The Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies — now clearly Obama policies on indefinite detention and blocking the investigation of war crimes. Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department’s chief lawyer, has stated that it is a “policy question” whether acquitted individuals will be released or held indefinitely.
In May, President Obama announced that he supported indefinite detention of individual in violation of both domestic and international law. He has even found his detention policies to be a subject of jokes.
Liberals continue to be largely silent in the face of policies that they once denounced and protested. It is rare to hear any coverage or questions of the Administration’s refusal to investigate war crimes of torture, for example. Liberals seem to be quickly developing a cult of personality that has supplanted the most basic principles of human rights and international law. As with the Republicans under Bush, the Democrats are refusing to push the Administration to investigate torture or comply with international law. Before the inauguration, various generals and senators claimed that Obama and Holder assured them privately that no one would be investigated for torture. It now appears that these stories were likely true. Democrats must choose between their principles and their politicians — and they appear to be making the same choice as their Republican counterparts.
“As to Jim, one week ago he committed a class 1, felony flattery by asking you to explain what a neocon was to him.”
Jill,
You should know by now I’m immune to flattery, when it comes to my core beliefs. As far as rhetorical trickery, it’s a technique I’m well aware of and dare say I’ve used more than a few times myself. My interest is in the discussion and an honest back and forth. Sometimes people resort to rhetorical trickery to make their points through the back door so to speak. I can’t criticize them, since I do it myself. What I’ve appreciated about Jim in his new iteration is that he actually tries to reply to the points made, rather than ignoring them and changing the topic.
My arguments with sicilian 1 for instance came about when he seemed to go off of the rails and showed this obsession with “progressive evils being everywhere” and stopped actually discussing/debating the issues. I was disappointed because he is no doubt an interesting person with interesting experiences and yet his obsessions overcame him.
I like debate, I like to engage people who disagree with me as long as they do it on point and I often find myself learning new things and even modifying my original viewpoints.
That is fun to me and the debate part is less about my ego and winning than it is about keeping this aging mind sharp.
Jill,
If it’s subterfuge, it’s not very good. I still don’t think he’s a Neocon per se. More than a bit of a jarhead in his understanding of the relationship of the military to the rest of our government, but I’m willing to write that off to training (unless he does something more egregious than just appearing to not understand the fine distinctions being pointed his way). If he’s wrong due to ignorance of the law, poor perception and the remnants of his training to obey without question, that doesn’t make him a Neocon automatically. Yeah, a bit brainwashed maybe, but I think you’re looking at the wrong source for his errors. I’m willing to let him try to work through it some more. It’s informative to the casual reader if nothing else. If he falls into direct trolldom again, let me ask you this: How long do you think that will go unchallenged here? And not just by me either.
You’re smelling dog and crying wolf without seeing the dog in action enough to know whether you need to lock up the chickens yet. Cautious, sure, he came in trollish so that’s more than enough reason to keep an eye on him. If he maintains a reasonable facade and an unreasonable argument though, he’d still be doomed here ultimately, troll status regardless. As it is, he just appears to be wrong. He has that right. Just as we have the right to focus sunshine on illogic and fallacy from any source. Within that dynamic there is still room for value – competitive discourse is the heart of the Socratic method. If engaging him reaches a zero value, that’s another story.
Mike S.,
I agree entirely that you have spoken up on this issue and made your point of view very clear and I thank you for that. I specifically wrote: to those who have not yet spoken, and to those who proceeded me on this blog, so as to not name names. I have a long history with these people and I am disheartened that their once strong voices are silenced. They know who they are and they’ll leave it at that.
As to Jim, one week ago he committed a class 1, felony flattery by asking you to explain what a neocon was to him. At the time I thought this was really funny because any real conservative (which is what Jim claimed he was) would have already known what a neocon was. The google could have answered that question as well. Yet a week later he is posting the most sophisticated neocon legal arguments justifying all the abuses of the bush administation. It is a breathtaking turnaround in knowledgee which I think one could draw a certain conclusion from–that is, he knows what a neocon is because he is one. Being a neocon doesn’t make him a troll, but the subtrefuge does.
That’s my conclusion and it need not be anyone elses.
Jim,
Yeah, I may be getting wet from “the top down” this weekend. Oh well, it’s still nice to be by the water if not on it.
Jim,
You’d be surprised how much some of us know about warfare. And you’re still not seeing the forest for the trees. This ISN’T a country run by the military or their rules. There is a reason for that and you are illustrating exactly why we have a civilian government instead of a military dictator. Your rationale is flawed. When the military wrongly holds those who are not unlawful combatants without ever determining whether they actually are or not it is illegal. You keep breezing right by the status issue. Sorry. That’s not how this works. Detention is not the issue. Unlawful detention without determination of status by due process is the issue. It allows someone to be held indefinitely because “some guy” thinks he’s “guilty of something”. That’s flat out bullshit, Jim. You reasoning is starting to stink of militarism and jingoism – that whole “might makes right” mindset. That’s why we have a civilian government and the head of our military is a civilian – to prevent the kinds of abuses this kind of thinking has inevitably done to societies. China, N. Korea, pre-war Germany, the U.S.S.R. – all fine examples of top down governance. If you really want a top down leadership for your government, I hear China and N. Korea are taking citizenship applications. I don’t say that to question your patriotism. I say it because that’s the kind of government you’re endorsing by taking the tack you are on. No matter your wishful thinking about “chess”, war, like law, doesn’t occur in a vacuum and it’s not a rationale for victory at any cost. When you become just like the enemy, there is no point in fighting at all except a lust for death. They already won at that point.
Jim,
You’re correct in saying that it is impossible to know the ways of soldiering if you haven’t been in the service, or ever been to war. I was 4f in Viet Nam due to high blood pressure and my 3 later heart attacks were a tribute to the prescience of the selective services Doctors. However, to be honest with you had I been drafted I would have served, even though I did not believe in the war. I love this country and although I disagree at times with its’ actions, I am in the end an American. My problem was that I am a very tough non-conformist and I don’t think I would have made it out of basic training alive. I might have survived in Viet Nam because I am smart, cautious and would have done what I had to to survive. In that sense I can put myself in a soldiers shoes.
Another reason for my understanding would be that for 32 years I worked for an NYC Agency that was set up exactly as a military hierarchy, down to its mission statement. I rose to the equivalent rank of Major, or perhaps bird Colonel by understanding the system and how to maneuver within it, through using the rules rather than ignoring them. I was an OCS rather than MA type of guy.
My argument in all this is not about how our soldiers kept themselves alive in combat situations, any way they could, I hope, but with the fact that they were in harm’s way in the first place. Iraq never should have happened and the doctrine spouted by Colin Powell of “if you break it fix it” was ill advised. We should be out of there now, with no residual force.
As far as Afghanistan went we should have gone in and grabbed Bin Laden and then gotten out. We blew it at Tora Bora and I think intentionally because if we had gotten Bin Laden early on the whole game would be over and the profitable benefits gone. The countryside there is such that no one historically has controlled it for very long and the Afghani’s wants us out and we should get out.
“War Is A Racket,” by Major General Smedley Butler says it all. My heart goes out to all American Serviceman whose devotion to this country is crudely used by both the egotistical, psychotic and the greedy.
AY, you didn’t apologize to me. You only requested deletion of your raft after JT intervened, whose post likewise was deleted last night along with the one of mine I was referencing in response to mespo.
You are i obvious need of professional help. I suggest you get it.
Make the call-today.
What I’m concerned with is the actual repeal of the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts, and the motives of individuals responsible for their creation and in detail. (image)
http://www.light-to-dark.com/heroes_of_shadow_governments.html
Maybe the first step could begin at the point of attachment; where the parasitic manifestos and subversive documents attach to the pillars supporting our Constitution. All the while, of course, addressing their manifestations that piss patriots off.
These Neo Con Constitution/GC end-arounds should be abolished along with torture, preemption, and domestic spying. To be certain, the final result should not enable endless obfuscation of a known Shadow Government or outright authoritarianism but begin a vigorous defense of a document that needs no ideological sistering for “enhanced rights” at all.
I want to take out the coup’s Achilles’ Heel entirely and restore our living and able Constitution to full force. I believe the above Acts were designed by traitors to enable unfettered dictatorial control over not just the American people, but life on Earth.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/a_retrospective.html
Mike S. and Buddha,
Thanks. I thought it best, in the interest of civil debate, that I not respond in my own defense.
You’re right. We do disagree on a number of issues. However, I think our disagreements are honest, and not intended to just stir the pot.
I’d rather have a discussion with someone whom I disagree with. I respect the opinions of most who comment here; especially those with whom I disagree.
I don’t think most people understand the intricacies of war.
Mespo presented a Curtis LeMay quote. “Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you’re not a good soldier.” Many would not agree with that statement. However, every good soldier would.
Capturing and detaining the enemy soldiers is like playing a game of chess. The purpose is to reduce the number of enemy soldiers. They need not be guilty of any crime. Being an enemy soldier is not a crime, but it does warrant detention until the conflict ends. Soldiers understand this, and accept such as an element of war. Civilians only see it as imprisonment of someone who has committed no crime. -If that was the way I saw it, I would be outraged too.
Buddha,
You going to Lake of the Ozarks? -It will likely be a wet one.
There is much that has been written and it fills me with much I want to say, but replying to each different point, on the many different posts that have caught my eye would be an all day job and boring for the readers. Let me then sum up, hopefully with brevity, my thoughts after reading this entire thread.
1. We are not at war and to me constitutionally have never been at war with either Terror (an impossibility), Iraq (deceived into it at a level that I think constitutes a war crime)and Afghanistan (only justifiable to catch Bil Laden, which we haven’t, I believe purposely in the case of Bush/Cheney) and are now occupying in what to me is an exercise in futility.
2. All of the people we have rounded up, be they war prisoners or so-called enemy combatants are entitled to some sort of hearing. This is because we have subjected them to torture and held them under degrading and suspicious circumstances. They are not POW’s since there is no, nor never should have been wars. Our paying of bounties for the names (and/or bodies)of so-called terrorists makes each case suspicious and thus requires some sort of adjudication.
3. Even if one accepts that we were at war, both countries were subdued long ago and we are now maintaining a costly and unwarranted occupation. The occupations have made things in each country worse rather than better and continue to kill our troops, asking of them sacrifices they should not have had to make.
4. The War on Terror is a slogan used to rally support for illegal actions, just as The War on Drugs, The War on Crime, or even The War on Drunk Driving. Any politician using these terms is doing so either because of stupidity, duplicity, or because the American dialogue has become so degraded that they dare not to go along with this nonsense.
5. 9/11 did not “change everything” except in the minds of terrified pundits, or chicken hawk jingoists. This horrific incident, which incidentally does not compare in catastrophe to either Pearl Harbor, or the Civil War. 9/11 has been used to cover up a variety of crimes ranging from robbery of the US Treasury, to pointlessly destroying our brave troops, to outright murder of untold civilians. We have got to return to the truth of what happened there and begin to look at its real causes, not the pretend fairy tales put together by the Bush/Cheney Crime Family (which is a wholly owned subsidiary
owned jointly by the Saudi’s and the Oil Company Monopoly)and
the subsequent justifications for illegal/immoral activities.
6. The Cold War was an opportunity to take control of a war sick nation that by dint of its industrial capacity became the world’s leading power after WWII. The USSR and later China
were presented as frightening opponents in order to fill the coffers of the MI Complex and control the citizenry through a
host of laws that wreaked havoc on our Constitution. Neither the USSR, nor China posed a threat to us separately or in tandem in terms of military might, yet the US was propagandized into believing so as a means of control and a furtherance of the greed of its powers that be. It also allowed the US to station troops all over the world and permitted us through the CIA and NSA to change governments in small nations at will. Finally, the ruse fell apart in the late 80’s, not because of a failed B Movie actor, but because of the USSR’s lack of internal stability and its’ governance by a man who saw beyond his own ego.
7. The first Iraq War almost immediately followed up the end of the Cold War as the powers that be began to look for a new bogey man construct to maintain their power. All the rest is as they say history, highlighted by 1998’s PNAC which broadly laid out the strategy to turn the US into an empire.
8. Finally, Commander in Chief (CINC)is a mere expression that is meaningless from a constitutional perspective, but is also used like “War on Terror” to engender support and stifle
dissent. When the real “Permanent government” wants you out or wants you castrated the CINC finds that his powers mysteriously disappear. The only way around this is slowly and incrementally and I believe that is what our President is
attempting, if he comes down too heavily he too can be removed or made powerless. After eight years of the Bush/Cheney Crime Family our constitution is in shreds and the
crazies have been empowered, defeating them will not be easy and the fact that we can write this all so plainly indicates not their weakness, but their strength.
Bob,
Nice link, good article. Thanks!
Two Standards of Detention
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090708_two_standards_of_justice/
that he was owed Due Process and why.
I am ready for the lake (if I don’t get rained out).
Jim,
All of it. The majority explained clearly why he was owed Due Process and why. You not liking the logic is irrelevant. It is precedent and case law given a fair hearing and that ties directly to the source of all our laws, the Constitution, over rationales based on statute and treaty. And that’s the way it is supposed to be – return to the source when in doubt.
Jill,
Also as one who took Jim to task,I have to go with Mike on this one. Jim’s a bit confused perhaps but not a troll. Like I’ve said before about him, yeah, he came in hot and trollish and he got me, Mike and mespo on him for too, but he’s since then mended his ways. I don’t think he’s being purposefully obfuscating as much as he’s often stuck in military mode in his analysis which may heavily skew his analysis on some issues. On others where that’s not in play, he’s a reasonable guy. He just needs to keep being reminded that not everyone is in the military nor is military law the prime law of this land. We are a civilian nation and the military works for us. If it were the other way around, it’d be a military dictatorship.
Buddha,
Could you please copy and paste the part of Boumediene that I am misinterpreting?
“Jim’s purpose here, IMO, is to obfuscate the issue and redirect it. I would not engage with him further because it plays into his hand. There are also others here as a distraction.”
Jill,
As the first person here to attack Jim Byrne, on another thread in a Galaxy far, far away, it ill behooves me to take up his defense. Yet I must defend him. I’ve read everything he’s posted on this thread. Some of which I agree with, much with which I disagree, but all written in a thoughtful manner and a positive advocacy of his rather complex views. Indeed, given its’ length this has been one of the best threads we have had in a long time, given the intelligence of the debate on all sides, only a minimum of annoying sniping and finally a minimum of trolling. Despite those beliefs of his with which I disagree, to me he has played a valuable role in moving the discussion on.
“I want to ask one last time. To the people who wrote on this blog before I came here and have not yet spoken. You spoke so strongly against Bush when he decided to imprison the innocent and deny them a fair trial (or any trial). When Bush ripped up the Constitution, you were forceful in condemning him, every time. You never backed down to Bush’s illegal and immoral claims of expanded executive power. Why are you remaining silent now?”
I don’t know if I preceded you on this blog, or not and to me that is irrelevant. I know that in my posts I have spoken out strongly when I’ve disagreed with the President. Beyond that my calls to the White house have probably exceeded 25 and none of them were laudatory. I have also signed literally 3 dozen or more online petitions protesting various aspects of current policy including but not limited to DODT, the economy, torture, health care, the ongoing occupations, Guantanamo the EFCA, etc. I’ve also made numerous calls to Senators and congresspeople and I support the ACLU, MoveOn, CAF and a host of other organizations.
I’ve hardly been silent and those supporters of the President that write here have not been either. However, they might disagree with you on the President, his policies and the speed with which they can be implemented. There are some writing here who have worked in and with Government at the City, State and Federal level, like myself and FFLEO. He and I have certain disagreements, but we both know how hard it is to move the bureaucracy, in any new direction. I have strongly and vocally disagreed with this administration on much, but I’m also cognizant of how hard change is to effectuate, especially when you are also dealing with entrenched oligarchic interests.
It was suggested that I pass this opinion piece I wrote on May 26, 2009 in the Toledo Blade entitled “If we insist, our leaders will prosecute” available http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090526/OPINION04/905260326
Best,
Ben
Indentured Servant
My point is:
Maybe he was listenning to Jerimiah Wright