Amy Goodwin, ACLU et. al. provide sharp criticism of the policies being implemented or floated as leaks. Many people fail to make the distinction that those people perform the much needed and necessary role of speaking truth to power as advocates for those who are being abused on all levels. They are not political commentators per se, they are the people who shine the light on recalcitrance and delay. As such they should and do not pull their punches in criticism of the President and this new Administration.
However, my long history in the Left has also taught me that there are those who examine a politician by their own self administered “purity” test and woe betide those politicians who don’t move quick enough, or say the correct answer. The opprobrium heaped upon those who fail these tests is often worse than that heaped upon our mutual enemies. I observed this too many times in my years involved with the Left, not to cast a jaundiced eye upon it.
Add to the above the people from the left who never did like President Obama and lo and behold they still don’t like him.
Some here voted for Nader in the election, others haven’t disclosed their last Presidential vote. To me, refreshed by the majority of the actions of this new Administration, I can’t help but see this group as engaging in a type of self fulfilling prophecy, where they find evidence everywhere that backs up their initial assessments.
I was not an original Obama supporter, I voted for Edwards in the Florida primary, but came to see much in the man I liked. To those who say that I view him religiously, I respond that they may have read my writings here, but they certainly have filtered them through the sieve of their own expectations. I have also, as have many others here who have supported the President thus far, written much in criticism of this new administration and I have called and written the White House and Congress, signed petitions and generally made my opposition to certain programs known. I respond negatively though, to actual positions that have been solidified and not to rumors of, or speculations as to actual policy. I’m am also politically astute enough to understand that to make things happen in politics, no politician can ever operate under the burden of total transparency. none of our great President’s did and neither can Mr. Obama. If Lincoln at the beginning of the Civil War had signed the Emancipation, he would have lost the war, however, many in his own party called him a traitor for not immediately doing so. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Now there is another group of disappointed Obama voters who I
feel affinity for. Those are the people like FFLEO, who broke with longstanding political philosophy, because they believed so strongly in the Rule of Law, to vote for someone
who politically represents much of what the do not believe in. These people have every right to feel disappointed and to be suspicious. However, their open minds were proven, at least to me, by their willingness to cast their vote for Obama. I know enough to know that I am quite humanly fallible and that I can often be wrong, however, I try to keep my mind open to other possibilities and I respect others who do, whether or not they agree with me.
Finally, to put an end to this overly long missive. I apologize for the length, but as I’ve said my wife’s PC problems, leave her sharing mine and so my time online is limited. I personally have never called anyone but absolute trolls stupid at this site, nor have I cast aspersions on their education or even intelligence. Also except for trolls I do not engage in personal attacks (and even then I probably shouldn’t)on people. However, if I attack someone’s position on an issue, or comment as why I see it as close minded, I am attacking an action, not the human being. A personal attack is upon the actual person of, or integrity of a particular human being. I haven’t done that, except for real trolls and I object when people characterize my words as such.
There is another thing, literally the elephant in the room, that is very odd about proposing preventative detention for people whom the govt. knows are dangerous.
Dick Cheney is on T.V. every week. GWB is at large on the ranch. OLC attorneys roam free etc. The entire playing deck of, in many cases, self-admitted war criminals is free to do as they please (at least in the US). So why is that occurring at the same time we need preventative detention to sweep up people the govt. thinks are dangerous? These people are dangerous. They committed horrific crimes. They deserve a fair trial. If the govt. cannot prove its case then they should be set free.
Slartibartfast gets it… It makes me go Yippee, I know we have a lot of smart people on here.
Jill 1, May 25, 2009 at 6:01 pm
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
—
I am sorry if I have offended you. You see most of you have lives outside of the ‘turlee’ blawg. But I don’t.
You sit and blog all day because you have nothing else to do, obviously, because you are smart and have money from your Blueblooded Family, but I don’t.
Just as I am not available as a judge for Bartlebee/Cromagnum Man/Waynebro et al’s debate website, I’m not available to assist you in getting a ‘legal call-in’ job in radio… But I hope to make arrangements and be able to help you soon. Your contributions to this blawg really mean a great deal to me and thank you.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I don’t like to be ‘used’
and I don’t play games. I feel this way, because I am always so helpful to anyone that needs my help. You know it is really hard being me sometimes.
You won’t just use me and then be rude to me? Because ‘Friends’ just don’t do that to one another. You see, I am smart and I really wanted to help in the Peace Corp but I was unable to. That is why I am here for you Jill.
Mike Spindell wrote: 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.
____________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Spindell,
I’m glad you’re still here amongst the breathing : )
I find your perspectives personally valuable.
Slartibartfast gets it…
Jill 1, May 25, 2009 at 6:01 pm
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
—
Most of us have lives outside of the ‘turlee’ blawg.
You sit and blog all day because you have nothing else to do, obviously.
Just as I am not available as a judge for Bartlebee/Cromagnum Man/Waynebro et al’s debate website, I’m not available to assist you in getting a ‘legal call-in’ job in radio…
As I have said on numerous occasions, I don’t like to be ‘used’
and I don’t play games.
‘Friends’ don’t do that to one another.
FFLEO,
Since you just gave me something to chew on, I’ll return the favor – doesn’t part of the genius of the constitution lie in its ability to be applied to situations unforeseen by its writers? All I’m proposing (in my mind anyway) is that the definition of war might be extended to include a war with an association such as al-Qaeda and I don’t think that this idea is unquestionably unconstitutional. I agree that the ACLU attorney was both convincing and knowledgeable and he was doing exactly what the ACLU should be doing (and I also agree with you that what the ACLU does is extremely important). I just get worried when I hear people saying that President Obama is the same as President Bush (and I don’t mean to imply that you said this), because I think that this kind of black and white rhetoric is not only wrong, but dangerous. The ship of state cannot turn on a dime and it seems to me that President Obama is turning just about as fast as he can which is the best we could have hoped for as the other choice was “steady as she goes…”.
AY,
Are you suggesting that I’m a neo-con?
GWLawStudentMom,
I am not advocating that we do anything outside of the law, but rather saying that may need to adapt to the situation (e.g. by acknowledging that we are at war with al-Qaeda and that members of that organization may be treated according to the rules of war). Also, your description of the 9/11 hijackers is not correct. There were several failures of our intelligence agencies and our leadership which deprived us of an opportunity to stop the hijackers before 9/11. If you want to read about it, “The Dark Side” by Jane Mayer is a great book.
Jill,
I agree with you that Mancow should be commended for allowing himself to be waterboarded and I think that because he is a conservative talk show host and passionate (dare I say rabid) hawk, he is uniquely suited to help convince people that waterboarding is torture. I can’t wait to see him on Countdown this week and I’m looking forward to the right wing twisting itself into knots to explain this one away. In my opinion this whole battle hinges on public opinion – if the public becomes overwhelmingly convinced that waterboarding is torture thus we committed war crimes and those responsible for these policies should be prosecuted then I believe that President Obama (and AG Holder) will start taking the sorts of actions that you (and I) would like him to. I really do believe that he is operating by Roosevelt’s principle of “you’re right, now force me to do it”.
Slartibartfast,
I do not have good, firm answers to your questions, for now, except that Mr. O has the most well-written and wondrous legal document as his principal guide—the U.S. Constitution—and nothing you espouse regarding detention occurs within it.
One reason I access this blawg and Greenwald’s (which should be required reading) is to learn about legal aspects. I know what I would do, based on my own moral standards, but I often do not know the specifics regarding the legal and the political avenues open for decision-making.
The ACLU attorney in Greenwald’s interview was extremely convincing and knowledgeable. A decade ago, I snarled at and rebuffed anything and everyone associated with the ACLU, and I disdained most criminal defense attorneys. How dare they even suggest that my fellow officers would ever lie, misstate facts, or make a bad arrest or conduct an illegal search. However, after Bush/Cheney—and something that happened to me as a professional LEO—I learned that my naive assumption that all government agents were beyond reproach was abjectly wrong. Now I realize that the ACLU and similar NGOs are critical to ensure that government does not trend toward the tyrannical.
Slartibartfast 1, May 25, 2009 at 9:30 pm
It brings to mind Franklin’s quote about those who sacrifice liberty for safety ending up with neither. And while I can’t speak for the left, I personally am opposed to the rule of man be it President Bush, President Obama or me. I am just open to the possibility that our current legal system is not up to this challenge and that it is possible for a new system created in the light of day with judicial and congressional oversight to be both just and constitutional. I am not a member of President Obama’s cult of personality, but I do believe that he is a good man doing what he thinks is best in an very difficult situation.
***********************************************
Is this the NeoCon Back Stroke, back peddling, breast stroke? Wow the potential.
Jill,
You said:
1. We are told that we fight al-qaeda because they are trying to destroy our way of life. Who needs al qaeda when our president and congress will do that for us? If we reject our own principles and destroy the rule of law the work of the terrorists is complete. It is over by our own hands. There is no point in fighting for freedoms that no longer exist or that we no longer believe in ourselves.
I absolutely agree. I have long believed that all of the achievements of al-Qaeda after 9/11 came at the hand of the Bush administration.
2. We know from experience that every person we lock up becomes a recruitment tool for many more. Unjust, unconstitutional imprisonment makes more enemies, not fewer. Holding trials and imprisoning the guilty while releasing those we cannot convict, not only upholds our values, it is the only thing that will keep us safer (nothing will keep us safe).
We know from experience that every person we lock up and torture becomes a recruitment tool. I am not advocating unjust, unconstitutional imprisonment, I am suggesting that it might be permissible both morally and constitutionally to lock up avowed enemies of our country without criminal trials and to treat them as prisoners of war (a phrase explicitly mentioned by President Obama in his speech).
3. Since when do we believe the power to determine who is a terrorist rests not with a jury, but with the president? The president will determine who is a terrorist and who should be locked up. This is anti-Constitutional and it is against every moral and legal value of this nation. We are a nation of laws, not of men. The power of preventative detention is clearly a govt. of a man or a small group of men. This is the work of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
Again, this is not what I (or the administration as I understand it are advocating). I think that it is perfectly fine for a judge to have the power to decide that someone should be held as a prisoner of war and President Obama mentioned both judicial and congressional oversight in his speech. I agree that the president should not have the power to lock people up indefinitely without showing cause, but I think that a fair system with judicial review can be established (and at the very least, the supreme court will have the power to rule on the constitutionality of the system to be implemented).
4. Since when have Americans become so utterly terrified that they will sacrifice our highest values, anyone and anything, for the supposed goal of “safety”? The old right wing used to say, “better dead than red”. Where are these people now? I know this statement is funny, but seriously, these people weren’t going to sacrifice their principles because of fear. Look how far the right wing has sunk. As to the left wing: it is unspeakable that anyone who opposed the rule of men under Bush would suddenly abandon this opposition in favor of the rule of men under Obama. Is this who the left is now? If it’s our guy, anything goes? This is not a stand for the rule of law. This is a belief in the cult of personality.
Unfortunately, since 9/11. It brings to mind Franklin’s quote about those who sacrifice liberty for safety ending up with neither. And while I can’t speak for the left, I personally am opposed to the rule of man be it President Bush, President Obama or me. I am just open to the possibility that our current legal system is not up to this challenge and that it is possible for a new system created in the light of day with judicial and congressional oversight to be both just and constitutional. I am not a member of President Obama’s cult of personality, but I do believe that he is a good man doing what he thinks is best in an very difficult situation.
GWLawSchoolMom 1, May 25, 2009 at 9:06 pm
You are most welcome. And do not forget to say what you feel. As you can tell I do.
You did not mention that you have traveled to Viet Nam and Cambodia etc.
I agree that if we can’t learn by comparing despots with statesman, from comparing the results of enslavement with that of freedom we can’t begin to appreciate that with freedom comes risk. The greatest risk is not to our individual lives, but to freedom itself.
I could not have said this better, Maybe Mespo72cubed could have. lol or even budha, but I said it in less words.